Confusing statin advice

[BlueSky]

This article suggests that reducing cholesterol is a waste of time. But that we should all be taking statins anyway :

http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4206

Apparently, there is no evidence supporting the notion that reducing cholesterol to recommende levels reduces heart disease. And it is the anti-inflammatory and ant-clotting effects of statins that save lives. The article kinda highlights the fact that a lot of guesswork goes into making the recomendations we live by. And the fact that it appears on a website that advises doctors about diabetes is diconcerting, to say the least. :frown:

[spike]

I'm just gonna make a couple of comments on this one. First of all, I didn't read the link. Why? Because so many studies are contrary, that it's difficult, if not impossible to believe their conclusions are valid (not saying your cite is so--remember I didn't even read it!). ALL studies can't be accurate if 10 studies reach 10 different conclusions. Not being either a doctor, or a scientific expert of any kind, I just use common sense and prevailing opinions as a basis for evaluating studies. The ones that make the news seem to be the ones with the most outrageous claims. No? No need to get pulled in various directions each time a study purports to have uncovered some "truth" about this or that. But that's just me... :)

[lgvincent]

When my father had his first series of heart attacks in 1978 his colesterol wasn't high so there must be other things that cause the fatty deposits to form in the arteries.

[It Ain't Over]

"In fact, Hayward and his colleagues say, it may be that the other effects of statin drugs help reduce the risk of heart disease and heart attacks as much or more than the drugs’ LDL-lowering power does. Statins inhibit inflammation and clotting, as well as reduce cholesterol, attributes that can be important for preventing heart attacks. "

This paragraph seems to be the point of the article, While there is a definate effect on patients using statins, the cause of that may well be a more than just lowering LDL levels.
There is a lot of talk in the med articles about the broad subject of inflamation and clotting. Seems to be where the heart problems often start.

[Cyborg]

There was a NASA astronaut that was put on statins. He ended up being severely disabled because of the drug. There are web sites full of bad stories. Personally, I would concentrate on diet and exercise and would never take statins.

[dgrilli]

I have just read a book that claims that cholesterol is a subtance that goes hand in hand with inflamation. Inflamation is the bad guy cholesterol just shows up and does it's job.
I posted this just recently

I was told that inflammation where it may be in the body has a direct influence on the total cholesterol. I have even read where arterial inflammation is nothing more than a good place for the cholesterol to collect at.

Was told also that there is a direct relationship to the total amount of Vitamin C in the blood and that cholesterol consumes vitamin c.

I read a book by a board certified cardiologist that Vitamin C would not only protect the arteries but reduce inflammation as well this book goes into so much details about this,

The book is called
Quote:
Stop America's # 1 Killer

The Reversible Vitamin Deficiency Found to be the Origen of All Coronary Heart Disease By Doctor Thomas E. Levy, MD JD.

This book has so many References that they take up 1/4 of the whole book. There are 650 Scientific References.

This book slams the Pharma Industry so much it's a wonder why they would'nt try to shut him up. Maybe because there are very few individuals lucky enough to even know about the book let alone read it.

I would say this book is a must read and read over again again. I put it up there with Pumping Insulin 4th Edition.
__________________

[notme]

Ok....this is where my sceptical mind gets carried away. I was on statins for two years and I was miserable. My doctors insisted that I take statins to lower my cholesterol and there was no really good substitution. My cholesterol did come down substantially, but my quality of life sucked. My joints hurt, I was depressed and gained weight. So, I made the decision to stop the statins and never start them again. I didn't make the decision lightly as my mother had a stroke due to blocked arteries at 53.

I feel much better, I lost a few pounds and my joints stopped hurting. I really believe that many doctors believe the studies that we must have our cholesterol below a certain level. However, I also know they get kickback for every one of us that take the statin drugs.

Personally, I think it is one giant conspiracy to get us all to take as many of these very expensive drugs as possible.

That is me....not saying that I am right, just saying this is the choice that I have made. I take the least amount of drugs I can get away with. Now if I could only figure out a way to by-pass insulin!

[Roy Gardiner]

Here in the UK doctors don't AFAIK get paid for prescribing any drugs, but they still push statins.

I have had 'high' cholesterol for years, as well as T2 diabetes recently diagnosed. I had my heart scanned (electron beam tomography) and my carotid arteries (ultrasound). My heart has zero calcification (a perfect score, below what would be expected for a man of my age), and I have 'arteries like motorways'.

The doctors cannot explain why I should now take statins, so I don't. I recommend the scanning for peace of mind as much as anything.

[leuv21]

I have often had discussion with different doctors and indeed they all have different point of views when it comes to cholesterol. Some says that is is not a factor to be considered while others put emphasis on its regular control.
personally i exert a control on it using lipidor (http://www.bbonlinepharmacy.com/product/111/lipitor-atorvastatin/) I prefer doing it cause i am not sure about it and i dont feel like adding any doubt to my life while it helps to work on my positive mind set.
Maybe its a conspiracy but if i dont feel well.. what will happen if we all look everywhere as everything being conspiracies

[Geoff]

I beg to differ Roy, here in the UK doctors get an extra payment from the Health service for introduceing new treatments to patients, so puting you on statins generate extra monies for them and their pratice.

[Cyborg]

Lots of people were taking Vioxx until it was pulled off the shelves...

Statins occur in nature, but not as a single very strong dose of one type. Naturally, they occur in smaller doses with many types of statins mixed together. You can use Red Yeast Rice from a nutrition store to get a much safer dose of "mixed" statins. It will provide the beneficial effects of statins, without so much risk.

[JasonSmithMT]

However, I also know they get kickback for every one of us that take the statin drugs.


In the United States that is simply not true. I would suggest you look into the PhRMA guidelines and federal anti-kickback laws. I have many friends and professional colleagues who are prescribers (physicians, PAs, NPs, etc.). There is no mystical kickbacks for prescribing a certain medication. I am not naive enough to think that there aren't a few bad seeds out there who might try to abuse the system. If you press a prescriber as to what decisions drive a prescriber to choose a certain medication over another one of the most common answers you will get is patient insurance formulary for outpatients and hospital formulary for inpatients. Unfortunately, efficacy evidence usually takes a back seat.

Back to the original question at hand. The article does bring up some interesting points. As the very wise Spike says it is not hard to find one study that says this and one study that says that. So one has to take in the complete picture and come to their own conclusion as to what they mean. I would suggest reading the research that the NCEP used to make the new cholesterol guidelines (HPS, PROSPER, ALLHAT-LLT, ASCOT-LLA, and PROVE IT-TIMI 22 studies) and put it all together. Since we are an unusually smart bunch a good number of people on this forum will have the background do just that but for most of the general population it will be beyond their expertise. This is were you have to rely on trusted physicians and expert consensus panels to review all the given research and make guidelines and recommendations for you.

As with all medications no one should take a statin without great thought. Most of the current recommendations point to the benefit of statin use. Of course, again as with all medications, it is not terribly hard to find a horror story out there of someone taking a certain medication. The media and the like will always be quick to point these out. The question to think about is how many people have been saved or helped by a certain medication for every one of these bad stories you hear. Is it even worth the risk even if it is slight of something going bad. That is the million dollar question one has to ask themselves and hopefully have a good physician they can rely on to help reach an educated decision.

Jason

[notme]

Jason, I agree there are federal guidelines for money exchanging hands for prescribing a certain medication. I know two people who are pharmacutical reps and trust me.....they get compensated. It may not come in a form of a check.....but the doctors get compensated. Wouldn't it be nice if everything were black and white.

[JasonSmithMT]

Jason, I agree there are federal guidelines for money exchanging hands for prescribing a certain medication. I know two people who are pharmacutical reps and trust me.....they get compensated. It may not come in a form of a check.....but the doctors get compensated. Wouldn't it be nice if everything were black and white.

The pharmaceutical reps are only allowed to give a medically relevant gift of less that $100 according to PhRMA guidelines. Has to be something like a medical book, poster, etc. Hardly what I would call compensated. What exactly do you mean by compensated.

Jason

[notme]

I think perhaps we are hijacking BlueSky's thread. This would definitely be a good subject on a thread of its own.

[BlueSky]

... perhaps we are hijacking BlueSky's thread. This would definitely be a good subject on a thread of its own.

On the contrary, your comments are very pertinent to the original issue. And I have been reading the comments with great interest. But you have given me an idea for a new thread .... :)

[JungleJim]

A few years ago my Endo said she wanted to put me on Zocor. My total cholesterol was 180, but she said the bad kind should be under 100 for diabetics. I take the Zocor and eat a much improved diet, and my next test is total 140, with the bad about 50. She tells me that I probably could get off the Zocor, and I tell her I'll throw a few chili dogs in the mix before the next test!!!!!!!!!!!

About a year later she says that new information show diabetics should be taking it even if their cholesterol is ok. I take the lowest dose of Zocor (and the self prescribed chili dogs) and my total is always about 140.