STATINS might not be worth suffering the side effects as it’s revealed millions are taking the controversial heart drug unnecessarily. What are statins and the new updated research and news explained.
Records of nearly 800,000 people aged 60 and others over 24 years showed the drugs prescribed to reduce risk of heart disease and strokes had no effect on life expectancy.
The only exception was for patients aged over 65 who were already at high risk of heart problems.
This is in spite of Government-backed guidance that the drugs, linked with side effects such as muscle pain, memory loss and diabetes, should be taken by up to three million people at low or medium risk.
The push for statins cannot be described as evidence based until the raw data surrounding its trials is made public, a group of leading experts have claimed.
The experts, including cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra and vascular surgeon Professor Sherif Sultan, said the claim that lowering cholesterol by 2mmol/L confers a benefit is based on ‘projections, not fact.’
The authors of the editorial in the Prescriber claims that ‘gross exaggeration’ of benefits and downplaying of side-effects has ‘likely led to the overmedication of millions of people across the world’.
It follows a meta-analysis in the Lancet that claimed that for every 10,000 people taking the equivalent of atorvastatin 40mg daily – lowering LDL cholesterol by about 2 mmol/L or 77 mg/dL- for five years, 500 would be spared a first ever CV event.
Caught up with Dr. Ted Naiman (yes, THE Ted Naiman) in Seattle today, and had a chat on some of the key elements that enable long-term health and longevity. Wondering about the most important blood tests? Ok we talked about those. The ideal diet for the human species? Yep – had a few words. The best diagnostic tests for cardiovascular disease? Yup. What about the most optimum (and yet easiest to do) exercise for your health? Hey, we covered that too – and then some !
Many of you may be aware of an article published in the Lancet on the eighth of September. ‘Interpretation of the evidence for the efficacy and safety of statin therapy.’It caused a media stir, and I was asked to appear on a few BBC programmes to argue against it – tricky in two minutes. At one stage I was cut off when I attempted to bring up the issue of financial conflicts of interest amongst the authors. The lead author of this paper was Professor Sir Rory Collins.
In truth, I have been awaiting this article for some time. In fact, I am going to reproduce here a blog I wrote on February 16, 2015, predicting exactly what was going to happen, who was going to be involved, and (in broad terms) exactly what they were going to say.
In my honest opinion, statins are unfit for human consumption. This is what they do. Find me a study showing statins have a significant absolute benefit, which has not been funded by the pharmaceutical industry and which declares full data (so that I can dissect it). Meanwhile – wonder why your body is making cholesterol right now if cholesterol is trying to kill you.
The media articles describe the Mediterranean Diet as “rich in fruit and vegetables, fish and olive oil.” This is the Fictitious Mediterranean Diet (FMD, as I call it). What people really eat in the Med is best summed up as “if it moves, they eat it + white things…” The true Mediterranean Diet is: meat (largely red, but everything available – lamb, beef, pork, rabbit, game, turkey etc); fish (especially oily); eggs; dairy products (cheese, cream, butter, milk); vegetable and fruits (but with meals – not as snacks – and more veg than fruit and seasonally consumed); dark chocolate and red wine.
The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) has banned orthopaedic surgeon Dr Gary Fettke from giving his patients nutrition advice. It has done so after a two-year “investigation” into Fettke’s qualifications.
Overnight they’ve turned him into “Australia’s Tim Noakes”.
Elements of this case mirror the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) case against Prof Tim Noakes, a world-renowned scientist who is also a medical doctor. There are big differences, but both the AHPRA and the HPCSA cases open up a medical Pandora’s box. Both go to the heart of what it means to be a real “doctor of medicine”, and who is best qualified to give advice on nutrition:
Both these cases boil down to a medical and dietetic battle for territory. In both cases, the regulatory agencies take up cudgels on one side of that battle. They support powerful vested interests propping up the territories.