It appears you have not yet Signed Up with our community. To Sign Up for free, please click here....



High Cholesterol Message Board


High Cholesterol Board Index


My MD prescribed Lipitor to reduce cholesterol. After filling the prescription, decided to start doing research.

http://www.************.org/moderndiseases/statin.html - EXCELLENT breakdown on the different studies and their failures
www.mercola.com - has several articles about the statin drugs
http://www.lipid.org/clinical/articles/1000009.php - is the Heart Protection Study
Couple of comments on the HPS, (and this is the same problem with all the studies), is how they are using statistics, and the number of people that were dropped from the study, due to side affects. The study had a six week "lead-in", and something like 30,000 people were dropped from the study, and NOT counted in the percentage of people with side affects.
There were 10,269 people on statins and 10,267 people on placebo. Out of those 20,500+ study participants, 577 on statins died from a heart attack, 701 on placebo died from a heart attack. The drug companies report and calculate that to be a 25% improvement in mortality rate. An interesting point, using their statistical method, it's only 21%. But, using that statistical method ignores the 19,500 people who didn't die from a heart attack. The real percentage improvement is actually only 1.7%. Remember, over the five year study, they only "saved" 25 people per year. Lipitor has acknowledged a 5% rate of side affects. Dr. Golomb is doing a govt funded research study on side affects, and she's already reporting much much higher rates of side affects.

There are also several BBS devoted to problems with Statin's. Google, Lipitor problems, statin problems, and be prepared for hundreds of valid links.

One of the things that statins do is remove CoQ10 from the body. This enzyme is very needed for muscle energy. There is concern that statins are going to create a huge group of people that will have congestive heart failure, and the belief that low levels of CoQ10 is causing the problem. Supplemental CoQ10 (in gel cap form) should be mandatory with statins. There's also a belief that the magic answer is lower cholesterol. There's an extremely loose correlation between cholesterol and heart attacks. Statins do an excellent job of lowering cholesterol. Total mortality is virtually identical between statin and placebo, which should be the true measure of statins effectiveness. There is also evidence that statins increase the risk of cancer. Lipitor's own ads say "It has not been shown to prevent heart disease or heart attacks." If it's not going to prevent heart attack then why the heck would we take it???

This was all started after my Md prescribed Lipitor. Research led me to the following conclusions:

Absolutely NO statins.
Low carb diet.
Lipid profile needs to be done with sub particle size LDL.
Calcium screening cat scan needs to be done.

Good luck with your research
[QUOTE=phil58]My MD prescribed Lipitor to reduce cholesterol. After filling the prescription, decided to start doing research.

[url]http://www.************.org/moderndiseases/statin.html[/url] - EXCELLENT breakdown on the different studies and their failures
[url]www.mercola.com[/url] - has several articles about the statin drugs
[url]http://www.lipid.org/clinical/articles/1000009.php[/url] - is the Heart Protection Study
Couple of comments on the HPS, (and this is the same problem with all the studies), is how they are using statistics, and the number of people that were dropped from the study, due to side affects. The study had a six week "lead-in", and something like 30,000 people were dropped from the study, and NOT counted in the percentage of people with side affects.
There were 10,269 people on statins and 10,267 people on placebo. Out of those 20,500+ study participants, 577 on statins died from a heart attack, 701 on placebo died from a heart attack. The drug companies report and calculate that to be a 25% improvement in mortality rate. An interesting point, using their statistical method, it's only 21%. But, using that statistical method ignores the 19,500 people who didn't die from a heart attack. The real percentage improvement is actually only 1.7%. Remember, over the five year study, they only "saved" 25 people per year. Lipitor has acknowledged a 5% rate of side affects. Dr. Golomb is doing a govt funded research study on side affects, and she's already reporting much much higher rates of side affects.

There are also several BBS devoted to problems with Statin's. Google, Lipitor problems, statin problems, and be prepared for hundreds of valid links.

One of the things that statins do is remove CoQ10 from the body. This enzyme is very needed for muscle energy. There is concern that statins are going to create a huge group of people that will have congestive heart failure, and the belief that low levels of CoQ10 is causing the problem. Supplemental CoQ10 (in gel cap form) should be mandatory with statins. There's also a belief that the magic answer is lower cholesterol. There's an extremely loose correlation between cholesterol and heart attacks. Statins do an excellent job of lowering cholesterol. Total mortality is virtually identical between statin and placebo, which should be the true measure of statins effectiveness. There is also evidence that statins increase the risk of cancer. Lipitor's own ads say "It has not been shown to prevent heart disease or heart attacks." If it's not going to prevent heart attack then why the heck would we take it???

This was all started after my Md prescribed Lipitor. Research led me to the following conclusions:

Absolutely NO statins.
Low carb diet.
Lipid profile needs to be done with sub particle size LDL.
Calcium screening cat scan needs to be done.

Good luck with your research[/QUOTE]

So you don't think statins do [B]ANYONE[/B] any good? Well, you are wrong my friend, but certainly entitled to your opinion. :D BTW>>>what were your #s? That would be interesting.

Oh another thing for your *research* ;)

:[url]http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/106/25/3163[/url]
MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20,536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled trial.

Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group.

BACKGROUND: Throughout the usual LDL cholesterol range in Western populations, lower blood concentrations are associated with lower cardiovascular disease risk. In such populations, therefore, reducing LDL cholesterol may reduce the development of vascular disease, largely irrespective of initial cholesterol concentrations. METHODS: 20,536 UK adults (aged 40-80 years) with coronary disease, other occlusive arterial disease, or diabetes were randomly allocated to receive 40 mg simvastatin daily (average compliance: 85%) or matching placebo (average non-study statin use: 17%). Analyses are of the first occurrence of particular events, and compare all simvastatin-allocated versus all placebo-allocated participants. These "intention-to-treat" comparisons assess the effects of about two-thirds (85% minus 17%) taking a statin during the scheduled 5-year treatment period, which yielded an average difference in LDL cholesterol of 1.0 mmol/L (about two-thirds of the effect of actual use of 40 mg simvastatin daily). Primary outcomes were mortality (for overall analyses) and fatal or non-fatal vascular events (for subcategory analyses), with subsidiary assessments of cancer and of other major morbidity. FINDINGS: All-cause mortality was significantly reduced (1328 [12.9%] deaths among 10,269 allocated simvastatin versus 1507 [14.7%] among 10,267 allocated placebo; p=0.0003), due to a highly significant 18% (SE 5) proportional reduction in the coronary death rate (587 [5.7%] vs 707 [6.9%]; p=0.0005), a marginally significant reduction in other vascular deaths (194 [1.9%] vs 230 [2.2%]; p=0.07), and a non-significant reduction in non-vascular deaths (547 [5.3%] vs 570 [5.6%]; p=0.4). There were highly significant reductions of about one-quarter in the first event rate for non-fatal myocardial infarction or coronary death (898 [8.7%] vs 1212 [11.8%]; p<0.0001), for non-fatal or fatal stroke (444 [4.3%] vs 585 [5.7%]; p<0.0001), and for coronary or non-coronary revascularisation (939 [9.1%] vs 1205 [11.7%]; p<0.0001). For the first occurrence of any of these major vascular events, there was a definite 24% (SE 3; 95% CI 19-28) reduction in the event rate (2033 [19.8%] vs 2585 [25.2%] affected individuals; p<0.0001). During the first year the reduction in major vascular events was not significant, but subsequently it was highly significant during each separate year. The proportional reduction in the event rate was similar (and significant) in each subcategory of participant studied, including: those without diagnosed coronary disease who had cerebrovascular disease, or had peripheral artery disease, or had diabetes; men and, separately, women; those aged either under or over 70 years at entry; and--most notably--even those who presented with LDL cholesterol below 3.0 mmol/L (116 mg/dL), or total cholesterol below 5.0 mmol/L (193 mg/dL). The benefits of simvastatin were additional to those of other cardioprotective treatments. The annual excess risk of myopathy with this regimen was about 0.01%. There were no significant adverse effects on cancer incidence or on hospitalisation for any other non-vascular cause. INTERPRETATION: Adding simvastatin to existing treatments safely produces substantial additional benefits for a wide range of high-risk patients, irrespective of their initial cholesterol concentrations. Allocation to 40 mg simvastatin daily reduced the rates of myocardial infarction, of stroke, and of revascularisation by about one-quarter. After making allowance for non-compliance, actual use of this regimen would probably reduce these rates by about one-third. Hence, among the many types of high-risk individual studied, 5 years of simvastatin would prevent about 70-100 people per 1000 from suffering at least one of these major vascular events (and longer treatment should produce further benefit). The size of the 5-year benefit depends chiefly on such individuals' overall risk of major vascular events, rather than on their blood lipid concentrations alone.

[COLOR=Red]And those results were obtained during 5 years...year after year into the future the gap will widen and widen and widen between the treated and untreated.[/COLOR]





All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:38 AM.





© 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved.
Do not copy or redistribute in any form!