Statin Use

NanoSecond said:

Scottie.  I do not know if

Scottie.  I do not know if your issues are due to taking a statin or not.

However, unless you are a middle-aged man who has already suffered an actual heart attack there is no reason at all to be taking any statins.  And even in that case it probably is not justified either.

Don't take my word for it.  Do some research.  You can start with the excellent book by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick called, "The Great Cholesterol Con".  Here is his blog:

http://drmalcolmkendrick.org/

Then go here:

http://www.drbriffa.com/

Just look for peer-reviewed research by independent scientists who are not influenced by big pharma and you will discover that a sham has been perpetrated on the public for decades.

There is a clear relationship between cholestoeral and cornary artery disease.  Now, there are absolutely people on statins that do not need it....most people with total cholesterol under 225 are fine.

What matters is the Total and the HDL.  If the HDL is good/high, you can handle a higher total cholesterol (or LDL).  Unfortunately for me, that is not always the case.  I run very very low HDL (18) and very high LDL (200) because of genetics.  Without the statins, I most certainly would have had a heart attack/heart issues 10 years ago.  Instead, I had my stent put in last summer.

dhs1963 said:

I will have to disagree with you

There is a clear relationship between cholestoeral and cornary artery disease.  Now, there are absolutely people on statins that do not need it....most people with total cholesterol under 225 are fine.

What matters is the Total and the HDL.  If the HDL is good/high, you can handle a higher total cholesterol (or LDL).  Unfortunately for me, that is not always the case.  I run very very low HDL (18) and very high LDL (200) because of genetics.  Without the statins, I most certainly would have had a heart attack/heart issues 10 years ago.  Instead, I had my stent put in last summer.

 

Well we can agree to disagree on this one.  Genetic issues like FH certainly do call for the use of statins.  But I doubt that is the case here.

There may be a "relationship" between cholesterol and cardiovascular disease but it is certainly not clear.  There are plenty of cases of people with low and even ultra-low LDL (and total cholesterol) who have suffered heart attacks.

In fact, as we age, cholesterol levels naturally go up.  And this is a good thing for most of us.  If you care to look at the actual numbers you may be surprised to note that overall mortality (what really counts) goes up with lower LDL.

Finally, I do have to point out that total cholesterol is not the important number.

It is the ratio of triglycerides to HDL that is most important.  The closer to 1:1 it is, the better.  Or, put another way, the lower the triglycerides the better;  The higher the HDL number the better.

If this ratio is close to 1:1 then you need not be overly concerned about a high LDL (if you have that).  This is because LDL is a calculated number based on an imperfect algorithm.  In this case (only) a high LDL would likely mean that your LDL particles are large and "fluffy" and hence unable to penetrate the endothelium to cause any inflammation (which might lead to plaque formation).

But if you really want to be precise you need to do those tests that show the size and amount of LDL particles actually circulating in your system.  Total cholesterol is pretty meaningless without knowing this.

NanoSecond said:

Stay away from statins

You can bring your HDL up and your Trigs down by cutting back on high glycemic carbohydrates and added sugar(s) in your diet.

Statins have side effects.  They can cause muscle aches and pains.  They can raise blood glucose (even, in some cases, leading to Type II Diabetes).  In rare occasions they can cause amnesia and other neurological adverse effects:

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/heartofthematter/

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/804192

"Statin use is independently associated with improved survival in patients undergoing surgery for renal cell carcinoma," said Samuel Kaffenberger, MD, a researcher at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee"

I thought you might find this interesting and related to the discussion. I saw it the other day, what are your thoughts?

NanoSecond said:

My thoughts

Yes, I saw it.

Correlation ("association") is NOT causation.

I don't think it means much at all.  There are plenty of other ways to interfere with the secondary pathways that statins disrupt with impunity.  Moreover, it is likely that it is just statins ablility to lower inflammation that may account for the association.

Neil, I think I got a photo of the one study showing that Statin improved the results of one of the Cancer drugs... have to find it...  I was shocked to see it, and want to learn more...  

Ron

GSRon said:

Neil, I think I got a photo

Neil, I think I got a photo of the one study showing that Statin improved the results of one of the Cancer drugs... have to find it...  I was shocked to see it, and want to learn more...  

Ron

Ron.  You have to take these with a grain of salt and skeptical mind.

In the latest issue of Science, which is dedicated to Breast Cancer, there is a short article titled, "Cholesterol and Cancer, in the Balance".

"Mammalian cells synthesize cholesterol through a series of 21 enzymatic steps, generating numerous metabolites that are involved in the control of physiological and developmental processes. Cholesterol itself is the precursor of steroid hormones and sterols, the latter of which can be further modified into molecules that induce specific biological responses..."

Please re-read the above and think about what it might mean to disrupt these processes.  The answer is that they still DON'T KNOW.

Continuing...

"...Epidemiological studies have investigated the role of cholesterol in breast cancer risk, with contradictory findings...Statin use is associated with both an increased and decreased risk of breast cancer, and other studies report no association at all.  A recent study has found that long-term (10 years) treatment with statins doubled the risk of invasive ductal carcinoma and invasive lobular carcinoma among post-menopausal women - a disconcerting finding given that statins are commonly taken for chronic, long-term use."

I realize this forum is about renal cancer but I can assure you that, in time, you will see contradictory findings published about the role of statins in renal and all other cancers.  I am all for participating in clinical trials (thank God I got in one) but not those that are conducted without consent.

Statins are a huge science project perpetrated on an unsuspecting public.  Just read the work of independent scientists.  Also read the personal accounts of the hundreds if not thousands of patients who have reported adverse side effects while taking them.

And always, always, look closely to discover the industry ties behind many of those that promote even more "statinization" of the public.