Should a professional body, however eminent, be allowed to keep information about the safety of products they are supplying to public hidden so no one else can run tests on them?
That is the question raised by HealthInsightUK’s finding that a large and respected organisation whose job it is to analyses the findings of statin trials – The Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration in Oxford – has an agreement to keep secret much of the information contained in its huge database which holds results from 27 trials of these drugs, nearly each of which was run by a drug company.
Questions about the secrecy of the CTT have been put in the spotlight following the recent recommendation by NICE to change the guidelines on statins. If the proposals are accepted, millions more healthy people in the UK who have no sign of heart disease will be prescribed these drugs. A key part of the evidence supporting this proposal was a study by CTT published in the Lancet in 2012.
HealthInsightUK has also established that the CTT do not hold data on the side-effects of statins. A spokesman confirmed that they base their estimate of risk on the published results of trials conducted by the drug companies. He dismissed claims that side-effects such as muscle pain and depression were wide spread, saying they were only “hypotheses”.
Denied access to data
This could explain why the CTT has regularly reported a much lower rate of side-effects than trials run by independent researchers. Knowing the true rate of side-effects is particularly important with statins because many patients have to take them for one to benefit. If the estimate of side effects is too low the benefits may not outweigh the risks.
Concern about the secrecy surrounding CTT’s data is not new. Dr Jim Wright editor of the highly respected and independent journal Canadian Therapeutics Initiative which analyses drug studies has described how several years ago he had tried and failed to get access to statin data held by CTT.
“They had agreed someone from my team could have access to their data, although the researcher would have to go to Oxford to see it. However after travelling 6000 miles, they were told that the data was not available.”
This is just an anecdote but many others have since reported the same thing. The latest concern about access to CTT data was triggered last year when the Cochrane Collaboration – famed for its rigorous assessment of the benefit of drugs and other treatments – produced a report saying that statins should be more widely used on people without heart disease. The report was heavily based on the CTT Lancet study. Was it actually possible to check their findings?
Everyone wanted the data
A number of senior researchers approached by HealthInsight have supported Dr Wright’s claim that the data held by CTT hasn’t been available. Professor Rita Redberg cardiologist and editor of the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, has stated in an email that: “CTT will not make their data available to any colleagues and other researchers who wish to study risks and benefits of statins. The CTT data is not accessible publicly.”
“I have not requested access to the CTT data,’ says Dr David H. Newman, Director of Clinical Research, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York.
‘However, I’m not aware of anyone who has gained access to these data, which speaks volumes since everyone has wanted it. For the science to be considered even potentially credible, another independent group will have to replicate their analysis.”
Professor Harriet Rosenberg of the Health and Society Program at York University in Toronto commented that: “many scholars have asked the CTT for data without success” in a formal reply to the Cochrane review last year.
The response by the CTT when such individual claims are made is to say that anyone with a well formulated proposal can get access to their data. But emails seen byHeathinsightUK throw doubt on that. They were exchanged between one of CTT’s top researchers Professor Colin Baigent and an Australian TV journalist researching a story about statins.
===============================================================
Read the complete article here.
Should Everyone Be Taking Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs?
Andreas Eenfeldt, MD.
Should everyone over 50 be treated with cholesterol-lowering drugs, regardless of whether they suffer from heart disease?
A new review of previous research shows that even people with no history of heart disease may slightly lower their risk for heart disease with preventative statin medication*.
All studies included in the review were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, that sell the drugs involved. It’s not controversial that this leads to positive effects being exaggerated and negative side effects being silenced.
When big money like this is at stake, pharmaceutical companies will use every trick in the book. One of the more obvious examples was when the gigantic JUPITER trial was prematurely terminated by AstraZeneca, just when the figures for their drug happened to look good.
The reduction in risk of heart disease in previously heart healthy individuals is hardly great. According to this review the chance of preventing a heart attack, or a similar event, by taking a drug for five years is 1.8 percent! Thus, there is a 98.2 percent likelihood that taking the drug for five years doesn’t protect against such health problems. The risk of troublesome side effects? Significantly greater than the chance of any benefit.
Note that a 1.8 precent chance of benefitting from five years of medication only applies if we blindly trust the pharmaceutical companies’ own studies. Most likely the results are exaggerated, so the chance of a benefit would likely be significantly less than 1.8 percent.
1+2+3+=
Most people probably wouldn’t accept the risk of side effects and long-term medication if told about the 98 percent (at least) risk of having done so in vain.
Would you?
===================================================================
Read the complete article here.
Sometimes you read a thing quickly, and then you have to read it again to make sure you read it right. Yesterday I was sent a copy of a ‘Patient page’ from the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). The page was from the April 3rd 2013 edition, pp 1419. It is stamped ‘JAMA – copy for your patients’. JAMA is one of the highest impact medical journals in the world.
This patient page states that:
‘One question involves disagreement about whether the statin side effects are merely uncomfortable or actually pose significant health risks. The other question is whether reducing bad cholesterol will actually help you live longer than you otherwise would. Some of this disagreement involves how physicians interpret the results of studies. However, a 2010 analysis combined the results of 11 studies and found that taking statins did not lower the death rate for people who did not have heart disease. If your physician recommends taking a statin, talk to him or her about the risks and benefits for your individual situation.’
For many years I have been ridiculed by colleagues for saying that, if you do not already have established heart disease, statins do not increase your life expectancy. By which I mean that they don’t’ actually work. ‘Don’t be ridiculous.’ Is what they exclaim to me. I usually reply that the evidence is pretty clear, and always has been. But I know that they don’t believe me.
Recently, without warning, one of the most influential medical journals in the world turned round and confirmed it. JAMA has stated in black and white that if you do not have established heart disease e.g. angina, previous heart attack, you will not live any longer if you take a statin.
Frankly, I think JAMA will now come under ever increasing bombardment from the ‘experts’ and will end up retracting this statement. In fact, I am willing to bet that they will – having now seen some of the outraged letters sent in. However from time to time the truth – like a small grass shoot growing through a concrete pavement – will emerge. As it did in April.
(I should add, at this point, that around 95% of people who take statins do not have established heart disease.)
However, wrapped up in this issue, is an inevitable argument. I know this argument well, for I have heard it a thousand times. ‘Ah, but it is not just death we are talking about here…. statins prevent non-fatal heart attacks and non-fatal strokes and suchlike. These are terrible things that damage the quality of your life.Medicine is not only about getting people to live longer, it is also about quality of life. Preventing a non-fatal stroke is extremely important, and statins do this.’ In other words, statins don’t make you live longer, but they do provide other, very significant benefits, by preventing Serious Adverse Events (SEAs).
This is a good argument. At least it would be if it were true. However, we have no idea about whether it is true or not. For the simple reasons that the data on SEAs is almost entirely hidden from view. Data on SEAs are considered so commercially sensitive that, in most jurisdictions, pharmaceutical companies won’t release them (and don’t have to release them), even if you ask nicely*.
Before moving onto that issue, I know that I need to explain I am talking about here in a little more detail, and clear up a bit of confusion with the nomenclature. For in the area of adverse events/effects, we have two terms that sound very similar, but mean very different things.
Firstly, there are drug related adverse effects. These are often called ‘side-effects’. But side effects can be good, or bad. For example Viagra was developed as an angina drug but it was found to create enhanced erections, as a side-effect. [You can decide if this is a beneficial side-effect or not]. Viagra also causes headaches. This is also a side-effect, but it would be more accurate to call it a drug related adverse effect.
Drug related adverse effects = negative/unpleasant ‘side-effects’ of a drug
A Serious Adverse Event (SEA) may sound similar to a drug related adverse effect, but it means something completely different. An SEA is a significantly bad thing that a drug might prevent e.g. non-fatal heart attack. Or, it could be something that the drug causes e.g. rhabodmyolysis (muscle breakdown), followed by kidney failure. Which is something that is known to be caused by statins.
SEAs can therefore be good, or bad. Depending on whether they are caused by, or prevented by, the drug. This means that there is absolutely no point in presenting figures on SEAs prevented by statins, without knowing if they caused an equal number of SEAs at the same time.
Completely unsurprisingly, whilst we are bombarded with statistics about how many SEAs are prevented by statins, we have very little idea about how many SEAs are caused by statins. Because in most countries, these data are not released. Its’ commercially sensitive dontcha know. [Damned right it’s commercially sensitive. If the public saw these data they would stop taking half their meds overnight.]
There have, however, been glimpses of SEAs with statins – when the data escaped from the clutches of the pharmaceutical companies. When the Cochrane collaboration fist looked at primary prevention studies, two of the five major studies did report ‘negative’ SEAs (although they did not say what the SEAs were, and still won’t). In these two trials AFCPAS and PROSPER, the SEAs were:
Statin arm: 44.2%Placebo arm: 43.9%
‘In the 2 trials where serious adverse events are reported, the 1.8% absolute reduction in myocardial infarction and stroke should be reflected by a similar absolute reduction in total serious adverse events; myocardial infarction and stroke are, by definition, serious adverse events. However, this is not the case; serious adverse events are similar in the statin group, 44.2%, and the control group, 43.9% This is consistent with the possibility that unrecognized serious adverse events are increased by statin therapy and that the magnitude of the increase is similar to the magnitude of the reduction in cardiovascular serious adverse events in these populations.’ (read more…)
In short there were slightly more SEAs in those taking statins than in those taking placebo. Slightly more harm than good.
So what do we now know? We know that if you do not have established heart disease, and you take a statin, you will:
not live any longer
not avoid major Serious Adverse Events
Which means that there is no possible improvement in either the quality, or the quantity, of life. On the other hand there is a good chance that you will suffer from significant adverse effects e.g. muscle pain, joint pain, impotence, stomach upset, rashes etc. etc. On balance therefore we can state that, if you do not have established heart disease, statins provide no benefits on any important outcome. All they can do is to give you adverse effects. ‘Oh boy, that sounds like a great deal doc. Can’t wait, can’t wait, can I get them now?’
*Please see petition that I just put up on my blog. This petition arrived coincidentally as I was writing this article. At present the European Medicines Agency (EMA), will provide SEA data if requested (with huge persistence). The UK authorities will not release these data, nor will the FDA in the states. A recent move by the pharmaceutical industry is now threatening that the EMA will be forced to hide SEAs. ‘Six months ago two US pharmaceutical companies AbbVie and InterMune took a legal action against EMA that has closed down access to all trial data for all drugs for all doctors and researchers anywhere in the world.’
Closed down all access to all trial data for all drugs for all doctors and researchers anywhere in the world.
That statement is worth repeating. Be afraid, be very afraid indeed. And sign the petition please. Oh, and write to your MEP, as I am now doing.
==================================================================
Read the complete article here.
I saw a patient recently who suffered from mental symptoms (poor memory and inability to find his words) quite soon after commencing statins, and his symptoms resolved quite soon after discontinuing the drugs. He might be imagining his issues or suffering from a ‘nocebo’ response (the opposite of a placebo response), but he and I reckon the most likely thing is that his brain has suffered from the side effects of statins.
When side effects appear to come on quickly after taking a drug, and resolve quite quickly on stopping it, it’s generally easy to work out what’s likely to be going on. However, the side effects of drugs can take some time to manifest, and this is certainly true for statins. A recent piece of research makes the point that some statin side effects can take even years to become apparent. The authors of this study make the point that for a given number of people taking statins, the total number of people suffering from side effects creeps gradually upwards.
I was interested to read about a recent review in which the frequency of adverse effects from statins was assessed over time [1]. The authors of this study make the point that when side effects occur, these can often come on quite soon after therapy is commenced (just as in the man referred to above). However, they also point out that side effects can be delayed for several years too. The relatively short duration of studies leads the authors to conclude that it is: “…impossible to determine with certainty the frequency of long-term side effects with these drugs.”
In reality, though, there’s a pretty good chance those who start statins will not be taking them in the long term. That’s because about three-quarters of people who start statins promptly stop them within a year. And last year, a poll conducted by drug company Eli Lilly discovered that the most common reason for people discontinuing their statin was side-effects. In fact, 62 per cent of people cited this as the reason. By my reckoning, it seems that getting on for half of people will stop their statin within a year of starting because of side effects.
Despite this sort of data, we are often assured that the side-effects from statins are ‘rare’. In fact, if you look at the studies in which people are treated with statins, this generally appears to hold true. However, there’s a number of ways in which the design of studies can downplay the risk of side effects. Here’s a few:
1. short duration and ‘early termination’ of studies (this also tends to exaggerate benefits)
2. screening out those susceptible to side effects before the study begins
3. logging side effects only if there’s extreme deviation from normal biochemistry (some studies only log side effects once biochemical markers are several times the upper limit of normal)
4. not looking for certain side effects in the first place
These devices help explain the disparity between what studies show in terms of statin side effects, and our apparent experience in the real world. My own experience (and that of many doctors I speak too) tells me that statin side effects are much more common than official statistics would have us believe.
References: 1. Huddy K, et al. Do the frequencies of adverse events increase, decrease, or stay the same with long-term use of statins? Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2013;15(2):301
Statins are the most popular drugs in history. Drug companies made $26 billion selling statins alone in 2008. 25 million Americans take them, and the number is growing each year.
One reason why statins are the best-selling drug category by far is that 92% of people taking them are healthy. The FDA has approved the prescription of statins to people at low risk for heart disease and stroke, who don’t even have high cholesterol. Two years ago the American Academy of Pediatricians recommended that statins be prescribed for kids as young as eight years old.
With sales statistics like this, you’d think statins are wonder drugs. But when you look closely at the research, a different story emerges. Statins have never been shown to be effective for women of any age, men over 65, or men without pre-existing heart disease. Early studies did suggest that statins are effective for men under 65 with pre-existing heart disease, but later, more rigorous clinical trials has not confirmed this benefit.
In addition, statins have been shown to have serious side effects and complications in up to 30% of people who take them. Studies have also shown that the majority of these adverse events go unreported, because doctors are largely unaware of the risks of statins.
Watch the two videos below to learn the whole story. Or, you can read this article for a concise summary of the evidence.
Statin research summary: lists the eight statin studies performed in 2008 – 2009, including the drugs and populations studied and the results. If you’re currently taking a statin, you might consider printing this out and taking it to your doctor as a springboard for a conversation about whether statins are right for you.
References
ENHANCE KasteleinJJ, AkdimF, StroesES, for ENHANCE investigators. Simvastatin with or without ezetimibe in familial hypercholesterolemia. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1431-43 CASHMERE O’Riordan M. CASHMERE: no IMT effect with atorvastatin over 12 months. (link) ACHIEVE O’Riordan M. ACHIEVE stopped: IMT study with Niacin/Laropiprant halted by Merck & Co. (link) SEAS Rossebø AB, Pedersen TR, Boman K, et al. Intensive lipid lowering with simvastatin and ezetimibe in aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med 2008;359:1343-56 GISSI-HF GISSI-HF Investigators, Tavazzi L, Maggioni AP, Marchioli R, et al. Effect of rosuvastatin in patients with chronic heart failure (the GISSI-HF trial): a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2008;372:1231-9 CORONA Kjekshus J, Apetrei E, Barrios V, et al. Rosuvastatin in older patients with systolic heart failure. N Engl J Med 2007;357:2248-61 AURORA Fellström BC, Jardine AG, Schmieder ME, et al for the AURORA study group. Rosuvastatin and cardiovascular events in patients undergoing hemodialysis. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1395-407 JUPITER Ridker PM, Danielson E, Fonseca FA, et al, for the JUPITER Study Group. Rosuvastatin to prevent vascular events in men and women with elevated C-Reactive protein. N Engl J Med 2008;359:2195-207
Muscular problems are the major group of side-effects during statin treatment. They are known to occur much more frequently during and after exercise.
Methods and results
For the last 8 years we have monitored 22 professional athletes in whom, because of familial hypercholesterolaemia, treatment with different statins was attempted. Only six out of the 22 finally tolerated at least one member of this family of drugs. In three of these six the first statin prescribed allowed training performance without any limitation. Changing the drug demonstrated that only two tolerated all the four or five statins examined (atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, simvastatin). Cerivastatin was not among the statins prescribed.
Conclusions
These findings indicate that in top sports performers only about 20% tolerate statin treatment without side-effects. Clinical decision making as to lipid lowering therapy thus becomes a critical issue in this small subgroup of patients.
by Dr. Mercola Spending on cholesterol-lowering drugs like statins increased by $160 million in 2010, for a total spending of nearly $19 billion in the U.S., the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics reported in their Use of Medicines in the United States: Review of 2010.
In all, more than 255 million prescriptions were dispensed for these drugs in 2010, making them the most commonly prescribed type of medication in the United States.
Unfortunately, this excessive use is an artifact of a medical system that regards prescribing pills to lower cholesterol as a valid way to protect one’s heart health — even though the low “target” cholesterol levels have not been proven to be healthy … and cholesterol is actually NOT the underlying culprit in heart disease.
Worse still, these drugs, which are clearly not necessary for the vast majority of people who take them, are proven to cause serious and significant side effects, including, as new research shows, definite nerve damage.
Are You Taking Drugs You Don’t Need … and Getting Nerve Damage as a Result?
It must be understood that any time you take a drug there is a risk of side effects.
Oftentimes, these risks are not fully understood, especially when multiple drugs enter the equation, and appear only after a drug has already been taken by millions of people.
Even once a drug has been FDA-approved, you are depending on a limited number of clinical trials to dictate a drug’s safety … but it’s impossible to predict how a drug will react when introduced into your system, in a real-world setting.
Not to mention, the accuracy of medical research is dubious at best.
In many ways, any time you take a drug YOU are the guinea pig, and unforeseen side effects are the rule, rather than the exception. In terms of statin drugs, side effects are already clearly apparent; at GreenMedInfo.com you can see 304 conditions that may be associated with the use of these drugs, and this is likely only the tip of the iceberg. Among one of the more well-known risks is harm to your muscles and peripheral nervous system with long-term use. Indeed, new research on 42 patients confirmed that: ” … long-term treatment with statins caused a clinically silent but still definite damage to peripheral nerves when the treatment lasts longer than 2 years.”
If You Take Statins for Two Years or More, Nerve Damage Appears to be the Rule
What does it mean when you sustain damage to peripheral nerves? As reported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS): “Symptoms are related to the type of affected nerve and may be seen over a period of days, weeks, or years. Muscle weakness is the most common symptom of motor nerve damage. Other symptoms may include painful cramps and fasciculations (uncontrolled muscle twitching visible under the skin), muscle loss, bone degeneration, and changes in the skin, hair, and nails.”
At GreenMedInfo.com you can see 88 studies on statin-induced neurotoxicity (nerve damage), with12 studies further statin drugs directly to neuropathy, including chronic peripheral neuropathy. As explained by NINDS: “Peripheral neuropathy describes damage to the peripheral nervous system, the vast communications network that transmits information from the brain and spinal cord (the central nervous system) to every other part of the body. Peripheral nerves also send sensory information back to the brain and spinal cord, such as a message that the feet are cold or a finger is burned. Damage to the peripheral nervous system interferes with these vital connections. Like static on a telephone line, peripheral neuropathy distorts and sometimes interrupts messages between the brain and the rest of the body. Because every peripheral nerve has a highly specialized function in a specific part of the body, a wide array of symptoms can occur when nerves are damaged. Some people may experience temporary numbness, tingling, and pricking sensations (paresthesia), sensitivity to touch, or muscle weakness. Others may suffer more extreme symptoms, including burning pain (especially at night), muscle wasting, paralysis, or organ or gland dysfunction. People may become unable to digest food easily, maintain safe levels of blood pressure, sweat normally, or experience normal sexual function. In the most extreme cases, breathing may become difficult or organ failure may occur. Some forms of neuropathy involve damage to only one nerve and are called mononeuropathies. More often though, multiple nerves affecting all limbs are affected-called polyneuropathy.”
One of the more disturbing implications of this finding is that since statins damage the peripheral nerves, it is also highly likely that they damage the central nervous system (which includes the brain), as well. One study published in the journal Pharmacology in 2009, found statin-induced cognitive impairment to be a common occurrence, with 90% reporting improvement after drug discontinuation. There are, in fact, at least 12 studies linking memory problems with statin drug use in the biomedical literature, indicating just how widespread and serious a side effect statin-induced neurological damage really is.
Lower Your Cholesterol and Increase Your Diabetes Risk by Nearly 50%
As mentioned, neurological damage is only one potential risk of statins. They are also being increasingly associated with increased risk of developing diabetes.
Most recently, a study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine revealed statins increase the risk of diabetes for postmenopausal women by 48 percent! Statins appear to provoke diabetes through a few different mechanisms, the primary one being by increasing your insulin levels, which can be extremely harmful to your health. Chronically elevated insulin levels cause inflammation in your body, which is the hallmark of most chronic disease. In fact, elevated insulin levels lead to heart disease, which, ironically, prevention of is the primary reason for taking a statin drug in the first place!
As written on GreenMedInfo: “The profound irony here is that most of the morbidity and mortality associated with diabetes is due to cardiovascular complications. High blood sugar and its oxidation (glycation) contribute to damage to the blood vessels, particularly the arteries, resulting in endothelial dysfunction and associated neuropathies due to lack of blood flow to the nerves. Statin drugs, which are purported to reduce cardiovascular disease risk through lipid suppression, insofar as they contribute to insulin resistance, elevated blood sugar, and full-blown diabetes, are not only diabetogenic but cardiotoxic, as well.”
A separate meta-analysis has also confirmed that statin drugs are indeed associated with increased risk of developing diabetes. The researchers evaluated five different clinical trials that together examined more than 32,000 people. They found that the higher the dosage of statin drugs being taken, the greater the diabetes risk. The “number needed to harm” for intensive-dose statin therapy was 498 for new-onset diabetes — that’s the number of people who need to take the drug in order for one person to develop diabetes.
In even simpler terms, one out of every 498 people who are on a high-dose statin regimen will develop diabetes. (The lower the “number needed to harm,” the greater the risk factor is. As a side note, the “number needed to treat” per year for intensive-dose statins was 155 for cardiovascular events. This means that 155 people have to take the drug in order to prevent one person from having a cardiovascular event.)
The following scientific reviews also reached the conclusion that statin use is associated with increased incidence of new-onset diabetes:
A 2010 meta-analysis of 13 statin trials, consisting of 91,140 participants, found that statin therapy was associated with a 9 percent increased risk for incident diabetes. Here, the number needed to harm was 255 over four years, meaning for every 255 people on the drug, one developed diabetes as a result of the drug in that period of time.
In a 2009 study, statin use was associated with a rise of fasting plasma glucose in patients with and without diabetes, independently of other factors such as age, and use of aspirin or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. The study included data from more than 345,400 patients over a period of two years. On average, statins increased fasting plasma glucose in non-diabetic statin users by 7 mg/dL, and in diabetics, statins increased glucose levels by 39 mg/dL.
Side Effects Often Don’t Show Up Immediately …
Oftentimes statins do not have any immediate side effects, and they are quite effective at lowering cholesterol levels by 50 points or more. This makes it appear as though they’re benefiting your health, and health problems that develop later on are frequently misinterpreted as brand new, separate health problems.
Again, the vast majority of people do not need statin drugs, and if you are one of them, taking them is only going to expose you to serious, unnecessary risks!
If your physician is urging you to check your total cholesterol, please be aware that this test will tell you virtually nothing about your risk of heart disease, unless it is 330 or higher. HDL percentage is a far more potent indicator for heart disease risk. Here are the two ratios you should pay attention to:
HDL/Total Cholesterol Ratio: Should ideally be above 24 percent. If below 10 percent, you have a significantly elevated risk for heart disease.
Triglyceride/HDL Ratio: Should be below 2.
To understand why most people don’t need a statin drug, you first need to realize that cholesterol is NOT the cause of heart disease. Your body NEEDS cholesterol — it is important in the production of cell membranes, hormones, vitamin D and bile acids that help you to digest fat. Cholesterol also helps your brain form memories and is vital to your neurological function. For more information about cholesterol, and why conventional advice to reduce your cholesterol to ridiculously low levels is foolhardy, please listen to this interview with Dr. Stephanie Seneff.
Urgent Information: If You Take Statins You Need CoQ10
It’s extremely important to understand that taking a statin drug without also taking CoQ10 puts your health in serious jeopardy. Unfortunately, this describes the majority of people who take them in the United States.
CoQ10 is a cofactor (co-enzyme) that is essential for the creation of ATP molecules, primarily in your mitochondria, which you need for cellular energy production. Organs such as your heart have higher energy requirements, and therefore require more CoQ10 to function properly (cardiac muscle cells have up to 200 times more mitochondria, and hence 200 times higher CoQ10 requirements, than skeletal muscle). Statins deplete your body of CoQ10, which can have devastating results.
As your body gets more and more depleted of CoQ10, you may suffer from fatigue, muscle weakness and soreness, and eventually heart failure. Interestingly, heart failure, not heart attacks, is now the leading cause of death due to cardiovascular diseases. Coenzyme Q10 is also very important in the process of neutralizing free radicals. So when your CoQ10 is depleted, you enter a vicious cycle of increased free radicals, loss of cellular energy, and damaged mitochondrial DNA.
If you decide to take a CoQ10 supplement and are over the age of 40, it’s important to choose the “reduced” version, called ubiquinol. The reduced form is electron-rich and therefore can donate electrons to quench free radicals, i.e. function as an antioxidant, and is much more absorbable, as nutrients must donate electrons in order to pass through membrane of cells. In other words, ubiquinol is a FAR more effective form — I personally take 200 mg a day since it has such far-ranging benefits, including compelling studies suggesting improvement in lifespan.
How to Optimize (Not Necessarily Lower) Your Cholesterol Without Drugs
Seventy-five percent of your cholesterol is produced by your liver, which is influenced by your insulin levels. Therefore, if you optimize your insulin level, you will automatically optimize your cholesterol! By modifying your diet and lifestyle in the following ways, you can safely modify your cholesterol without risking your health by taking statin drugs:
Reduce, with the plan of eliminating, grains and sugars in your diet, replacing them with mostly whole, fresh vegetable carbs. Also try to consume a good portion of your food raw.
The average American consumes 50% of their diet as carbs. Most would benefit by lowering their carb intake to 25% and replacing those carbs with high quality fats.
Other heart-healthy foods include olive oil, palm and coconut oil, organic raw dairy products and eggs, avocados, raw nuts and seeds, and organic grass-fed meats, as described in my nutrition plan.
I had a patient in my practice this week who was seeking advice about the prevention of heart disease. He’d been on a statin for several years, and then started to get what he felt might be side-effects.
He stopped the statin and the side-effects went away. As he rightly pointed out, the relief from his symptoms might have been entirely coincidental and nothing to do with the fact that he stopped his statin medication. However, he was disinclined to restart. My patient told me that he expects his doctor to be up in arms about this. He has, apparently, an unbridled enthusiasm for statins and believes ‘everyone should be taking them’.
As I pointed out to my patient, the reality is the vast majority of people who take statins are destined not to benefit from them. And then we have the problem, of course, of toxicity and side effects.
Not to mention the cost. What is it then, that causes doctors to be so enthusiastic about drugs that, on balance, have limited benefits and can cause serious harm?
Well, some of this has to do with the fact that doctors make money from cholesterol reduction. In private medicine, the cholesterol concept suddenly makes ‘patients’ out of essentially healthy people.
Here in the UK, national health general practitioners are remunerated for their cholesterol-reducing efforts with patients.
But a major part of the problem too, I think, has to do with how the ‘benefits’ of statins and other drugs are communicated to doctors by drug companies. As I’ve pointed out before, the emphasis is usually on reductions in the ‘relative risk’ of, say, heart disease. But if the overall risk is small, the real reduction in risk (known as the ‘absolute risk’ reduction) becomes vanishingly small.
Another problem is that data can be presented to doctors that gives a misleading account of a drug’s effects for the unwary. I spotted a prime example of this recently in the on-line version of the GP magazine Pulse here.
One problem: the study that purportedly shows that ezetimibe saves lives actually does nothing of the sort. The study is ‘epidemiological’ in nature, and can only tell us that ezetimibe is associated with a reduced risk of death. You see, individuals who take ezetimibe may have a reduced risk of death that has nothing to do with ezetimibe. Maybe, for example, they’re particularly health conscious and in addition to pressing their doctors for more and stronger medication, they’re also active and eat good diets.
The fact that the study in question here is epidemiological means that the statement that ‘A cholesterol-lowering drug…has been shown to reduce mortality…’ is simply wrong and misleading.
To know if ezetimibe really does save lives, we need clinical ‘intervention’ studies. We now have several of these. And here’s what you and your doctor need to know: Not one of them has shown that ezetimibe benefits health or health markers. Some of the studies actually suggest the ezetimibe does more harm than good.
The Pulse piece ends with the following paragraph: ‘Dr Peter Fellowes, a GP in Lydney, Gloucestershire and a member of the GPC clinical and prescribing subcommittee, said: ‘I don't think it should be blacklisted. It is very useful in patients who are statin intolerant. The arguments against ezetimibe and the more potent statins are entirely cost based as I see it, and that is a sorry state of affairs.'’
I’ll tell you what’s a ‘sorry state of affairs’: When a doctor is advocating the use of an expensive and potentially toxic drug that has no proven benefits on health. And it doesn’t help that a magazine for GPs presents information on cholesterol-reducing drugs in a misleading and utterly imbalanced way, either.
To your good health, Dr. John Briffa for The Cholesterol truth
==============================================================
Read the full article here.
"While inflammation may be involved in either one or both I would not recommend statins as therapy. The supposed benefit provided by statins in reduction of non-fatal heart attacks by a few percentage points is no greater than that achieved with other anti-platelet and/or anti-inflammatory drugs. Therefore I would never subject a patient to the potentially severe side effects of statins in order to achieve a questionable benefit that can be provided by drugs of much lower risk." Dr. Ernest N. Curtis, M.D.
===============================================
From: The Cholesterol Delusion Part 2
Doctors in Denial about Patients' Side Effects from Prescription Drugs by David Gutierrez (NaturalNews)
Doctors are overwhelmingly inclined to dismiss patients' complaints about potential side-effects from cholesterol-reducing statins and rarely report those complaints to the FDA, according to a survey conducted by researchers from the University of California at San Diego and published in the peer-reviewed journal Drug Safety.
The study suggests that doctors have a tendency to attribute patients' complaints to age or other factors unrelated to prescription drugs, and that this problem may extend to drugs other than statins.
"Person after person spontaneously [told] us that their doctors told them that symptoms like muscle pain couldn't have come from the drug," said lead researcher Beatrice Golomb. "We were surprised at how prevalent that experience was.
"The researchers solicited survey respondents through advertisements and over the Internet, including on web sites where patients had complained about side effects from the drugs. Most of the respondents lived in the United States, and the average age was in the early 60s. The majority of respondents reported having complained to their doctors about problems that arose after they began the drugs, particularly memory and attention problems or tingling and numbness in the extremities. But few doctors made a connection between these complaints and the drugs, even when the symptoms were documented side effects.
"Overwhelmingly, it was the patient that initiated that conversation," Golomb said. Doctors instead tended to blame the symptoms on aging or even to dismiss them as insignificant or imaginary.
As much as 30 percent of patients taking statins may experience muscle pain or other side effects. But these numbers may be on the low end if doctors are not reporting side effects when they occur.
The FDA relies primarily on doctors to fill out "adverse event reports" to help monitor drugs after they have hit the market. Patients can also file reports at http://www.FDA.gov/medwatch but few people are aware of this program. In contrast, other countries such as New Zealand rely heavily on data from patients to continue monitoring drugs.
According to Golomb, one-fifth of all FDA-approved drugs will eventually be withdrawn from the market or given black-box warnings due to severe side effects.
Statins are the most popular drugs in history. Drug companies made $26 billion selling statins alone in 2008. 25 million Americans take them, and the number is growing each year.