Is there any science/research showing how ineffective/bad statins are?

Kent · 2019-07-07 22:30:14 UTC

I want to better understand the science behind why statins are not something I should take if my doctor tries to prescribe them for me. Is there a chapter in a book that walks through the issues and that point to studies?

Thanks!

beccs · 2019-07-07 03:33:54 UTC

https://www.ketogenicforums.com/t/the-truth-about-cholesterol-ldl-hdl-statins-and-you-study-links-statins-to-300-adverse-health-effects/77646?u=beccs

CrackerJax · 2019-07-07 07:37:53 UTC

Look out for Malcolm Kendrick. It was him that finally persuaded me to ditch the statins.

Polly1 · 2019-07-07 07:58:36 UTC

This book is a good resource

This book is very readable

Duane Graveline wrote several books about the harm done by statins, this is one of them

CarlKeller · 2019-07-07 10:52:51 UTC

Perhaps the biggest red flag you should point out is questioning why statin makers exaggerate success rates. To me it’s mindboggling how they will use a deceptive math formula to make their products look more effective than they are:

I need to briefly explain the difference between relative and absolute risk reduction . Researchers and pharmaceutical companies often use relative risk statistics to report the results of drug studies. For example, they might say, “In this trial, statins reduced the risk of a heart attack by 30 percent.” But what they may not tell you is that the actual risk of having a heart attack went from 0.5 percent to 0.35 percent. In other words, before you took the drug you had a 1 in 200 chance of having a heart attack; after taking the drug you have a 1 in 285 chance of having a heart attack. That’s not nearly as impressive as using the 30 percent relative risk number, but it provides a more accurate picture of what the actual, or “absolute” risk reduction is.

https://chriskresser.com/the-diet-heart-myth-statins-dont-save-lives-in-people-without-heart-disease/

Dr. David Diamond goes more in depth with how this charade works:

MarkGossage · 2019-07-07 16:45:45 UTC

Here’s a thread I started on another forum I’m a member of…
Most of the recent data in one place.

KBG · 2019-07-07 16:48:55 UTC

I really like how simple this is. Should get people actually thinking as opposed to just reciting a practiced spiel.

coffeekittie · 2019-07-07 22:04:33 UTC

Wow. Watched the videos. Going to stop my statins tonight.

Kent · 2019-07-07 22:36:44 UTC

Can I just say how much l love the ketogenic forums!!!

There are so many knowledgeable people on the forums that are invested in just one thing:

Helping themselves and others learn and live the truth about health issues.

Now that doesn’t mean that we don’t get it wrong sometimes, but our hearts and minds our in the right places and not focused on how fat our wallet is going to get from spouting lies.

Thank you to everyone that responded. I am still digesting all of the materials but again, thank you, thank you, thank you.

PaulL · 2019-07-08 01:40:46 UTC

These papers, by Uffe Ravnskov might be helpful:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

LDL-C does not cause cardiovascular disease: a comprehensive review of the current literature.

U Ravnskov, M de Lorgeril, DM Diamond, R Hama, T Hamazaki, B Hammarskjöld, N Hynes, M Kendrick, PH Langsjoen, L Mascitelli, KS McCully, H Okuyama, PJ Rosch, T Schersten, S Sultan and R Sundberg, Expert review of clinical pharmacology, Oct 2018

For half a century, a high level of total cholesterol (TC) or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) has been considered to be the major cause of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease (CVD), and statin treatment has been widely promoted for cardiovascular prevention. However, there is an increasing understanding that the mechanisms are more complicated and that statin treatment, in particular when used as primary prevention, is of doubtful benefit. Areas covered: The authors of three large reviews recently published by statin advocates have attempted to validate the current dogma. This article delineates the serious errors in these three reviews as well as other obvious falsifications of the cholesterol hypothesis. Expert commentary: Our search for falsifications of the cholesterol hypothesis confirms that it is unable to satisfy any of the Bradford Hill criteria for causality and that the conclusions of the authors of the three reviews are based on misleading statistics, exclusion of unsuccessful trials and by ignoring numerous contradictory observations.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Inborn coagulation factors are more important cardiovascular risk factors than high LDL-cholesterol in familial hypercholesterolemia.

U Ravnskov, M de Lorgeril, M Kendrick and DM Diamond, Medical hypotheses, Dec 2018

High low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is routinely described as the main cause of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). However, numerous observations are in conflict with Bradford Hill's criteria for causality: a) degree of atherosclerosis is not associated with LDL-C; b) on average the life span of people with FH is about the same as for other people; c) LDL-C of people with FH without CVD is almost as high as in FH patients of the same age with CVD; and d) questionable benefit or none at all have been achieved in the controlled, randomized cholesterol-lowering trials that have included FH individuals only. Obviously, those individuals with FH who suffer from CVD may have inherited other and more important risk factors of CVD than high LDL-C. In accordance, several studies of FH individuals have shown that various coagulation factors may cause CVD. Equally, some non-FH members of an FH kindred with early CVD, have been found to suffer from early CVD as well. Cholesterol-lowering has only been successful in an animal experiment by using probucol, which has anticoagulant effects as well. We conclude that systematic studies of all kinds of risk factors among FH individuals are urgently required, because today millions of people with FH are treated with statins, the benefit of which in FH is unproven, and which have many serious side effects. We predict that treatment of FH individuals with elevated coagulation factors with anticoagulative drugs is more effective than statin treatment alone.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Formal comment on "Systematic review of the predictors of statin adherence for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease".

DM Diamond, M de Lorgeril, M Kendrick, U Ravnskov and PJ Rosch, PloS one, 2019

Statins have been prescribed for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) for nearly 3 decades. Throughout this period key opinion leaders in the field have been dismayed by the high rate of non-adherence of patients to follow their statin regimen. Hope et al., [1] have addressed this issue by providing a systematic review of research on predictors of statin adherence for primary prevention of CVD. However, their review does not address the ongoing debate as to whether statin treatment is warranted for primary prevention of CVD, nor does it adequately address concerns regarding adverse effects of statins. We have therefore written a commentary which provides a broader perspective on the benefits versus harms of statin therapy. Our perspective of the literature is that non-adherence to statin treatment for primary prevention of CVD is justified because the meager benefits are more than offset by the extensive harms.

coffeekittie · 2019-07-08 03:56:34 UTC

As a woman with familial hypercholesterolemia, I’ve been part of studies in the past. I don’t know what the results were though. I take a low dose aspirin, which has blood thinning properties. I’m going to look into other anticoagulatives as well. No more statins for me. Luckily, I’ve only been on them a few months after resisting for years. You guys are AWESOME with the studies! Thanks!

PaulL · 2019-07-08 22:08:49 UTC

One study I saw, from the 1960’s, concluded that their data meant that FH had no impact on cardiovascular disease and nullified the diet-heart hypothesis. Unfortunately, Ancel Keys was just getting into gear, so no one paid attention.

Based on those data, together with data from several epidemological studies and from hospital admissions of patients with heart attacks, I have concluded that it is impossible for cholesterol to be the cause of cardiovascular disease.

TonyPi · 2019-07-15 02:18:49 UTC

Totally non - medical person here - From my understanding , the statin critical research studies have Not been released ( they are held and guarded, by agreement, by one of at uk universities “review/ research groups”) and that the advertising “numbers” are quite misleading regarding their presentation.
This has been pointed out in above posts and on many youtube videos.
Again, from youtube, I understand that a feature of a statins function is by “Reinforcing” the calcium plaque which better seals the unstable liquid gunk that has built up below the artery inner lining ( this is the liquid gunk that when the artery wall ruptures, gets into the blood stream, coagulates into a clot, gets moving, and causes a stroke/ heart attack). From my point of view rather than trying to seal the problem in, with all the statin side effects, I have instead changed to a Keto, Low Carb diet. This is to reduce/stop inflammation, and hopefully reduce/stop/reverse the build up of this gunk in the first place. For me Keto / Low Carb is a real great leap of faith as every single person in my families ( on both sides ) have died of heart disease and nothing else. Im nearly 69, and have outlived my own father by 20 years now. I did try stains 20-25 years ago in a trial, and they badly knocked me around, so I have never taken then since. Apparently, according to my doctor and blood tests etc, since being on Keto my risk factors have gone so low that im not even eligible for statins now !!

Polly1 · 2019-12-09 09:08:52 UTC

There is a YouTube presentation by Pamela Popper which runs through the history of this topic and is well worth a watch if you want the low down on the development of medication with statins.

Eppy · 2019-12-09 09:33:11 UTC

I’m starting to believe that there’s some conspiracy regarding statins. As a simple patient with CHD I’m not going to chance it. I do not believe that statins are that bad for you. Take Dr. Brewer testimony. I reckon he has more knowledge and experience in this area than any of the other people mentioned on this blog. He himself is skeptical about statins yet he takes them himself and has proof that they work and do a good job.
ABOUT DR. BREWER
Dr. Brewer started as an Emergency Doctor. After seeing too many preventable heart attacks, he went to Johns Hopkins to learn Preventive Medicine. While there, he went on the run the post-graduate training program (residency) in Preventive Medicine. From there, he made a career of practicing and managing preventive medicine and primary care clinics. His later role in this area was Chief Medical Officer for Premise, which has close to 1,000 primary care/prevention clinics. He was also the Chief Medical Officer for MDLIVE, the second largest telemedicine company. More recently, he founded PrevMed, a heart attack, and stroke prevention clinic.

At PrevMed, we focus on heart attack, stroke, and cognitive decline. We serve patients who have already experienced an event as well as those who have not developed a diagnosis or event. Dr. Brewer provides services via telemedicine or in person if you’re in the Lexington, KY area. We find a lot of undiagnosed Pre-Diabetes or Insulin Resistance. Treating unrecognized risk factors like Pre-Diabetes allows reduction of risk and prevention of disease.

Polly1 · 2019-12-09 10:40:00 UTC

There is, but it is a conspiracy to medicate the well in order to increase revenue for the pharmaceutical industry. You have made it clear that you do not want to hear the message about the harm statins can do to you. You have chosen to take the medication. That is your choice and if you have made an informed decision after checking out all the evidence you are doing the thing which seems right to you.

However, there are many people [particularly those following this way of eating] who have found what they regard as a better way to obtain health and well-being. They are as entitled to their opinion as you are to yours. Why are you so desparate to tell the rest of us that statins would be good for us?

As for Dr Brewer, I probably won’t watch his video because whilst it may be interesting I recognise that he has a product or service to sell. That means that in my (albeit biased) way of thinking that he is not an independent voice on this subject.

PetaMarie · 2019-12-09 11:20:55 UTC

Also, David, you said you’ve had a cardiac event and have heart disease. Statins may very well be indicated for you. Others, however, who are just a tad high in their labs with zero underlying disease and otherwise healthy are being put on statins and I think it’s reasonable for that group of people to weigh the risks of the drug vs. it’s benefits and if those benefits are as promising as is being claimed. I think that’s where most people are coming from when they ask, new to statins and trying to get information.

Eppy · 2019-12-09 12:11:58 UTC

The original poster asked for the science. I’ve posted, for statins using Dr. Brewer testimony on how he used statins to reverse 20 years of arterial plaque using science and medical tests. I’ve been taking statins for over 15 years. 3 years ago I had 3 x CABG. If I did not take statins (I can not prove this) I reckon I would of had a heart attack a lot sooner and died. So I believe that for me stains saved my life.

PetaMarie · 2019-12-09 12:17:28 UTC

I hear you. I was simply replying to your concern that there is a anti-statin conspiracy on this forum.

Polly1 · 2019-12-10 09:23:51 UTC

This article was published in the lancet recently.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)32519-X/fulltext

If you go to Dr Zoe Harcombe’s website you will see her break it down and show that every claim which is made is based on one of the “assumptions” which were programmed into the modelling exercise at the beginning.

https://www.zoeharcombe.com

So much published “science” is anything but scientific.