Bombshell Dropped On Cholesterol Medication Companies

[Jcrowley]

It had to happen sooner or later. On October 3, 2006, after extensive review of all studies relating to cholesterol-lowering benefits by statin drugs, scientists reporting in the Annals of Internal Medicine pulled the rug out from under the current government-sanctioned cholesterol levels for reducing cardiovascular disease risk. Their conclusion, "current clinical evidence does not demonstrate that titrating lipid therapy to achieve proposed low LDL cholesterol levels is beneficial or safe." This is not a trivial issue. Many billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted on the cholesterol drug scam. The health and well being of millions of Americans may have been compromised by reckless lowering of cholesterol, a substance that is vital to health and energy production.

It has long been recognized that adults who have naturally lower cholesterol levels during their 40s and 50s have less heart disease as they grow older. A large body of science supports the notion that LDL cholesterol levels lower than 130 mg/dL is an excellent goal for one and all. How a person should arrive at this goal is a matter of considerable debate. A good diet and exercise is the foundation for any person's health program and for many this approach is adequate. The use of nutritional supplements to help lower cholesterol, products that have virtually no side effects and may be highly effective, is considered by the FDA to be an illegal health claim. Instead, the FDA expects Americans to use statin drugs to accomplish this goal, even though the medications have a general anti-energy effect and long list of potentially serious side effects that are not clearly explained to those taking the medications or even to the doctors giving them out.

To make matters worse, several years ago the government-funded National Cholesterol Education Program promoted new guidelines for the use of these drugs. It was recommend that individuals at high cardiovascular disease risk attain LDL levels < 100 mg/dL and individuals at very high cardiovascular risk attain LDL levels < 70 mg/dL. These are abnormally low levels of cholesterol, meaning drugs must be used to create an artificially low level of LDL cholesterol, an unnatural physiological condition. This is very difficult to do and requires high doses of statins, doubling or tripling the dose, oftentimes combined with other drugs. Needless to say, such therapies are extremely expensive and often do not work. These guidelines immediately boosted the sales of statins from fifteen billion per year when the report was released in 2004 to over twenty-two billion in 2005. And now we come to find out there is not a shred of scientific evidence to support that lowering cholesterol in this manner will reduce cardiovascular disease, compared to simply having an LDL lower than 130.

Statins are also being pushed for prevention of a first heart attack in people with only moderate cardiovascular risk. A careful analysis of the statistical data shows that such statin use may reduce cardiovascular death by 1% in this preventive population over a ten year period. However, the drugs kill 1% as a side effect, due to accidents, suicide, and infection. This means there is no benefit at all, from a societal point of view, for wasting billions of dollars of taxpayer money on this pointless preventive strategy.

http://www.newstarget.com/021147.html

[GainesT1958]

1. Why is it that...

Until a few years ago, the widely-accepted median aggregate cholesterol level was 245? Now, it's 200. Plus, all of these drugs have been shown to cause severe liver damage over time. How come virtually NO doctor prescribing these drugs typically mentions that to their patients?

Drug companies have too much control over our lives--and too much control over results of studies of the REAL effects of their drugs!:mad:

B-)

[williesgirl]

12. They not only "mention" it, but require annual blood tests for liver function or won't renew

prescription. I know, I take Lipitor.

[deminks]

17. My liver function went up "mildly" and I was told to keep taken my statin

[slackmaster]

29. That's what happened to me too

After my annual trip to a gastroenterologist who put me through all kinds of nonsense to rule out actual liver damage.

I also turned out to have some kind of syndrome that elevates one kind of billirubin in about 5% of the population.

[Radio_Lady]

65. I got off of Lipitor because every joint and muscle in my body hurt like hell.

Now, the doctor wants me to take Lovastatin (Mevacor).

I'm resisting it and thinking about alternatives -- but my cholesterol level shot up above 300 and I'm worried about what to do.

Thanks for this article.

[pushycat]

70. Good for you - stay off it forever. Try a green leafy diet

to help lower your numbers. It will help your memory too. Learn how to eat and cook swiss chard, spinach, kale, root vegetables, oats and the like. Make these your main stay and you will be rewarded with lower numbers.

We had trouble taking statins Lipitor first until tests came back showing liver damage. Switched to Crestor and started seeing lean muscle loss. Stopped these altogether and switched to this diet of low fat, low sugar and lots of greens. Best numbers ever since - its been 2 yrs on now. Those statins are not ready for prime time, IMHO. good luck

[annabanana]

52. I've been taking lipitor for years...

I've had my "bloods" done once.

[slackmaster]

74. Wow, my insurance company would never allow that

They are very hard-nosed about requiring annual liver function and cholesterol tests.

[deminks]

15. Here is an article that was done in the Seattle Times in 2005

It is called Suddenly Sick, and it talks about several levels that were once considered normal. but have been lowered in the last few years. Cholesterol, blood sugar, blood pressure and the like. We all in the 40 to 60 year age range who have jobs and access to health care have been put on at least one blood pressure pill and one statin, and sometimes two or three of each. Everyone I know is taking at least 5 pills a day. None of us have any energy. Exercise will do more for me than anything, but it is all I can do sometimes to walk into work. That is such a long story. But read the article and see what you think. Some very dark things have been perpetrated on people. Sometimes it has cost them their lives.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/sickintro.html

also at my journal:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/deminks

[lostnfound]

21. Thank you for that link; a GREAT series.

I happened to be in Seattle when it came out in the paper and was blown away by what excellent journalism they did, esp. up against big pharma.

[Rainscents]

24. Article is right on!

I listen to health radio station "Dr. Bob Martin", he is so against big pharma and how, they are buying doctor's with money to push their drugs. He stated normal Cholesterol should be anywhere between 200-260 is normal.

[erinlough]

2. I am very interested in this information

what can you tell me about the group at the link? Is this credible? Please post.

[mcscajun]

4. The link is a site pushing a product, and they have truncated the quote

that they say is in the conclusion. Here is the quote in its entirety, from the Annals of Internal Medicine's own site:

"Clear, compelling evidence supports near-universal empirical statin therapy in patients at high cardiovascular risk (regardless of their natural LDL cholesterol values), but current clinical evidence does not demonstrate that titrating lipid therapy to achieve proposed low LDL cholesterol levels is beneficial or safe."

As LDL cholesterol is only one component of total cholesterol, and as I am NOT a doctor, the only thing I can say is if you are interested, go to the Annals of Internal Medicine's website (you can get there by following the link in the Original Post), then from the "selling site", follow their link to the Annals. Print out the study, and discuss it with your doctor.

[Jcrowley]

9. Despite the fact

that it's selling stuff it's an excellent website. Most if not all of their articles have nothing to do with pushing products. If you have any doubts I'd suggest you track it for awhile, read the stories and decide for yourself.

Here are some of the stories on other issues currently on the main page:
http://www.newstarget.com/index.html

Here's an interesting discussion on cholesterol you can peruse:
http://curezone.com/forums/f.asp?f=174

Here's more to read:

Fiber for cholesterol lowering
Several studies have now documented that dietary fibers can cause a significant reduction in cholesterol levels. While any fibers tend to be beneficial, the best form of fiber for cholesterol reduction appears to be foods containing soluble fibers – that is, fibers that dissolve in water.

The soluble fibers contained in oats, for instance, have been shown to have a substantial impact on cholesterol levels when added to a low-fat diet. Other foods high in soluble fibers are lentils, pinto beans, citrus, black beans and barley.

For those people (and you know who you are) that prefer taking medical products instead of eating healthy food, psyllium (the fiber found in Metamucil,) has also been demonstrated to cause a significant reduction in cholesterol levels (but tragically, only in conjunction with a low-fat diet).

http://heartdisease.about.com/cs/cholesterol/a/Nrxcol_fb.htm

[KT2000]

3. Also - Why is it that

when people become sensitive to chemicals after a large exposure, their cholesterol levels shoot up - way up??? This population includes thin people and vegetarians as well.

Guess it is much better for the corporations to sell a drug that will fix a problem rather than remove a moneymaker that causes the problem!

[Green Mountain Dem]

5. I took the statin...

Lipitor for 18 mos and it nearly killed me. My Cholesterol was great but the damage done to my muscles is not reversible. I cannot walk more than a block without resting, and now I have periphal neuropathy and elevated periphal artery disease. I have found a couple of natural (Policosanol and Red Yeast Rice) remedies and my cholesterol is completely under control with no side effects. I am so pissed at pharmaceutical companies for pushing these dangerous drugs on the uninformed patient. My cardiologist said the side effects of statins were better for me than not taking them. So my cholesterol was lowered but I couldn't walk but I guess that's the tradeoff. Fuck him....I'll take another heart attack as long as I can walk! Besides there is NO definitive study ever showing that high cholesterol causes heart attacks...it's all about hefty profits and kickbacks for Dr's prescribing this poison.

[hvn_nbr_2]

6. Read up on red yeast rice

I've read that the effective chemical in it is very similar to the statin drugs and it can cause the same sort of muscle problems over time. You might want to look at guggul, beta-sitosterol, and other plant sterols as an alternative. I am not a doctor or any other kind of "health care practitioner;" just someone who reads a lot.

[Green Mountain Dem]

7. BUT...did you....

stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night? LOL

[femrap]

69. lol....I choked. Wasn't expecting a

funny while reading about health. Thx for the laugh.

[bbgrunt]

10. I had the same thing happen to me. When

I complained about my inability to walk to my doctor he sent me out for tests for blocked arteries and had no clue that it might be the statin he had prescribed. I finally read all the fine print and quit the drug. I have gotten most of my mobility back, but also have some limitations. Just about every person I have talked to about this side effect has a similar story.

This is one of the biggest scams out there and I fear many more people will be harmed by these drugs before something is done.

[bobbolink]

11. That is really awful. I'm so sorry that you got taken that way!

Thank you for posting your experience, and it points up the need for patients to be able to publicly share this kind of stuff, rather than only the drug companies and the drs having the microphone.

If you had heard a story like yours before taking the medication, what reaction would you have had, do you think?

Again, I'm sorry for your experience.

[Mnemosyne]

14. Holy crap! That might be, at least partially, the cause of my

balance problem. I never needed a cane until lipitor almost caused me to have a heart attack, thanks to an idiot that wouldn't listen.

Thanks for this info GMD! :hi:

[Radio_Lady]

66. Green Mtn. Dem, do you know that NY Lawyer Mark Krum is suing Pfizer on

behalf of several people around the country who have had terrible side effects from Lipitor? The filing was done in June 2006. I don't know when the case will be heard.

Here is some of the information:

http://wcbs880.com/pages/44328.php?contentType=4&contentId=154496

Details on the filings are at Krum's website here:

http://www.krumlaw.com/press.html

Home page for this lawyer is:

http://www.krumlaw.com/

I'm watching this case very closely.

Sorry to hear you've had bad side effects. Mine have seemed to reverse themselves over the past three months after I discontinued the drug.

[goclark]

8. Thank You so much!

I was allergic to three of the "wonder drugs" and my doctors would not believe me.

I went from doctor to doctor complaining of pain in my joints, a boil on my foot so big I couldn't walk and cramps in my foot that hurt so much I was almost screaming in pain.

Finally I purchased a book called " Cut Your Cholesterol in 14 weeks" and it way magic.

I changed my diet and have a constant fight with my weight but I refuse to take those drugs.

Finally, a breakthrough to the truth about the Drug Industry!

[KittyWampus]

13. so when I use the term Scientific/Medical Industrial Complex, now you know why

and screw the DU'ers who ridiculed me.

Gee, I thought these "Scientists" did "double blind studies"...

[hvn_nbr_2]

20. Double blind studies

Sometimes that means they're blind on the way in and blind on the way back out.

[Kansas Wyatt]

58. No different than the military industrial complex

It's all about PROFITS.

The Medical Industry stopped giving a shit about helping and curing people long ago, and their main priority is how much of their product they can sell at a bloated price and their profit margin.

[Jcrowley]

16. If any folks here

Want to do their own research on this here are a few articles to get you started:

http://www.newstarget.com/high_cholesterol.html

The food is the cornerstone of our health and well-being. Not the only factor but the primary one.

[musiclawyer]

18. Just have some cactus every day

in a smoothy , cooked, whatever. That's what the indiginous mexicans have done for centuries. My sis's maid turned her on to it. My sis did some research, tried it, and it works for her. I have a cactus/oatmeal/fruit smoothy everyday other day.

[ldf]

25. on what aisle of the store

do i find cactus???

serious question. i didn't know cactus was edible.

i'm trying to stop taking zocor. could not take lipitor.

i have very high cholesterol, but it is natural because i avoid high cholesterol foods.

[musiclawyer]

62. Most mainstream supermarkets won't have it.

You'll probably need to go to a mexican food store. Every big city has one, usually in the spanish speaking part of town.

[IndyOp]

26. Cactus like aloe gel? How do those of us in the Midwest who don't grow

cacti indoors get cactus?

:shrug:

[musiclawyer]

63. "Nopales"

That's the form of edible cactus used in latin america
That's what it will be called in a mexican food store. Google cactus/cholesoral--lot so links annd on-line places to purchase

[senseandsensibility]

19. Thanks for this thread

There's a lot to think about here. Has anyone been able to lower their cholesterol with dietary changes? I have a relative who is trying to do this, and has drastically lowered his cholesterol intake.

[Rainscents]

27. Yes, I have.

Eat lot of green leafy veggies and fruits, eat organic butters or olive oils. Take OPC antioxidant supplement products (Green tea extract, Grape seed extract, Pink back extract, etc) and eat lot of organic free range hard boiled eggs and also, drink lot of filtration water.

BTW; Removing cholesterol from ones diet is cause of very high cholesterol problems and very unhealthy. There's many books out there talk about what really cause cholesterol problems.

[senseandsensibility]

54. Thanks for the warning about removing ALL

cholesterol from the diet!

[DemReadingDU]

71. overproduction of cholesterol

I too have found that if I don't eat foods containing cholesterol, my body goes into overdrive - it will start overproducing cholesterol on its own.

To keep cholesterol level down, I eat many of the foods that you have posted, plus I love the kind of peanut butter that needs to have the oil stirred in. Peanut butter is an excellent source of the healthy unsaturated fats.

[LunaC]

46. Avocado and tomato-based products are my weapons of choice

A daily serving of avocado can reduce cholesterol levels by 8% while a daily serving of tomato-based foods could reduce the risk of heart disease by as much as 30 percent.

Oats, pinto beans and black beans are also effective in lowering cholesterol.


.

[senseandsensibility]

55. Great! Thanks for the tips!

And avacados and tomato-based foods are good, too!

[Lugnut]

22. My mother takes Lipitor

She has taken it for many years and has had two strokes while on this med. I refuse to take the stuff.

[buddysmellgood]

23. Once again, we are screwn.

[slackmaster]

28. I quit Lipitor a little over a year ago

I believed it was causing some problems, and I didn't like not being allowed to eat grapefruit.

I'll be getting my cholesterol test within a month or two. It had been in "normal" range for the five years I was taking the drug, and I have reason to believe the initial test that got me put onto it was erroneous.

The term "general anti-energy effect" describes what I thought was going on with Lipitor. It was also tweaking my liver enzymes (even with alcohol completely excluded). That, of course, kept leading me to additional costly exams and tests every year. I stopped taking it a week before my blood tests last year, and amazingly my liver enzymes were all normal for the first time in five years.

Thanks for the post, Jcrowley.

[gristy]

31. I also quit Lipitor a year ago

I didn't like not being able to eat grapefruit, and I didn't like regularly taking an expensive drug for marginal "benefit". My cholesterol level went up hardly at all after going off it, and is within an acceptable range now.

[knitter4democracy]

30. reply from a physician spouse

That's not the conclusion of the authors. They are saying that those in the high and very high risk groups should be on statins, but not to target any particular LDL cholesterol level. Risk reduction is far higher than 1%, and death rates are extremely low, much less than 1% (serious complications are on the order of 2-5% short term and 15-20% long term).

To quote the authors: "We conclude that there is clear and compelling evidence that most patients at high risk for cardiovascular disease should be taking at least a moderate dose of a statin if tolerated, even if their natural LDL cholesterol level is low. We could find no published high-quality clinical evidence supporting titration of lipid therapy based on proposed LDL cholesterol targets. However, the errors in previous examinations of this issue appear to be avoidable. We strongly suggest that those with access to these data conduct further analyses to provide more valid evidence on this important clinical and scientific question." It's the titration to particular numbers that is unnecessary and less safe.

I agree that drug companies need more extensive regulation, and I personally think that patents for copycat drugs should be much shorter than truly innovative drugs that fill gaps in our treatment options. There are very few people who would not be much better off if they exercised and ate a lot better, but by the time I get the chance to treat them, they've been abusing their bodies for more than 30 years, and drugs are faster than exercise. I never put someone on statins unless they are at high risk now and can't demonstrate that they can change their health status without them. I've got patients with cholesterols almost 300 that are making conscious efforts to change it themselves.

[slackmaster]

33. I'm not in a high risk group, and decided I could not tolerate Lipitor

I think my doctors would have come to the same conclusion if they were really paying attention to test results, but were inclined to interpreting borderline intolerance as acceptable. I decided it was not acceptable.

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion.

[madmusic]

39. Thanks for this thread...

My ex bro-in-law had a heart attack a few years ago and just last week got his cholesterol levels checked. This will better help him make a decision. Forwarded!

[Hekate]

43. Thanks for the input. By 40 my cholesterol had crept up to 325, so I went on a rigorous diet...

...lots of exercise, lost 25 pounds back to my college weight. Dandy, right? No. At the conclusion of this effort, my cholesterol was at 350. Since my aunt had just died of complications of atherosclerosis, I went home and burst into tears. Oh, and Slo-Niacin made me utterly miserable and didn't work either.

I'd be quite happy if I could control my cholesterol with dietary supplements (I already take everything from B-complex to calcium to fish oil), but I'm now 59 and am on Crestor, my third med since then. For me, statins work when nothing else does.

I know the pharmaceutical industries rip us off, like every other facet of the for-profit health-care industry, but they also perform a valuable service. They need more regulation and oversight, less advertising and product-pushing, and more studies by independent entities. For patients/consumers/humans generally, one size does not fit all.

Hekate

[laundry_queen]

32. Same thing with high blood pressure meds.

Doctors are now prescribing blood pressure meds like candy for older people who have borderline hypertention! And they only take a reading or 2 at the office and then declare they have high blood pressure and write them a script. My 85 yo grandmother just went through this and said the pills made her sicker than she'd ever been, so she quit them. Her BP at home was way lower than at the doctor's but he wouldn't 'believe' her.
My MIL is dealing with sudden kidney problems because of the BP meds she just started for 'borderline' high BP. "Oh, it's probably just the meds" her doctor said, "don't stop taking them though until we figure it out for sure." :wtf:

[REP]

42. VERY Unlikely BP Meds Caused Kidney Problems; High BP Causes Kidney Damage

Blood pressure medicines (ACE inhibitors, ARBs) are used in kidney patients with normal blood pressure because of their protective action on the kidneys (it's a side-effect, and aside from lowering blood pressure). High blood pressure is the number 2 cause of kidney failure in the US, behind diabetes. It is possible that years of untreated hypertension brought about the kidney disease, or the increase in blood pressure is secondary to pre-existing kidney disease. ACE inhibitors and ARBs don't cause kidney stones and they decrease proteinuria; diuretics such as Lasix may increase the need to urinate but that is not a kidney problem. People are more likely to cause themselves kidney damage (analgesic-induced renal papillary necrosis)by misusing NSAIDs (ibuprofen, etc) or Tylenol (acetominophen), especially middle-aged/elderly women.

[laundry_queen]

56. She doesn't have chronic high BP

Never has. FIL DOES (his was caused by kidney damage from some experimental Rheumatoid Arthritis meds in the 70's), and so they have a BP monitor at home. She told me what her BP was at home all the time. It was normal, sometimes a smidgen high. I believe she just has 'whitecoat' hypertension. She also has an autoimmune disease and is on several different meds. It's possible the meds interacted with something else she was taking. The thing is she had several normal kidney function tests in the weeks before she started the meds, and then in the weeks after starting, her kidney function started to suddenly decline. Seeing as her tests were normal BEFORE and abnormal AFTER, the only thing the dr can think of is the meds, or a certain combination of them.

[moondust]

34. More evidence.

I'd want to see studies done in Canada, Europe, the VA, etc. where there is far less, if any, profit motive for prescribing unnecessary or dangerous medications.

Do Britons and Canadians take a lot of statins? I know veterans do and there's not much profit motive in it for anybody that I am aware of.

[moondust]

48. Oxford study.

http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/po/news/2004-05/sep/27.shtml

27 September 2005

A class of drugs known as the ‘statins’ that is already widely used to treat high cholesterol levels would benefit more people if targeted at all people with diseased arteries, regardless of their cholesterol level, according to findings published online in The Lancet (www.lancet.com) on 27 September.

A study jointly coordinated by scientists from the Clinical Trial Service Unit (CTSU) at Oxford and the National Health Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre at the University of Sydney combined detailed results from more than 90,000 participants in 14 previously completed trials involving statin treatments. It shows that many people with lower cholesterol levels could benefit from statin treatment.

~snip~

The trial found that not only did people with lower cholesterol levels benefit from statins, but the biggest benefits occur in those patients with the largest absolute reductions in cholesterol after treatment, largely irrespective of their original cholesterol level.

~snip~

These analyses also provide reassuring new information about the safety of statins. Some earlier studies had raised concerns that statin use might be associated with increased risk of certain cancers or of dying from certain diseases. Professor Rory Collins, Co-Director of CTSU and one of the study authors, said: ‘This work shows clearly that statins are very safe. There is no good evidence that statins cause cancer, nor do they increase the risk of other diseases. And although statins can cause muscle pain or weakness, our study shows that serious cases are extremely rare. The small excess of serious muscle problems is far outweighed by the large benefits on heart attacks and strokes.’

The benefits of statin treatment were seen in all of the many different patient groups studied, including women, the elderly, individuals with diabetes and those with and without prior heart attack or stroke. The largest benefits were seen among those at greatest risk of a vascular event.

Funding for the study was provided by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and The British Heart Foundation (BHF) in the UK, and the National Heart Foundation (NHF) in Australia.

[autorank]

35. HUGE...K&R Thanks you!!!!!!!!!

Oops,so sorry, we wasted your time.

This requires a comprehensive investigation. How does something like this happen? What did the people involved in promoting this know and, ur, when did they know it?

If it is a matter of a mistaken tact in the pursuit of health, that is one thing. If, however, it was a self-serving move from day 1 based on biased evidence, it is time to drop the hammer on the perps.

What an article. Thanks so much.

[seabeyond]

36. sheeit.... i have to bookmark this thread and come back. i started

taking simvastatin.... and i know very little about it. my cholestral is only 200 and the bad chol is too high, good chol too low. but still, didnt seem high to me. and now all this

[Rainscents]

37. You should really do indpeth online research on this matter before

taking any of this types of medications. Dr tried to shove it down on me too and I refused. Instead, I did research and went natural alternative. I'm glad, I didn't get sucked into it.

[seabeyond]

38. i have only been taking since july. i will do it. i really dont like the

idea of taking something for the rest of my life. and i was told by two doctors only like 1% of population has problems with it. then i hear about the liver, and i dont want to be missing with my liver.

thanks... i will

[4dog]

40. Cholesterol - why worry?

If you’re interested in reading about why you might not even want to lower your cholesterol, here are some links:
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/

Cholesterol myths:
http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm
This is an outline of Dr. Ravnskov’s clear and scientifically sound book The Cholesterol Myths: Exposing the Fallacy That Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Cause Heart Disease.

Statin toxicity: many side effects (not publicized) in addition to muscle damage, including amnesia and lowering of cognitive functioning:
http://www.spacedoc.net/

[Liberty Belle]

41. How long 'til there's a class action suit? My dad and uncle were damaged by these drugs.

Dad got Parkinson's disease and my uncle's in even worse shape. I know other people who also had muscle-wasting problems from taking these drugs.

Mom developed permanent photosensitivity from blood pressure medications.

I will never take ANY of those drugs for "preventative" purposes as the "cures" are worse than the disease in so many cases.

Diet and exercise can go a long way toward reducing cholesterol and high blood pressure--well worth the lifestyle changes.

[Radio_Lady]

73. See my post #66. A New York lawyer named Mark Krum is involved in

a Lipitor suit against Pfizer, the big pharma manufacturer.

[Gwerlain]

44. Be careful.

The Annals of Internal Medicine article said quite specifically that levels below 130mg/dL have been CONCLUSIVELY shown to lead to greatly reduced risk; and in fact, this is well known and has been for many years. It is only the practice of reduction below 100 or even 70 that the new article says may not be effective. So don't just abandon it; you need to keep your LDL cholesterol below 130 for sure. And the statins also have other beneficial effects on your heart as well. Don't just stop. You could die.

Note most carefully as well that the article does NOT say it is definitively not effective, merely that the statistical methods used were not conclusive on whether it is effective or not. But there is about as strong a hint as I have ever seen in a professional journal short of outright straightforward accusations of malfeasance that the folks who wrote this study suspect that there was skulduggery at the crossroads; they say and repeat at least twice that the studies that appeared to show the benefits of the 100mg/dL or even 70mg/dL levels were AVOIDABLY flawed. And they go about proving it quite conclusively.

Just a little help with terminology: titration is the medical practice of adjusting the dosage of a drug until the desired effect is achieved. In other words, they give you the standard dose, and evaluate your cholesterol, and then modify the dose until your cholesterol is at the level they'd like to see. It is this practice that the authors are saying is not proven to be effective, when the "level they'd like to see" is the abnormally low 100 or 70mg/dL levels.

I am not a doctor; you should talk to your doctor about this, not me. I am, however, a heart patient, and a user of these medicines- and they have set my target at 70. And you can bet your sweet patootie I'll be talkin to my doctor bright and early Monday morning; thanks a bunch for bringing this to our attention. Print the article (not the one from newstarget, but the one directly from the Annals of Internal Medicine) and bring it to hir if you are taking these drugs, and if your "target" has been set at these abnormally low levels. And remember: after all the dust has settled, it remains possible that these levels might be beneficial; if you're not having side effects, it might be worth your while to continue until the truth is established. I'm not having any, and I'm going to have to think about this very carefully. If you're just taking statins to get your cholesterol below 130, I wouldn't bother- you almost certainly need to, and most likely the side effects of NOT taking them will be death.

Please be very careful, and make sure you understand all the implications before you do anything at all. I'm sure everyone here would be devastated if someone stopped taking a statin because they didn't understand what was going on, and died of a stroke or heart attack because of it.

[madokie]

45. My Cholesterol, both high and low are where the numbers should be

according to their charts but I am disabled because of DVT and PAD, clogged arteries. If my numbers weren't where they are I'm sure my doc would have put me on the statins, whither or not I would have taken them is up for debate though. Now I know I would not have.

[GliderGuider]

47. My doctor started making noises about my cholesterol ten years ago

I was 45, and had no symptoms of heart disease. I started reading everything I could get my hands on. I read the abstracts and analyses of all the big statin studies. I read books. I trawled the internet. In the course of that I found out about rhabdomyolysis, liver disease, and peripheral neuropathy. I found a lot of conflicting evidence about the links between cholesterol and HD. I also found out about cholesterol-lowering supplements like niacin, policosanol, red yeast rice, guggul, etc. and used those for a while. Red yeast rice not so much, because I realized early on it's just a naturally produced statin.

Then I started wondering what sort of risk I was really at, and whether cholesterol levels were causally linked or merely correlated to HD for many people. After another six months of reading and thinking I decided the risk of damage from statins far outweighed my risk of HD. I stopped taking all the supplements, and informed the doctor that I would never, under any circumstances, take a statin. More than that, I informed her that I would not consent to any more cholesterol tests, and if one were done anyway, I did not ant to be informed of the results. It's an extreme position, I know, but when I finished my examination of the whole issue of cholesterol/HD/statins, it had "scam!" written all over it in big neon letters. I'll take my chances with Mother Nature, thanks.

[Morgana LaFey]

57. Let's also not forget

(excellent post, btw)

Let's not forget that the body produces cholesterol quite on its own, so that if no one ever ate anything with cholesterol in it, they'd still have cholesterol in their bodies, and that's because cholesterol is a substance the body requires in fairly high levels (esp. the brain, IIRC).

My point is not to just give up on or opt out of the whole discussion, as GliderGuider has done, but to be aware that the subject is bigger and more complex than MDs and big Pharma will usually let you know (so more independent research on our parts, as GliderGuider has done, might be a good idea), and that cholesterol isn't innately and exclusively "bad."

There are a lot of problems that simply more vegetables and saner fats (olive oil) will go a long way toward helping. And oh, yeah, excercise.

[Vinca]

49. There's a reason big pharma is rolling in dough.

I'm suspect of any drug that, according to them, needs to be taken every day by everyone for the rest of their lives. I've always been leery of the statin drugs. Check the information sheet in the box, I bet it says it doesn't prevent high blood pressure, stroke and heart disease. So what DOES it do? Makes stocks on Wall Street go up.

[lonestarnot]

50. Asparagus therapy with the bazillion dollar price tag, sounds

like a repiglican pharmaculture agenda. Hey their purses got fatter as sheeple will do anything so alleviate the symptoms of overconsumption.

[Zodiak]

51. I knew someone would come here

as cast asparagus all over the place. I'm series!!!!111!!

Our cholesterol levels are screwn.

:)

[lonestarnot]

53. Teehee.

:evilgrin: :evilgrin:

[Celebration]

59. PLEASE take Conenyme Q10 with Statin Drugs!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=222&topic_id=4379

I went to a lot of effort to find links that don't sell the stuff.

[truedelphi]

60. Thanks for this - Husband has been told to get tested for

Lipid levels - these statins were probably the next part of a medication regimant.

Great timing for us. Thanks!

[truedelphi]

61. Also if your cholesterol levels are high,I've heard that just 3

stalks of celery a day will lower it.

That's quite a bit of celery - and it could be that the fiber in it bulks up your tummy so if you eat it say in mid-afternoon, you can't quite finish your dessert later that night.

But this celery business lets you skip the lipid testing, or statin drugs

[atomic-fly]

64. one more thing

my dad died from pancreatic cancer, his brother died a year later.
It turns out they were both on lipator.

[Radio_Lady]

67. You folks who quit Lipitor -- go to askapatient.com and type in LIPITOR.

Hundreds of people have had side effects.

The drug is essentially robbing people of their muscle and joint function and creating a whole load of other problems, too.

You'll be amazed. The conglomerate rating is 2.1 out of 5! Bad reactions are the norm here!

Best thing to do is to sort by negative effects (low numbers) to see the largest percentage in a list -- or scroll to the bottom of the list and work upwards.

http://www.askapatient.com

[slackmaster]

75. Wow, thanks for that

Interesting stuff, though I am always skeptical of self-reports.

My experience was general weakness and shortness of breath, which went away within two weeks of quitting.

[emald]

68. I used statins for a few months but the pain I felt in my muscles

was b eyond belief. Tremendous pain, like someone had jackhammered my muscles. I decided to use oatmeal at breakfast and exercise to reduce the sticky crap in my tubes. Worked well. In just over a year I went from 324 to 215, a very large decrease according to my doctor. I simply bicycled on a stationary recumbent exercycle an hour a day and ate oatmeal every breakfast for a year. Worked for me and no drugs were required. Still working at it to. Screw the big pharma companies, they are in it for the profit only. Profit needs to be taken out of the medical field; caring for others health is just not a for profit thing.

[flvegan]

72. How sad that a certified nutritionist doesn't offer any advice

Rage against the machine all you can and want, sir, but not putting forth and offering your clinical knowledge is pathetic.

But then, there IS a book to sell, I believe.

IMO, if you have expertise in this area, you should give it away. It's worth more than what can be paid for it.