Confirmed Again: Statin Drugs Accelerate Cardiovascular Disease - Mercola

Confirmed Again: Statin Drugs Accelerate Cardiovascular Disease

October 15 2012

Download Interview Transcript

Visit the Mercola Video Library

By Dr. Mercola

Statins are the world's most-prescribed class of medications. A staggering one in four Americans over the age of 45 now take cholesterol-lowering drugs such as Pravachol, Mevacor, Lipitor, Zocor, Crestor, and others. A majority of them are taking these drugs for primary prevention of heart attacks and strokes.

However, mounting research suggests this could be a critical mistake.

Most recently, two separate studies have concluded that progression of coronary artery calcification, which is the hallmark of potentially lethal heart disease, is INCREASED with statin drug use.

Statins Increase Prevalence of Coronary Calcification by More than 50 Percent!

A new study in the journal Atherosclerosis¹ shows that statin use is associated with a 52 percent increased prevalence and extent of calcified coronary plaque compared to non-users. None of the participants in the study – 6,673 in all – had any known coronary artery disease at the time of undergoing coronary CT angiography (CCTA) – a non-invasive method that allows you to see coronary atherosclerotic features, including plaque composition.

Arterial plaque is a hallmark of cardiovascular disease and increases your risk of all-cause mortality, so clearly, anything that increases calcification and stiffening of your arteries is wisely avoided. And statins seem to fall into this category.

These disturbing findings come right on the heels of another study published in the journal Diabetes Care,² which discovered that type 2 diabetics with advanced atherosclerosis who are frequent statin users have significantly higher amounts of coronary artery calcification compared to less frequent users of the drug.

Furthermore, in a subgroup of participants who initially were not receiving statins, progression of both coronary artery calcification as well as abdominal aortic artery calcification was significantly increased when they began frequent statin use.
The authors concluded that:

"More frequent statin use is associated with accelerated coronary artery calcification in T2DM patients with advanced atherosclerosis."

So much for statins being the answer for diabetics... Diabetes is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, which is why many diabetics are prescribed a statin drug to reduce their risk. Alas, as these studies show, statins actually accelerate the progression of disease!

Making matters worse, statins have also been shown to significantly increase your risk of developing type 2 diabetes³ if you don't have it already. This is a risk everyone needs to be aware of. In one study, statins increased the risk of type 2 diabetics in postmenopausal women by 48 percent.⁴

Few People Really Benefit from a Statin Drug

Statins, I believe, are one of the most unnecessary drugs on the market. A small group of people with familial hypercholesterolemia, a genetic defect that causes cholesterol levels above 325-350, do seem to benefit from statins. However, in my clinical experience over more than two decades and tens of thousands of patients, I had a grand total of three patients that fell into this category as it's a relatively uncommon genetic problem.
The fact that one in four Americans over the age of 45 is now taking a statin drug as a form of "preventive medicine" does not bode well when you consider the massive increases in disease risk these drugs are now associated with. It's downright shocking that doctors are so slow to realize the potential damage inflicted on their patients for no reward at all.

The research that led to statins being heavily promoted as a form of primary prevention of heart disease and stroke was funded by AstraZeneca, the maker of Crestor. Since the release of that study in 2008, none of their claims have turned out to hold water in subsequent research. On the contrary, as the two featured studies show, they actually worsen cardiovascular disease progression.

The drugs also come with an avalanche of other potential side effects, which tend to be dose dependent.⁵ In fact, as of 2009 there were well over 900 studies proving their adverse effects, which run the gamut from muscle problems to increased cancer risk. One of the primary mechanisms of harm appears to be CoQ10 depletion. If you take statin drugs without supplementing with CoQ10 (or ideally, the reduced form, called ubiquinol, which is far more effective), your health is at serious risk.

GreenMedInfo.com has compiled over 300 documented adverse health effects associated with statins,⁶ some of the most common of which include:

Muscle problems, polyneuropathy (nerve damage in the hands and feet), and rhabdomyolysis (a serious degenerative muscle tissue condition)	Anemia
Acidosis	Sexual dysfunction
Immune depression	Cataracts
Pancreas or liver dysfunction, including a potential increase in liver enzymes	Memory loss

What You Need to Know About Cholesterol in Order to Understand the Dangers of Statins

Statin drugs work by preventing the formation of cholesterol and reduce LDL cholesterol, which is considered the "bad" cholesterol. There is no argument that these drugs can effectively lower your cholesterol levels. However, what has NOT been proven is that they significantly lower your risk of dying from heart disease. In no way, shape or form do they treat the underlying cause of your problem. They are nothing more than a toxic band-aid.

So just what makes statins so dangerous, and why are they not the answer for managing your cholesterol levels?

First you need to understand the biological workings of cholesterol. In fact, there is no such thing as "good" or "bad" cholesterol. Both HDL and LDL cholesterol perform vital functions in your body, which is why it's actually dangerous to bring your LDL levels down too low.

HDL (high density lipoprotein) and LDL (low density lipoprotein) are actually proteins that transport the cholesterol to and from your tissues. Cholesterol in turn is a precursor to your steroid hormones, bile acids, cell membrane walls and vitamin D. For example, cholesterol is essential for you to make testosterone or estrogen, cortisol, DHEA or pregnenolone, or a multitude of other steroid hormones that are necessary for health, without cholesterol. Even more importantly, your cells cannot regenerate their membranes without it.

The reason you have LDL to begin with is to transport the cholesterol to the tissues in order to make new cells and repair damaged ones. However, there are different sizes of LDL particles and it's the LDL particle size that is relevant, and statins do not modulate the size of the particles. Unfortunately, most people still don't know about that part, and very rarely, if ever, get tested for particle size. The particles are sticky, so very small LDL's can easily get stuck in different areas, and the build-up eventually causes inflammation and damage.

The only way to make sure your LDL particles are large enough to not cause damage is through your diet. In fact, it's one of the major functions of insulin.

Conveniently enough, a healthy diet is also the answer for type 2 diabetes, so by focusing on what you eat, you're treating both your diabetes and your cholesterol levels, and reducing your associated risk of heart disease. If you eat properly, which is really the only known good way to regulate LDL particle size, then it does the right thing; it takes the cholesterol to your tissues, the HDL takes it back to your liver, and no plaque is formed.

The Critical Importance of CoQ10

Again, if you're on a statin drug, you MUST take at least 100-200 mg of ubiquinol or CoQ10 per day. Ubiquinol is also beneficial for those not taking statins. If you're not on a statin drug, the amount of CoQ10 or ubiquinol you might need depends on how sick you are. The sicker you are, the more you need. As a general guideline if you're not ill, taking 50-100 mg per day would probably be sufficient. If you're over the age of 70, double that dose, or up to 200 mg per day. This is because your natural CoQ10 levels begin to drop after the age of 40, and by the age of 70, levels begin to precipitously drop.
Ideally, you'll want to split the dose up to two or three times a day, rather than taking it all at once, as this will result in higher blood levels. Other dosing guidelines include:

Hypertension 200 mg/day	World class athletes who need extra ATP turnover, 300-600 mg/day	Heart transplant or severe CHF, 300-600 mg/day in divided doses
Arrhythmia 200 mg/day	Typical athlete 100-300 mg/day	Mitral valve prolapse, a combination of 400 mg magnesium and 100-200 mg of CoQ10

How to Help Lower Your Cholesterol Naturally

There's really virtually NO reason to take statins and suffer the consequences from these ill-conceived drugs. If you truly want to normalize your cholesterol levels, following these simple lifestyle changes can help get you there:

• First, normalize your insulin levels by eliminating sugar (particularly fructose) and grains. A fasting insulin level is easy to draw and is very inexpensive. It should be below 3.
• Take a high-quality animal-based omega-3 supplement, such as krill oil.
• Eat a good portion of your food raw (ideally organic to avoid agricultural chemicals).
• Eat healthy, preferably raw, fats, such as:
  
  

  Olive oil	Coconut and coconut oil	Organic raw dairy products	Avocados
  Raw organic nuts	Seeds	Pastured eggs (raw, or lightly cooked with yolks intact)	Organic, grass-fed meats

• Regular exercise is another important tool. When you exercise you increase your circulation and the blood flow throughout your body. The components of your immune system are also better circulated, which means your immune system has a better chance of fighting an illness before it has the opportunity to spread.
• If you are a man, or a woman who is in menopause, you should check your iron levels, as elevated levels of iron can cause major oxidative damage in the blood vessels, heart and other organs. Excess iron is also one of the major contributing factors of cancer risk.
• Avoid smoking and drinking alcohol excessively.

=====================================================================
Read the complete article here.

Dairy: food of the Gods or neolithic agent of disease?

February 8, 2011 in Food & Nutrition by Chris Kresser

One of the most contentious issues in the Paleo nutrition community is whether dairy products are health-promoting or disease-causing.

On one end of the spectrum you have Loren Cordain and his group, who claim that dairy is not fit for human consumption for two reasons: 1) because it’s a neolithic food and not part of our evolutionary heritage, and 2) because of proposed physiological mechanisms by which dairy causes harm when consumed. On the other end of the spectrum you’ve got folks like Kurt Harris, Stephan Guyenet, Chris Masterjohn and the Weston A. Price Foundation who have pointed out the many health benefits of dairy and are generally in favor of its consumption.

My answer to the question of whether dairy is healthy are harmful is, in short: it depends. But before we get into the factors I think the answer depends on, I want to briefly address why I don’t take the evidence against dairy very seriously at this point.

Paleo re-enactment isn’t the goal

I agree with Dr. Kurt Harris on this one. We can look to the Paleo era to determine what was evolutionarily normal for humans, but it doesn’t follow that anything that falls outside of that norm is automatically harmful. The argument that we shouldn’t eat dairy now because we didn’t eat it 2 million years ago – without supporting clinical evidence – is not convincing.

There’s also the inconvenient (for the anti-dairy set) matter of people like the Masai and Loetschental Swiss that Weston A. Price studied, who were free of modern, degenerative disease despite receiving a large percentage of calories from dairy products.

Human evidence is more convincing than proposed mechanisms

Cordain’s group has published and reviewed several papers proposing various physiological mechanisms by which dairy causes harm. One recent example is a paper by Melnik called Milk Signalling in the Pathogenesis of Type 2 Diabetes. The theory presented is that milk consumption beyond the weaning period may overstimulate pancreatic beta-cells and promote beta-cell apoptosis. Since proliferation and apoptosis of beta-cells are hallmarks of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), it follows that milk consumption must contribute to T2DM.

Or does it?

If that theory were true, we might expect to see increased rates of T2DM in people consuming dairy products. But in fact we see just the opposite.

This study looked at serum levels of trans-palmitoleic acid, a fatty acid found in milk, cheese, yogurt and butter, and correlated them with risk factors for diabetes. Here’s what they found:

At baseline, higher circulating levels of trans-palmitoleic acid were associated with healthier levels of blood cholesterol, inflammatory markers, insulin levels, and insulin sensitivity, after adjustment for other risk factors. During follow-up, individuals with higher circulating levels of trans-palmitoleic acid had a much lower risk of developing diabetes, with about a 60% lower risk among participants in the highest quintile (fifth) of trans-palmitoleic acid levels, compared to individuals in the lowest quintile.

Translation: people with the highest trans-palmitoleate levels had 1/3 the risk of developing diabetes over the three years volunteers were followed. Not only that, after adjusting for confounding factors trans-palmitoleate levels were associated with smaller waist circumfrence, lower triglycerides, higher HDL and lower C-reactive protein.

Since trans-palmitoleic acid is a fatty acid found in the – you guessed it – fat of milk, the study also supports the idea that full-fat, whole dairy products are beneficial. This directly contradicts the low-fat hysteria we’ve been brainwashed with for so many years. But I digress.

Stephan Guyenet blogged about this study and re-wrote the authors’ conclusion in more straightforward terms:

Our findings support eating as much butter as possible****. Don’t waste your money on low-fat cream, either (half-n-half). We’re sorry that public health authorities have spent 30 years telling you to eat low-fat dairy when most studies are actually more consistent with the idea that dairy fat reduces the risk obesity and chronic disease.

Since this was an observational study, it doesn’t prove that dairy fat reduces the risk of T2DM. But it does suggest that the converse isn’t true.

Another study found that people with the highest levels of milk fat biomarkers, suggesting they consumed the most dairy fat, were actually at lower risk of heart attack; for women, the risk was reduced by 26 percent, while for men risk was 9 percent lower.

Another study showed that people who ate the most full-fat dairy had a 69% lower risk of cardiovascular death than those who ate the least.

Finally, this literature review of 10 studies found that milk drinking is associated with a small but significant reduction in heart disease and stroke risk.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. Which is this: evidence of what happens when people actually consume dairy products is a lot more convincing to me than proposed mechanisms of how dairy may effect humans.

The problem with isolating certain effects of a nutrient or food, and then making predictions based on those effects, is that we might miss some other quality about that food that negates the proposed effect. That’s a mouthful, so let me explain.

T. Colin Campbell is (in)famous for his research linking casein, a protein in dairy products, with cancer. He then made the huge and unsupportable leap to concluding that all animal proteins cause cancer and should be avoided. Most of you know the rest of that story.

However, what Campbell neglected to notice, or mention, is that whey, another protein found in dairy, has anti-cancer effects that completely cancel out the cancer-promoting effects of casein. Oops! This is why it’s so important to study whole foods, not just nutrients.

So let me finish this section by saying that I believe the weight of the evidence on dairy consumption suggests that it is not only not harmful, but quite beneficial.

When dairy may not be beneficial

However, as in most things, there are exceptions. Many of you reading this are probably sensitive to dairy and don’t tolerate it well. I certainly have patients that this is true for, and it’s not at all uncommon.

What’s the deal? Why does it seem to benefit some, but cause problems for others? In my opinion the answer boils down to the health of the gut. If someone has compromised intestinal permeability, or “leaky gut”, it’s more likely that their immune system will respond to potentially allergenic components in milk such as alpha- and beta-casein, casomorphin and butyrophillin.

This is especially true for people who are gluten intolerant, because it has been shown that milk proteins commonly cross-react with gluten. Put another way, if you react to gluten, it’s more likely that you’ll also react to milk.

Along these same lines, people with small intestine bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) – which is one of the major causes of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) – may be more likely to react to milk because the bacteria in their small intestine aggressively ferments lactose, the sugar in milk, causing gas, bloating and other G.I. symptoms.

Not all milk is created equal

Something that irritates me is that raw and pasteurized dairy is often discussed as if it’s the same thing. It’s not. Raw dairy is a whole food, and pasteurized dairy is a processed food.

While it’s true that some people (described above) react to the proteins in milk, most who are sensitive are reacting to the sugar in milk: lactose. The enzyme lactase must be present to hydrolyze lactose into its constituent compounds, glucose and galactose. Somewhere between 1% – 95% of people don’t produce lactase on their own, depending on race and ethnicity.

In a sign of nature’s wisdom, raw milk contains lactase, the enzyme needed to digest lactose. Pasteurization, however, kills lactase. So if you don’t produce your own lactase, you’ll have a hard time digesting pasteurized milk. But that doesn’t mean you can’t tolerate raw milk. I can’t tolerate pasteurized dairy myself, but I don’t seem to have any problems with raw dairy.

So the answer to the question I posed in the title of this article isn’t so simple, and it depends on several factors:

• The status of your gut barrier
• Whether or not you have SIBO or IBS
• Whether or not you’re gluten intolerant
• Whether you’re eating raw or pasteurized dairy

If you’re not sure where you stand with dairy, the best approach is to remove it for 30 days and then reintroduce and see what happens. Elimination/reintroduction is still the gold-standard for determining sensitivity to a particular food.

But if you tolerate it well, I haven’t seen any evidence in the literature that convinces me you shouldn’t be eating liberal amounts of full-fat dairy.
============================================================
Read Chris Kresser's full article here.