More noise about the statins

As you know, there are those who think the statins are a little bit of a scam.

Pretty elaborate scam if it is.

More on the British Medical Journal dust up.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryhusten/2014/05/14/bmj-articles-critical-of-statins-provoke-kerfuffle/?ss=pharma

About these ads

4 responses to “More noise about the statins

  1. Myself and another family member experienced memory issues while using Lipitor, but not with other statins.
    We also had different results with cholesterol and triglycerides, depending upon which statin was used.
    Which is why we need more research into the role genetics plays in pharmaceutical outcomes.

  2. The article here

    http://dietheartnews.com/2012/02/low-cholesterol-associated-with-75-percent-of-all-heart-attacks/

    opened my eyes. I’m not much for medical studies that show ‘associations’ between A and B, but when a study of “59 percent of total (nationwide) hospital admissions for heart attack at (541) participating hospitals between 2000 and 2006″ shows that “75 percent of patients hospitalized for a heart attack had LDL cholesterol within the so called safe range – below 130 mg/dl” and “50 percent of patients had LDL less than 100 mg/dL – considered optimal levels!” I can be persuaded that an association between LDL cholesterol and heart attacks is NOT there.

    • The actual association appears to be more LDL particle size. With LDL-C rarely being a useful proxy for this. Even when LDL-C is actually measured, when it’s more common to use the Friedewald equation. Which is known to be highly inaccurate in many cases.
      Pattern B LDL particles actually contain less cholesterol than pattern A. It’s entirely possible that attempting to reduce someone’s cholesterol count will result in their having more pattern B LDL. Thus increasing their CVD risk.
      It’s interesting how the “experts” come up with the idea of the current guidelines being not low enough. Rather than concluding that they are too low. But there appears to be a lot of denial of hypocholesterolaemia here. In some cases guidelines for hypercholesterolaemia minimums may actually be LOWER than hypocholesterolaemia maximums.
      Thus even leading to hypocholesterolaemic people being given these drugs, when what they’d actually need would be an “anti-satin”!
      Actual healthy levels, at least for men, appear to be in the range of 200-240 mg/dl or 5.2-6.2 mmol/l TC. Certainly the dangerous minimum is above zero.
      Drug companies probably wouldn’t do so well if such drugs were only given to people who actually were hypercholesterolaemic, dose controlled and monitored to avoid hypocholesterolaemia.

  3. You might notice there has been a change in the claims made in the advertising of statins these days. The old claim was that statins helped prevent heart attacks, today the claim is that they lower cholesterol levels which MAY be part of reducing the risk of heart disease. If you haven’t noticed, pay attention to the next Crestor commercial. That pesky “truth in advertising” problem….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s