Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
I cited to the studies already, and asked you why you believe the results in the CTT study are due only to effects in people who already had heart disease. I'd still be very interested in any such evidence.
I cited to the studies already, and asked you why you believe the results in the CTT study are due only to effects in people who already had heart disease. I'd still be very interested in any such evidence.
Thanks for doing that. I didn't bother with them because the internet is filled with BS. Not trying to be offensive here. IOW, I could probably find a website and studies proving sheep dung is a good remedy for baldness.
Again (third time "rhetoric" ???) My most compelling evidence came from the lipitor website.
http://www.lipitor.com/ *********************QUOTE******************* LIPITOR, along with diet, is clinically proven to reduce the risk of heart attack, stroke, certain kinds of heart surgeries, and chest pain ********in patients with heart disease or several common risk factors for heart disease.******* Common risk factors include family history of early heart disease, high blood pressure, age, low HDL ("good") cholesterol, and smoking. *********************END QUOTE*******************
Here's Mayo Clinic's advice. Basically high cholesterol BY ITSELF does not justify taking statins:
**************************QUOTE*************** Other risk factors Before you're prescribed a statin, your cholesterol level is considered along with other risk factors for cardiovascular disease, including:
Family history of high cholesterol or cardiovascular disease Inactive (sedentary) lifestyle High blood pressure Age older than 55 if you're a man, or older than 65 if you're a woman Poor general health Having diabetes Overweight or obesity Smoking Narrowing of the arteries in your neck, arms or legs (peripheral artery disease) ****************************END QUOTE**************
Final note: I ___KNOW___ I am going to lose this argument because the drug companies want to blur the distinctions and have everybody with cholesterol on the high side to thinking/feeling that they SHOULD be taking statins.
IMO, fivebells. You are totally entitled to have your POV and interpretation.
Are you saying, "People with high cholesterol SHOULD be taking statins to reduce their risk of bad heart things happening to them?"
Please notice NOBODY else is saying people with high cholesterol SHOULD be taking statins SIMPLY because they have high cholesterol.
Thanks for doing that. I didn;t bother with them because the internet s filled with BS. Not trying to be offensive here. IOW, I could probably find a website and studies proving sheep dung is a good remedy for baldness.
Both the papers I cited are from peer-reviewed journals. Not a guarantee of accuracy, by any means, but not exactly random-internet cherry-picking.
Well, part of my funding comes from NHLBI. I guess I'm part of the great conspiracy.
I bet every fact on that page is backed by convincing statistical data. Is there anything in particular on that page which you'd like me to look into?
By the way, I have on my harddrive heart disease diagnostics from over 10 000 white USians who participated in a longitudinal study assessing the life-style factors which contribute to atherosclerosis and heart disease. At the moment, I am looking for genetic factors which contribute to heart disease in people with elevated triglyceride levels. I'm not talking out of my ass, here.
My strongest source of proof to you came from the lipitor website.
LIPITOR, along with diet, is clinically proven to reduce the risk of heart attack, stroke, certain kinds of heart surgeries, and chest pain ********in patients with heart disease or several common risk factors for heart disease.******* Common risk factors include family history of early heart disease, high blood pressure, age, low HDL ("good") cholesterol, and smoking.
You're excluding important context, Roger. I assume this is the page you're quoting from. The paragraph before the one you quote above is "Along with diet and exercise, LIPITOR is proven to lower "bad" cholesterol by 39%-60% (average effect depending on dose)." The sentence you quoted starting with "And LIPITOR, along with diet..." is saying that in addition to lowering cholesterol, it is also effective in the face of those other other risk factors for heart disease. (I completely agree that they are probably over-reaching there.)
Here's Mayo Clinic's advice. Basically high cholesterol BY ITSELF does not justify taking statins:
That's meaningless without the algorithm they use to make a decision from those factors. We've already established that everyone agrees people should try to reduce cholesterol by diet and exercise before resorting to cholesterol.
Final note: I ___KNOW___ I am going to lose this argument because the drug companies want to blur the distinctions and have everybody with cholesterol on the high side to thinking/feeling that they SHOULD be taking statins.
No, you're going to lose this argument because this is what I think about all day for my day-to-day work, and there are boatloads of epidemiological evidence contradicting your claims. I have no connection to drug companies; I work in academia as a postdoc. My salary is nothing to get excited about, and not one cent comes from a commercial source.
You are totally entitled to have your POV and interpretation.
HAHAHA. But I'm still WRONG, right? HAHAHA.
Are you saying, "People with high cholesterol SHOULD be taking statins to reduce their risk of bad heart things happening to them?"
The current standard of care is to prescribe statins for people who've failed to reduce their cholesterol levels by diet and exercise. I think that is a sensible prescription which would probably save millions of lives over the next few decades if cardiology continued to be practiced the way it is today.
Please notice NOBODY else is saying people with high cholesterol SHOULD be taking statins SIMPLY because they have high cholesterol.
First of all, I don't care what anybody else is saying. I take responsibility for my own beliefs, and evaluate the evidence independently for all beliefs which have an impact on my important decisions. Secondly, A LOT of people are saying that elevated cholesterol indicates prescription of statins: the entire field of cardiology, on the basis of extensive epidemiological evidence.
I am an iconoclast, and I love to look at facts which challenge my beliefs. If you could point me at any clinical or scientificevidence (i.e. something more than just your idiosyncratic interpretation of a marketing website) which casts any doubt on this policy at all, I would be extremely grateful. But what you've shown so far hasn't been very impressive.
Comments
Problem is even the statin drug companies have no such studies to refer to.
Ok! That's all from me! You guys have been great! Gotta go!!! On to other stuff. Good luck Leon!
IOW, I could probably find a website and studies proving sheep dung is a good remedy for baldness.
Again (third time "rhetoric"
http://www.lipitor.com/
*********************QUOTE*******************
LIPITOR, along with diet, is clinically proven to reduce the risk of heart attack, stroke, certain kinds of heart surgeries, and chest pain ********in patients with heart disease or several common risk factors for heart disease.******* Common risk factors include family history of early heart disease, high blood pressure, age, low HDL ("good") cholesterol, and smoking.
*********************END QUOTE*******************
Here's Mayo Clinic's advice. Basically high cholesterol BY ITSELF does not justify taking statins:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/statins/CL00010
**************************QUOTE***************
Other risk factors
Before you're prescribed a statin, your cholesterol level is considered along with other risk factors for cardiovascular disease, including:
Family history of high cholesterol or cardiovascular disease
Inactive (sedentary) lifestyle
High blood pressure
Age older than 55 if you're a man, or older than 65 if you're a woman
Poor general health
Having diabetes
Overweight or obesity
Smoking
Narrowing of the arteries in your neck, arms or legs (peripheral artery disease)
****************************END QUOTE**************
Final note: I ___KNOW___ I am going to lose this argument because the drug companies want to blur the distinctions and have everybody with cholesterol on the high side to thinking/feeling that they SHOULD be taking statins.
IMO, fivebells. You are totally entitled to have your POV and interpretation.
Are you saying, "People with high cholesterol SHOULD be taking statins to reduce their risk of bad heart things happening to them?"
Please notice NOBODY else is saying people with high cholesterol SHOULD be taking statins SIMPLY because they have high cholesterol.
I bet every fact on that page is backed by convincing statistical data. Is there anything in particular on that page which you'd like me to look into?
By the way, I have on my harddrive heart disease diagnostics from over 10 000 white USians who participated in a longitudinal study assessing the life-style factors which contribute to atherosclerosis and heart disease. At the moment, I am looking for genetic factors which contribute to heart disease in people with elevated triglyceride levels. I'm not talking out of my ass, here. You're excluding important context, Roger. I assume this is the page you're quoting from. The paragraph before the one you quote above is "Along with diet and exercise, LIPITOR is proven to lower "bad" cholesterol by 39%-60% (average effect depending on dose)." The sentence you quoted starting with "And LIPITOR, along with diet..." is saying that in addition to lowering cholesterol, it is also effective in the face of those other other risk factors for heart disease. (I completely agree that they are probably over-reaching there.) That's meaningless without the algorithm they use to make a decision from those factors. We've already established that everyone agrees people should try to reduce cholesterol by diet and exercise before resorting to cholesterol. No, you're going to lose this argument because this is what I think about all day for my day-to-day work, and there are boatloads of epidemiological evidence contradicting your claims. I have no connection to drug companies; I work in academia as a postdoc. My salary is nothing to get excited about, and not one cent comes from a commercial source. HAHAHA. But I'm still WRONG, right? HAHAHA. The current standard of care is to prescribe statins for people who've failed to reduce their cholesterol levels by diet and exercise. I think that is a sensible prescription which would probably save millions of lives over the next few decades if cardiology continued to be practiced the way it is today. First of all, I don't care what anybody else is saying. I take responsibility for my own beliefs, and evaluate the evidence independently for all beliefs which have an impact on my important decisions. Secondly, A LOT of people are saying that elevated cholesterol indicates prescription of statins: the entire field of cardiology, on the basis of extensive epidemiological evidence.
I am an iconoclast, and I love to look at facts which challenge my beliefs. If you could point me at any clinical or scientific evidence (i.e. something more than just your idiosyncratic interpretation of a marketing website) which casts any doubt on this policy at all, I would be extremely grateful. But what you've shown so far hasn't been very impressive.