Statins: They Just Trade One Set Of Risk Factors For Another
Terrific post by Dr. Michael Eades on statins. You should go to his site and read the whole thing, but here's an essential excerpt:
Statins do not decrease all-cause mortality in the vast majority of people. Long-term studies have never been able to demonstrate that women of any age or with any degree of heart disease live longer by taking statins. The same long-term studies show that men over the age of 65 live no longer by taking statins. Men under 65 who have never had heart disease - and were talking actual heart disease here, not just an elevated cholesterol level - gain no longevity benefit from taking statins. The only small group of people who have been shown to benefit from statins are men under 65 who have had a heart attack. But unfortunately that benefit is small.Multiple studies have shown that taking statins does reduce both the incidence and severity of heart attacks. But these same studies don't show any increase in longevity for those taking statins (other than the small benefit for men under 65 who have had heart attacks). Why. Statins simply trade one risk for another. Take them and you reduce the risk of a heart attack but increase your risk for cancer, diabetes, kidney failure, and side effects related to the drugs themselves. Many people die each year from statin-induced side effects. Despite what anyone may tell you, statins are not benign drugs.
I stopped taking statins a couple years ago at age 41. They started me on them because 3 years before that my cholesterol was higher than they liked and I had had an angina attack. They did an angiogram at the time as well and found my main arteries to be 100% clear. I was always tired. My liver enzyme levels rose, my cholesterol number didn't drop. I developed psoriasis (probably unrelated).
I feel better, I have more energy and I have lost 25 pounds in the last 2 years. My cholesterol has dropped 46 points.
KLC at October 31, 2013 1:24 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/10/31/statins_they_ju.html#comment-4020452">comment from KLCKLC, cholesterol number is not really relevant. In fact, understanding a few things about cholesterol from my reading, I like my total number to be high. It seems protective. What seems to matter is LDL particle size and your triglycerides number. But check Mike Eades' blog -- http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/ -- for example. Peter Attia would be another good resource. Same with Tom D. Naughton, I would imagine.
Amy Alkon
at October 31, 2013 1:45 PM
The medical establishment started throwing drugs at everything without really knowing if there was any benefit at all to anyone, but there was a lot of money in it for the drug companies.
Until they have a large pool of people who are neither smokers or obese, who in addition eat a diet and live a lifestyle that provides them with necessary levels of micronutrients, such as iodine, and vitamin D, they will never get good numbers for what any drug does or doesn't do.
Best to steer clear of most of them except in cases where it is absolutely necessary for your health and survival.
I have had three doctors try and put me on blood pressure medication, when all I really needed was anti anxiety medication, and to lay off the second cup of caffeinated coffee or tea in the morning.
Isab at October 31, 2013 3:23 PM
The docs wanted me taking Lipitor at the time I had bypass surgery-- if they ever checked my cholesterol, I never saw the specs. It gave me bad insomnia, and I had to stop it.
jefe at October 31, 2013 3:42 PM
Slightly off topic...
Today I was reading on the company's internal website -- disabilities group -- a profile where the main topic was dyslexia and someone noted that it was diagnosed a lot some time ago (70s, early 80s?) but then it switch to ADD, ADHD, etc. A number of individuals in the comments section noted that there was no drug for dyslexia but there was for these other ones -- and if someone has dyslexia they are more likely to have one of these others so treating one of these others will likely improve the functioning of the sufferer.
The Former Banker at October 31, 2013 5:33 PM
Good point Amy. I did have my cholesterol tested. I have fluffy, happy, big LDL, not clumpy, sticky, small LDL.
KLC at November 1, 2013 1:11 PM
test
Sorry
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 26, 2013 11:30 PM
test
Sorry againCrid [CridComment at gmail] at November 26, 2013 11:30 PM
Leave a comment