Do you find this frightning?

Question

Do people find it worrying that 34% of people on lipid lowering therapy have a "normal" lipid profile
http://www.totallipids.com/total_lipids/totallipids/cv_risk/index.jsp
What can be read into a trial where everybody had "normal" cholesterol levels, everybody was giver some lipid loweing drug, yet there was still 1 cardivascular event for every 12 people.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T1B-488V954-7&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F05%2F2003&_alid=657163273&_rdoc=3&_fmt=summary&_orig=search&_cdi=4886&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=3&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=190bb9a0aadbdafecbf0c874dbe72aef
Surely if cholesterol was the cause of heart disease we would expect much fewer cardiovascular events in a group of people without high cholesterol, and still getting cholesterol lowering drugs?

Someone actually had a look at the links and thought about it. You are correct about the people with normal lipid levels being a result of the drugs efficacy. But the question remains, why are they still on the drugs?
The answer of couse is they need them to keep their cholesterol levels low. Whatever caused high cholesterol in the first place is still there, while a person is committed to a lifetime of medications that merely mask the so called problem . Isn't the health system just wonderful? ,
As for the study i linked to, if you read it carefully every patient was on atorvastatin, in the study one group was "randomly assigned additional atorvastatin ". Some people just recieved more than others. The only thing we can glean from the numbers given is that those who recieved the extra dose, ended up with a total serum cholesterol 1.2mml lower, with a baseline of 6.5 , Thats a reduction of 18% Quite a large reduction in fact

Yet it is claimed there is a large reduction in major cardivascular events
Lets have a look at the figures.
7.5% (389 out of approx 5152) in the extra dose group had a cardiovascular event
9.5 % (486 out of arrox 5152) in the control Thats a difference of 2.2% (asolute risk, as opposed to relative risk)
Now the absolut difference in the level of cholesterol will be probably be just under 18%.
If reducing cholesterol was what gave protection, then we would expext a correlation between level of reduction and protection offered. This is not the case. What little protection these drugs give is not due to their lipid lowering ability.
Its intersting that you accuse me of using half baked evidence for what was merley an attempt to promote thought, while many people dutifully swallow all the fully baked evidence, with even more minions blindly believing without even caring about the evidence. I'm not sure which is scarier.

Answer 1

For god's sake, use your brains. If you give people a LIPID-LOWERING drug, it will LOWER THEIR LIPIDS. Therefore, if it works, they WILL have a NORMAL LIPID PROFILE. The other 66% didn't show high cholesterol levels necessarily - they just had one or more lipids (there are many lipids) at an abnormal level. This does not mean therefore that the cholesterol-reducing agents are not working.

And as for your study... it was SPECIFICALLY designed for people with normal/ low cholesterol, but with HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE.
And you say: "Surely if cholesterol was the cause of heart disease we would expect much fewer cardiovascular events in a group of people without high cholesterol, and still getting cholesterol lowering drugs?"
The study shows precisely this - "The reductions in major cardiovascular events with atorvastatin are large".

I agree the pharmaceutical industry can't always be trusted. But if you're going to start critically analysing data, fair enough - but at least do it properly, instead of half-baked "evidence".

And Mr Peachy (or should that be Preachy)... it may have escaped your attention, but a noticeable number of those who suffer cardiovascular disease "take care" of themselves. Good for you, you are fortunately enough to have a protective genetic profile. However - shockingly enough - the rest of humanity does NOT have the same biological make-up as you.

Answer 2

I cardio event out of 12 is not great, this is true, but the person may have had other unknown factors that could lead to it. I take medication for cholesterol and because I have had a few T.I.A.'s (mini strokes) the doctor wants me to keep a close watch on the percentages and ratio of good/bad cholesterol.
I have a girl friend who's body weight and muscle mass was book, no high blood pressure, cholesterol levels were right where they should be, she didn't smoke, only had an occasional drink, worked out including weight training. Had her annual check up, blood work, the whole nine yards, and had a massive heart attack three weeks after her physical. She picked up a virus that infected the walls of her heart. She didn't even know it. She never felt sick and didn't seem to have any symptoms before the attack. She's really lucky she lives three blocks from the fire station and the paramedics got there right away. So you see things can change in a person quickly. Did the study your talking about give the reasons for the problems, and did they actually have heart attacks? I'm sure your aware that studies can be reported to make them pro or con in results. Any way I hope you have a, Wonderful Holiday Season.

Answer 3

I find the fact that the average person places blind faith in their doctor who places blind faith in the big pharmaceuticals (who know damn well that they would be bankrupt in a matter of a couple of decades if people cared enough to take the time to learn how to take care of themselves), INCREDIBLY FRIGHTENING.

If the vast majority of the population ever found out what I've discovered about eating right and moderate exercise, there would be no need for any statins, diuretics, ACE inhibitors, Hoodia, or any of that other garbage.

Think how empty hospitals and doctors offices would be if people were taught how to take care of themselves instead of brainwashed into thinking prepared foods and a sedentary lifestyle are relatively harmless.

Just don't get me started... okay?

Answer 4

Funny how cholesterol wasn't an issue till they found a drug to fix it. Not every one with high cholesterol has heart disease, not every one with low cholesterol is safe.

Answer 5

Lipator is the most often Rx'd drug on the planet.
It is truly frightening! The worst part is....people never question the logic of whether to drug or not.

We have a frightening coin operated health care system.

Answer 6

60% of all deaths are cholesterol related.