The great cholesterol con

[stuart noble]

We don't hear much about HRT these days. That was all the rage a few years back

[The Natural Philosopher]

er waht?

You missed teh point. The point is the evidence shows that people who have high cholestrol also tend to have a higher incidnece of heart issues

That is correlation.

To say that the one causes the other causation.

Correlation is not causation.

Years ago people found that red cars had a higher accident rate than white ones.

Everybody bought white cars. Accident rate stayed the same. Idiots who bought red cars now bought white cars but they were still idiots behind the wheel.

Chloesterol is just as likely on the face of it to be a symptom of some underlying separate issue that causes heart issues, than a cause.

I agree that research is more detailed and suggests slightly more that it does promote cardio vascular issues, but its nowhere as complete as peopel tell you it is. Like global warming and windfarms there is a lot of vested interste in peole being given en masse long term medications when they are more or less perfectly healthy. This makes money for the NHS and for the drug comapnies.

[The Natural Philosopher]

causeds cancer apparently.

[dennis]

Not really. They get more money if they do what they are asked to do. The money is for patient care not wages.

[Chris Hogg]

A recent review of statin treatment here:

[Brian Gaff]

I think to use cholesterol in isolation is the error here. The medicalisation of normality is a big problem these days, as deciding what is normal is rather difficult. What is normal for me is not normal for you and the bands eventually get wide. Too much of anything is bad, and that includes the chemicals in medicines. the classic tale of the old woman who swallowed a fly is a well known warning to all those who have a small ailment or'risk factor' in their lives. Statins as with much medicine has side effects. This seems to be because the same elements controled by the chemicals have different roles in different bits of our bodies. we are sort of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut in my view. In a way its the old dumming down again. I often get the feeling that doctors think we do not have the capacity to understand complex concepts. That needs to change. Brian

[dennis]

Go on then tell us how it makes money for the NHS. The drug companies get most of their cash from the NHS, I find it difficult to see how it makes both of them money.

[dennis]

No they don't. It costs the doctor for every prescription they do.

[Java Jive]

Haven't read the book, and IANAGP but AIUI ...

There are two sorts of cholesterol, A & B, and >

[David.WE.Roberts]

I don't think that is quite correct.

The starting point was that someone with diabetes had about the same risk of a heart attack as a non-diabetic who had already had a heart attack.

So they started treating diabetics with the same drugs that they gave to hear attack victims.

IIRC slow release aspirin as well as statins.

A few years on they realised that although the risks were the same, the causes were not and so revised their thinking.

Correlation and causation strikes again.

Oh, and simvastatin is the work of the devil.

Cheers

Dave R

[David.WE.Roberts]

Works the other way round - if they don't hit the targets part of their funding is withheld.

However this still amounts to money into the business being linked to targets for such things as prescribing drugs, giving flu jabs etc.

As with any small business, profit means money in the partners pockets one way or another.

Cheers

Dave R

[Chris Hogg]

How they arrived at the idea to treat diabetics isn't important compared with their effect, which is significant and beneficial.

The Heart Protection Study was funded by the Medical Research Council and the British Heart Foundation. It looked at the effect of cholesterol-lowering statins in people with diabetes. The trial used

6,000 people with diabetes and it showed that the use of statins cuts the risk of heart attack, stroke or revascularisation operations by one third in patients with diabetes. If the findings are acted on it could prevent at least 10,000 heart attacks, stokes and revascularisation operations each year in the UK.

The second study, the Collaborative AtoRvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS) was sponsored by Diabetes UK, the Department of Health and Pfizer UK. It involved almost 3,000 people with Type 2 diabetes and was designed to compare the effectiveness of lipid-lowering drugs for the prevention of cardiovascular disease. The trial was due to be completed in June 2005 but has been stopped early because results collected already showed a significant benefit and the data strongly suggests that statins benefit certain people with Type 2 diabetes."

Whether the studies achieved their results by reducing cholesterol, or whether that was irrelevant and some other mechanism such as reduced inflammation was responsible, isn't known AFAIK (reduced cholesterol was assumed). But one can't get away from the fact that significant reductions in heart attack, stroke etc were achieved, so much so that the CARDS study was terminated early because to continue it in the face of the evidence would have been unethical.

[Nightjar]

I didn't miss the point. I disagreed with your assessment of the probable competence of the WHO researchers.

This is something I have looked at in considerable detail and I am satisfied that a total cholesterol level of 3.0 or less would mean I have no risk of certain types of heart disease. I am also satisfied that the additional benefit I would get from reducing it below my naturally occurring 4.0 does not justify the side effects I get from any of the statins.

Colin Bignell

[The Medway Handyman]

Or the hole in the ozone layer that was going to kill us all...

[Huge]

Michael Mosely covered this in "Trust Me, I'm a Doctor" the other night.

The Montreal Protocol sorted that.

[Chris Hogg]

You wouldn't want to go below 4 mmol/l anyway, as the risk of brain hemorrhage increases below that value. See

[Chris Hogg]

An interesting video here.

[Cursitor Doom]

A pal of mine who in his late 40s at the time was told his cholesterol was above the desirable range and was prescribed one of theses statins to get it back down. Within a week of commencing this course of medication, he suffered a massive stroke which left him permanently disabled. He'd been very active and hard working before going on these pills but has been unable to work since and now never will again. I can't help wondering if these meds caused the stroke. I don't know what their mechanism of action is, but if they precipitate the release of too much fat into the bloodstream too quickly then this would seem to be asking for trouble (in my humble opinion as a non-medical person). It's certainly made me very wary about ever going on them myself. If I had no choice then I'd taper the dosage up to the recommended level over a period of a few weeks just to be on the safe(r) side.

[dennis]

Lets think about that, you do what they want and you get more money, hmm looks like I was correct.

The money is to provide the service, the doctor only gets it if he provides the service rather than employing someone else to do it.

[dennis]

They reduce the fat in the blood.