Cholesterol & Statins - The Great Scientific Fraud

[Elong]

Also, regarding the wave of new chronic illnesses hitting the western world in the last 30 years, a lot can be attributed not to food at all but to our lifestyle and sanitation. We don't give our bodies (especially our guts and bowels) enough to fight against and immunity is more the issue at hand.

I don't have the figures (I could google them but NEA) but there is a much, much higher level of Crohns and Ulcerative Colitis in the developed world than there is in the third world. Processed foods could be another answer.

There's heaps of study going on out there which is promising and hopefully one day they'll have the reasons behind these bizarre illnesses. But I don't think food is the beginning of the issue, it's merely a protagonist.

 

[SerenityNigh]

Also, regarding the wave of new chronic illnesses hitting the western world in the last 30 years, a lot can be attributed not to food at all but to our lifestyle and sanitation. We don't give our bodies (especially our guts and bowels) enough to fight against and immunity is more the issue at hand.

I don't have the figures (I could google them but NEA) but there is a much, much higher level of Crohns and Ulcerative Colitis in the developed world than there is in the third world. Processed foods could be another answer.

There's heaps of study going on out there which is promising and hopefully one day they'll have the reasons behind these bizarre illnesses. But I don't think food is the beginning of the issue, it's merely a protagonist.

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/crohns-disease/Pages/Introduction.aspx

• environmental factors – Crohn's disease is most common in westernised countries such as the UK, and least common in poorer parts of the world such as Africa, which suggests the environment (particularly sanitation) has a part to play

 

[Elong]

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/crohns-disease/Pages/Introduction.aspx

• environmental factors – Crohn's disease is most common in westernised countries such as the UK, and least common in poorer parts of the world such as Africa, which suggests the environment (particularly sanitation) has a part to play

Cheers pal. Latest theory could be that having less parasites in our body could be the reason, less reason for it to build immunities.

 

[evilwebby]

Losing weight is a pure math equation. Energy in vs energy out. That's different than eating healthy.

That's genius. So ignore the quality of energy you are taking in and your body's hormonal response to it.
Yes, we are all walking breathing calorimeters.

 

[evilwebby]

The problem with western healthcare and medicine today is that we use the same model to treat chronic disease as we do for acute illness, i.e. "treat the symptom!" rather than taking a holistic approach and identifying what actually leads to it and then taking the corrective procedure. This creates a lot of illness and patients.

I'm think anyone who believe that Pharmaceuticals have our best interests at heart are delusional, or naive at best. Of course they are not out to kill us, but their primary interest is in treating the symptoms rather than prescribing cure or prevention.

In the main, we already know what causes most chronic illnesses and what must change to prevent it. Often the root cause of many chronic illnesses that we treat as individual symptoms are all solved by addressing the root cause. Yet the money and political lobbying that Pharmas invest in keeping the status quo is no accident. It's simply not in their interest to have everyone happy and healthy.

 

[evilwebby]

But yeah, getting back to the effectiveness of statins, and their benefits to the overall population?

http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b2376.long

This meta-analysis of 70 388 statin patients concluded that:

"In patients without established cardiovascular disease but with cardiovascular risk factors, statin use was associated with significantly improved survival and large reductions in the risk of major cardiovascular events."

OK, case closed. Er.. or if you want to dig down into their actual numbers you would read:

During a mean follow-up of 4.1 years 5.7% (1925/33 793) of participants died in the control group compared with 5.1% (1725/33 683) in the statin group. Statin therapy was therefore associated with a 12% risk reduction in all cause mortality compared with the control


So the statin patients reduced their risk of death in 4 years from 5.7% to 5.1% - a 12% relative risk reduction, but what needs pointing out is that in real terms this is just a 0.6% risk reduction.

and that is about the value of statins to the general population... 0.6%. Is a 0.6% risk reduction is worth the side effects, increased costs, and increased risk of diabetes and other complications?

Also note that the data is already heavily skewed towards men and away from women (34%) and it has already been shown that the statins are more effective in men.

 

[evilwebby]

What ever happened to the previous fad diet?

High carb is the fad of the last 40 years but actually humans have been around and eating other stuff for a wee while longer than that.

 

[SerenityNigh]

High carb is the fad of the last 40 years but actually humans have been around and eating other stuff for a wee while longer than that.

My favorite is the Paleo diet, but I think if you're going on this you need to accept the entire Paleo lifestyle. Live in a cave, wear animal skins, grunt to communicate. It's a howler.


*More specifically, I was commenting on how diet recommendations seem to change yearly, if not more often.

 

[RAFUH]

That's genius. So ignore the quality of energy you are taking in and your body's hormonal response to it.
Yes, we are all walking breathing calorimeters.

It's simplified way to think about it, but it's backed up by studies. In large, well designed, non-industry head to head trials of various (Atkins, Mediterranean, Paleo, low fat, etc...) meal plans with reduced calories (patient specific) over 2 years of study, patients lost weight without statistically significant difference between plans.

Science may eventually show a specific combination of macronutrients to be a better way to lose weight, but right now, best available evidence follows the concept. Decrease your caloric intake by ~500 (however you see fit), all else remaining the same, you will lose weight.

The best restricted calorie meal plan is one that a patient can follow.

You can eat utter crap and lose weight so long as you decrease calories from your current intake..... Not that eating crap would be a healthy way to lose weight.

 

[RAFUH]

Primary prevention of disease is the Holy Grail in medicine. It is so very rare to get an significant results when treating to PREVENT the disease itself.
Using your numbers above: the 0.6% is absolute risk reduction (ARR) Using that you can figure NNT (number needed to treat). Same info expressed in a different way much like RRR (12%) to AAR (0.6%) does.

That means you need to treat 166 people with statins for 4 years to prevent one death from any cause.

Major coronary event RRR 30% ARR 1.3% NNT 76 over 4 years

meta-analysis of diabetes related to statin therapy http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20167359

NNH (number needed to harm) 255 over 4 years
Treatment of 255 patients with statins for 4 years resulted in one extra case of diabetes.

So if you treat 255 patients with a statin for 4 years - one person will develop diabetes, but 1 person will live.
(actually about 1.5 people would live, but in medicine we try not to report half of a person)

 

[RAFUH]

Of course, there's the simple and tried method of "everything in moderation".

As someone with a chronic illness, I know this works the best for me. If I overdo it on grains/gluten/carbs, I can get quite ill especially the next day, but a little doesn't do any damage.

That's my experience anyway, lots of illnesses (and people) are very different.

Perfect!