Merged The Lies and Fears of Cholesterol and Statin PUSH/Our Brain Needs Cholesterol

[Planigale]

And YOU do some research on Cholesterol NOT being the culprit for heart disease. What came first instilling the cholesterol fear or the drug.

Actually it all started from the observation that those with familial (genetic) high cholesterol had very high rates of heart attacks including in children. There is really no doubt high cholesterol is associated with high risk of heart attacks and strokes. This observation then led to studies in the wider population.

Since cholesterol is made by the body diet has little effect on high cholesterol levels. Diet and exercise are obviously good, and can reduce risk of heart disease and stroke.

Statins are natural products extracted from fungi like penicillin was. There is a nice history of cholesterol and the discovery of statins here.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3108295/
An understanding of the history will make it clear that the problem of high cholesterol levels was recognised first then treatments were sought.

It is a completely different question as to the risk benefit ratio of taking statins, or any other preventative treatment. But it is clear from the history, drug companies did not create cholesterol as a risk factor. Cholesterol was recognised as a risk factor first then treatment was sought.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

From your link:

Cholesterol is essential for the functioning of all human organs, but it is nevertheless the cause of coronary heart disease.

Do you not see the problem with that statement?

 

[Lithrael]

I have got the impression (anecdotally) that we should be more careful than we often are with statins (which ones a person takes vs how well the individual tolerates it, how helpful it’s likely to be vs ‘you have cholesterol so here’s a statin’) but it’s far from time to throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[Pixel42]

I was prescribed a statin 7 years ago because of high cholesterol (despite a healthy diet) and a family history of heart disease and strokes. This was discovered during a routine checkup when I turned 60. My research at the time suggested the benefit was borderline in my case, so I decided to take it as long as I was not one of the unlucky ones to suffer side effects. Apart from a little nausea in the first two weeks I did not, so I continued to take it.

Over the last few years I've had increasingly serious memory glitches, including two TGAs. It was while researching the latter that I came across discussion of a possible link with statins. The evidence appears to be mostly anecdotal, but is sufficient for the FDA to include memory and cognitive problems as a possible, rare, side effect in those listed on statin packaging.

I decided to try the experiment of stopping taking the statin for a month, to see what if any difference it made. I can only describe it by saying it was like a fog, which had descended so gradually I didn't notice, had suddenly lifted. My brain was working properly again, and within two weeks I had decided not to resume taking the statin. That was 18 months ago, and I have had no further memory glitches.

I haven't yet had a chance to discuss this with my doctor (obviously GPs have had more important things to worry about) but I will do so eventually.

Now I know about confirmation bias and placebo/nocebo effects, so I acknowledge the possibility that I could be fooling myself. Mine is just one anecdote, though it appears it's one of a large number of similar anecdotes. I realise that by stopping the statin I may be increasing my chances of dying of a stroke or heart attack, as my mother and brother did when they were the age I am now. But if the cost of that reduced risk is TGAs, or getting my own sisters mixed up, or suddenly not knowing where I am whilst driving along a familiar road, it's too high a price to pay.

 

[Bikewer]

I’m 74, and have been on statins since my 40s. My first checkup after getting decent health insurance found my total Cholesterol at over 300. My doc (same one for all that time) determined that this must be genetic and put me on Lipitor. Numbers almost immediately went into the “optimal” range… And have stayed there ever since, regardless of diet.

I have never had any of the reported side-effects. None.

Early on, I talked with a colleague who had bought into the stuff Pixel seems to be talking about. “Statins cause heart attacks”…. It was all a big drug-company conspiracy.

Great idea…. Kill off your customer base….

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Have you ever had a heart scan?

 

[grunion]

Statin

Satan

Don’t you sheeple see through it?

 

[Pixel42]

Early on, I talked with a colleague who had bought into the stuff Pixel seems to be talking about. “Statins cause heart attacks”…. It was all a big drug-company conspiracy.

How is that remotely similar to what I'm talking about? I'm talking about a possible rare side effect for which there is some, albeit limited, actual evidence.

Here's a case study with useful references:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3027897/

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I have never seen a claim that statins cause heart attacks..

However, my extensive personal research, has yielded very little evidence that they prevent them.

Cholesterol doesn't just attach itself to healthy arteries. It is part of the attempt to repair/heal damaged arteries from other causes.

One has to wonder how limiting the amount of available cholesterol, limits its use for the repair attempt.

Are we to believe there is some sort of "cholesterol mind " that thinks " OK, there isn't much of us available, so we will not do what we would do otherwise. " ?

Here is one study ( actually a review of several studies ) for you..

Lack of an association or an inverse association between low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol and mortality in the elderly: a systematic review

 

[Planigale]

I have never seen a claim that statins cause heart attacks..

However, my extensive personal research, has yielded very little evidence that they prevent them.

Cholesterol doesn't just attach itself to healthy arteries. It is part of the attempt to repair/heal damaged arteries from other causes.

One has to wonder how limiting the amount of available cholesterol, limits its use for the repair attempt.

Are we to believe there is some sort of "cholesterol mind " that thinks " OK, there isn't much of us available, so we will not do what we would do otherwise. " ?

Here is one study ( actually a review of several studies ) for you..

Lack of an association or an inverse association between low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol and mortality in the elderly: a systematic review

May I match you one review. (the paper you quote is not an actual study but a reanalysis of previous cohort studies, and ignored RCTs)

This reviews the evidence for statins

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140673616313575

Large-scale evidence from randomised trials shows that statin therapy reduces the risk of major vascular events (ie, coronary deaths or myocardial infarctions, strokes, and coronary revascularisation procedures) by about one-quarter for each mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol during each year (after the first) that it continues to be taken.

The pathogenesis of atheroma is complex and no-one says it is due to cholesterol alone. The benefit of treatment with statins is highly dependent on your overall risk of vascular disease. If you are at low risk then the absolute benefit will be low, if you are a diabetic hypertensive ex smoker then the benefits will be much greater.

 

[casebro]

Here is some fuel for the fire: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-27377-2/figures/1

https://media.springernature.com/fu...bjects/41598_2018_27377_Fig1_HTML.jpg?as=webp

Note figure A and it's downward curves. Anybody care to extend the curves a few more months? When they are nearly vertical, and gesstimate how much longer I'll expect to live if I meet the BP guidelines for treatment? Red line vs green line. 3 months is absolutely stoopid when you consider side effects. Aslo, the less than 2% difference in death rates. Means 98% chance of treatment no doing a goodamn thing for me.

eta: WOIW! Look at the size of my thing!

 

[tusenfem]

Here is some fuel for the fire: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-27377-2/figures/1

https://media.springernature.com/fu...bjects/41598_2018_27377_Fig1_HTML.jpg?as=webp

Note figure A and it's downward curves. Anybody care to extend the curves a few more months? When they are nearly vertical, and gesstimate how much longer I'll expect to live if I meet the BP guidelines for treatment? Red line vs green line. 3 months is absolutely stoopid when you consider side effects. Aslo, the less than 2% difference in death rates. Means 98% chance of treatment no doing a goodamn thing for me.

eta: WOIW! Look at the size of my thing!

wow all have 1% or less survival rate?

 

[casebro]

wow all have 1% or less survival rate?

No.That is the death rates. 1% deaths is 99%survival. You can compare the red line, untreated hypertension, to the green line, well treated hypertension. about 2% improvement in the treated group at 20 years. Hence, 98% had no benefit.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

@Planigale:

The pathogenesis of atheroma is complex and no-one says it is due to cholesterol alone.

Yet, your earlier cite said " Cholesterol is the cause of coronary heart disease. "

I didn't bother to read any further.. Why would you?

Cholesterol is part of the process, and in no way " causes " it?


Is there any good reason for an otherwise healthy person with "high" LDLc to take a statin?

 

[Caroline13]

Our Brain Needs Cholesterol

It's a crime how the pharma/medical world has pushed statins to lower that dread cholesterol, that we need desperately...the lower cholesterol the more memory loss, dementia/alzheimers. Old age homes are full of memory loss people.

https://www.drperlmutter.com/brain-needs-cholesterol/

Remember if you wish to promote your conspiracy theories regarding any topic you should do so in the correct section of the forum - which is always the Conspiracy Theories section. If you wish to discuss the science of a particular treatment that would be OK for the "Science...." section but the key word is "discuss".

ETA: You had already started a thread about this topic, do not keep starting new threads when you have already started a thread to discuss the same topic.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Planigale]

It's a crime how the pharma/medical world has pushed statins to lower that dread cholesterol, that we need desperately...the lower cholesterol the more memory loss, dementia/alzheimers. Old age homes are full of memory loss people.

https://www.drperlmutter.com/brain-needs-cholesterol/

Interesting so you ignore all the previous references I posted about how statins actually reduced risk of dementia. Or perhaps because you are opposed to statins you have no recall of the posts?

 

[Steve]

You really should educate yourself about the meanings and effects of HDL and LDL.

 

[angrysoba]

It's a crime how the pharma/medical world has pushed statins to lower that dread cholesterol, that we need desperately...the lower cholesterol the more memory loss, dementia/alzheimers. Old age homes are full of memory loss people.

https://www.drperlmutter.com/brain-needs-cholesterol/

Perlmutter and his books have faced criticism from other physicians and commentators.[18] For example, Nash and Slutzky (2014) have written that "according to Grain Brain, much chronic disease originates in the widespread ingestion of carbohydrates, and these foodstuff, rather than cholesterol or saturated fats, are the premier contributor to an unhealthy individual. Numerous recent studies, however, have provided high-level evidence to the contrary."[18]

Epidemiologist David Katz, founding director of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center at Griffin Hospital in Derby, CT, has criticized Grain Brain, calling it a "silly book" and saying that "Perlmutter is way ahead of any justifiable conclusion".[19]

Microbiome expert Jonathan Eisen criticized Brain Maker in blunt terms. "To think we can magically heal diseases by changing to a gluten-free diet and taking some probiotics is idiotic... It resembles more the presentation of a snake-oil salesman than that of a person interested in actually figuring out how to help people."[1]

Perlmutter's advice to parents that they should ask their pediatricians about scheduling childhood vaccinations separately[1] is contrary to advice from the CDC[20] and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Perlmutter or ... LOL... wait for this... Purenutter?

 

[Steve]

Perlmutter or ... LOL... wait for this... Purenutter?

So, from your quote, Perlmutter is actually in favor of childhood vaccinations? And Caroline13 finds him to be a reliable source of medical information? I sense a conflict of interest here that may overpower a cholesterol addled brain.

 

[angrysoba]

So, from your quote, Perlmutter is actually in favor of childhood vaccinations? And Caroline13 finds him to be a reliable source of medical information? I sense a conflict of interest here that may overpower a cholesterol addled brain.

Alt-med people cherry-picking their information?

Whatever next? They'll be quoting someone who doesn't see Grape Seed Extract as a panacea....