Dangers Associated With Cholesterol Drugs

[JustinSmith]

Huguenot,

You may have toned it down but you are still making irrelevent references to snake oil and such like. In order to be taken seriously I suggest that you adopt a more mature discussion.

What you are indicating is that you would like me to go away and not provide people with the facts - you would rather let people continue to be misled by an over-enthusiastic pharmaceutical industry. No-one can deny the influence that big pharma has over the medical profession. Anyone who looks at the whole body of evidence will instantly realise that we are having the wool pulled over our eyes and that cholesterol does not cause heart disease. Pharmaceutical companies control what goes into medical journals to a large extent - they then issue a press release that exaggerates statin 'benefits' and plays down the adverse effects - then the media take this exaggerated press release and use it for a news story. This basic process can be seen time and again.

As I said before, the problems within medicine have been discussed by several editors of medical journals. Shortly after trying to inform more people about these facts, most of these editors have lost their jobs or have 'moved-on'.

The medical profession does not look favourably on any of its members that try to stand up and be counted. Do you think that I (just one small voice) can realistically change an industry that is worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

Believe me, I will debate this issue with anyone!!!

However, the only way that this terrible state of affairs can be changed is by more people becoming aware of the facts. Our government, the regulatory bodies and much of the medical profession as a whole are failing us on this particular issue. For some reason you do not want people to know about this.

You have already stated in a previous post that the only reason you are hounding me down in this thread is because you did not like something I posted on a climate change thread.

There is no "special self-help" group as you call it. You persist in perpetuating imaginary nonsense and this does not help those who would like to know the facts.

You seem to forget also that the profit from any book sales is going to an Indian orphanage.

I think that you should take a deep look at your personal goals and values and reflect on your automatic ill-found and unsubstantiated disregard for other people.

[taper]

"Not provide people with the facts"

You've cherry picked the facts a little Justin.

At 12:34 on 9 Jan. you prayed in aid of your case a study in the AHJ. When I pointed out the authors of the study had said:

"While the risk of cardiovascular events increases substantially with LDL levels above 40?60 mg/dL, current national cholesterol guidelines consider LDL levels less than 100?130 mg/dL acceptable for many individuals. The guidelines are thus not effectively identifying the majority of individuals who will develop fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events, according to the study's authors"

You sought to undermine the study saying it was financed by the pharmeuceutaical compnaies:

"As I said, this study was financed by companies that make cholesterol-lowering statins. It is highly unlikely that they will write something in the conclusion that will bring into question the whole basis of identifying someone who needs a statin."

I am afraid you can't have it both ways!

"Anyone who looks at the whole body of evidence will instantly realise that we are having the wool pulled over our eyes and that cholesterol does not cause heart disease"

Well you've failed to respond to the links I provided above, which give a very balanced picture of the issue, while attacking the nuttier "cholestrol sceptic" fringe.

And incidentally, contra to your implication that the media reports it one way, your side of the argument get plenty of media coverage, eg in the Mail - see here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-430682/Have-conned-cholesterol.html, with a good rebuttal to the "facts" you support here - http://www.heartuk.org.uk/artman/publish/article_530.shtml.

"The medical profession does not look favourably on any of its members that try to stand up and be counted"

You're not a member of the medical profession!

[JustinSmith]

Taper,

I didnt reply to your earlier post because there was nothing new in it. It only contains points that I have already discussed.

You keep repeating that quote from the summary of the AHJ report but please do read the whole report instead of just the biased summary. You will see straight away that higher LDL levels follow a normal distribution and in fact the mean for this distribution is below the mean for the general population. The only possible conclusion is that higher LDLs do not correlate with heart disease. Please read the full study! Here is the graph..http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_B6Khn2glPMI/SyAfWKQV15I/AAAAAAAAADM/kfg8j2M-lyk/s1600-h/LDL_graph_1.jpg

You can see from the graph of the data that the risk for heart disease generally decreases as the level of LDLs increases!

As for the points you quoted from Harriet Hall. First of all her discussion is one-sided and biased heavily toward the use of statins. It is not me who is cheery-picking as you say.

?High blood levels of LDL cholesterol are a significant risk factor for cardiovascular disease?

There is simply no evidence for this. The AHJ study disproves this idea. Please, if you can find any studies that show this correlation please do post them! Remember that statin clinical trials cannot be used to claim a link between LDLs and cardiovascular disease because statins do all sorts of other things as well as lower cholesterol ? we have to look at population based studies.

Also, LDLs are not even cholesterol!!!!

LDLs are a bundle of fats, protein, cholesterol, and vitamins. LDLs transport nutrients to the cells where the nutrients are needed. Any lowering of LDLs automatically lowers the availability of vitamins! We dont even know how much cholesterol a LDL molecule will contain. The very idea that LDLs are bad is fundamentally flawed!

?For primary prevention, lowering high LDL levels in high risk patients is associated with lower morbidity?

Well, yes, the use of statins is associated with slightly lower levels of CVD but as I said before, it is all-cause mortality that we have to look at in statin trials. Whats the point in reducing the risk for heart disease if at the same time the statin increases the risk for something else? Most primary prevention trials have shown that statins do not actually reduce deaths from all causes. The first primary prevention trial to show a reduction in all-cause mortality was the WOSCOPS trial and it is questionable if this trial accurately represents the general public because 80% of the people in the trial were smokers or ex-smokers ? and smoking of course greatly increases the risk for CVD.

?For secondary prevention, lowering high LDL levels is associated with lower mortality?

I've already said that I agree that statins can produce some benefit in secondary prevention but I have also said that this benefit is much more likely to be due to the reduction in inflammation that is associated with statins.

?Low fat diet is only likely to lower LDL levels slightly (3-6% by one estimate)?

Yes thats about right but actually, the longer-term, more recent dietary trials show that LDL levels are not affected by fat in the diet at all.

??Statins are effective in lowering risk when prescribed selectively for patients at high risk, although the NNT (number needed to treat for one person to benefit) is relatively high."

Yes, but this is a vague and misleading statement. Stains are most certainly not being ?prescribed selectively? if the number of people taking them in the UK is already greater than 6 million and increasing. As I've said before, some high risk people can experience benefit (at least in the short-to-medium term but we dont know about the long-term) and by far, most of the people being prescribed statins are not at high risk. At least she points out that the NNT is high ? for example in WOSCOPS it was 111 people for 5 years.

[JustinSmith]

Taper,

Looking at the graph from the AHJ study....http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_B6Khn2glPMI/SyAfWKQV15I/AAAAAAAAADM/kfg8j2M-lyk/s1600-h/LDL_graph_1.jpg

An LDL level of 40 (or 1 mmol/l) has the same risk as an LDL level of 170 (or 4.3 mmol/l).

My point is that there is no linear trend in this data at all.

[taper]

"The AHJ study disproves this idea"

It does not! It doesn't set out to test the hypothesis you're saying has been debunked. So it can't be used to disprove it! The data is all wonky. You simply cannot interpret the study in this way. I'm a layman and I can see that.

?High blood levels of LDL cholesterol are a significant risk factor for cardiovascular disease? - There is simply no evidence for this"

Here perhaps

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61778-4/abstract

"Total cholesterol was positively associated with IHD mortality in both middle and old age"

or here

http://www.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/projects/ctt

Or here

http://www.physorg.com/news115650118.html

But perhaps you should, as Hugenot says, share your reserach with the medical world. If you're right, you're up for a Nobel.

[mockney piers]

But it's snowing outside, how can the world be getting warmer. Honestly you just dont get it do you taper.

[JustinSmith]

taper Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "The AHJ study disproves this idea"

>

> It does not! It doesn't set out to test the

> hypothesis you're saying has been debunked. So it

> can't be used to disprove it! The data is all

> wonky. You simply cannot interpret the study in

> this way. I'm a layman and I can see that.

All the people in this study had heart disease, and they had a LOWER LDL level than the general population - its amazing how you refuse to see the most basic of facts!

['bout now]

No comment on the three articles Taper supplied then Justin ?

[JustinSmith]

taper Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> ?High blood levels of LDL cholesterol are a

> significant risk factor for cardiovascular

> disease? - There is simply no evidence for this"

>

> Here perhaps

>

> http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/P

> IIS0140-6736(07)61778-4/abstract

>

> "Total cholesterol was positively associated with

> IHD mortality in both middle and old age"

I asked you for evidence that higher LDLs correlate with heart disease - thats what we were discussing. The researchers for this study did not find a correlation between LDLs and heart disease. Look at your own text, you are confusing total cholesterol with LDLs. Now look back at the summary results and you will see no reference to LDLs - thats because they didnt find a correlation!

It does not state in the summary if the participants in the study were taking statins - without this information its difficult to comment on total cholesterol.

[JustinSmith]

'bout now Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No comment on the three articles Taper supplied

> then Justin ?

I'm getting there if you will give me 5 minutes! Strewth its like being surrounded by a ring of bullies in here!!

[JustinSmith]

JustinSmith Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 'bout now Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > No comment on the three articles Taper supplied

> > then Justin ?

>

> I'm getting there if you will give me 5 minutes!

> Strewth its like being surrounded by a ring of

> bullies in here!!

And all of this just because I delicately said that people who disagree with your views on climate change should not be branded denialists - wow you really were offended by that were you not?

['bout now]

Err, not me Justin.

[Mick Mac]

Is this really worth your while Justin? All this writing in defence of your theory and for such a small audience?

[JustinSmith]

taper Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> or here

>

> http://www.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/projects/ctt

Taper, I think you should slow down, I said in my previous post ... "Remember that statin clinical trials cannot be used to claim a link between LDLs and cardiovascular disease because statins do all sorts of other things as well as lower cholesterol"

The link you have provided is for a statin clinical trail.

Drugs have all kinds of effects - thats obvious.

[JustinSmith]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Is this really worth your while Justin? All this

> writing in defence of your theory and for such a

> small audience?

You are absolutely right Mick Mac, thank you!

[mockney piers]

Not offended, just being churlish. I think MM voicedmy thoughts far more diplomatically.

I believe its called the law of diminishing returns, but economics really isn't a science ;-)