JAIL. NOW DAMNIT.
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
2017-07-31 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 611 references Ignore this thread
JAIL. NOW DAMNIT.
[Comments enabled]  

Read this one folks.

More evidence-based options have emerged for secondary prevention. The Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial (IMPROVE-IT)4 reported that adding ezetimibe to effective statin therapy in stable patients who experienced an acute coronary syndrome reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) from 70 mg/dL to 54 mg/dL (to convert LDL-C from mg/dL to mmol/L, multiply by 0.0259), and reduced risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease outcome at 7 years from 34.7% to 32.7%. The Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research with PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects with Elevated Risk (FOURIER) trial5 reported that the addition of evolocumab, a proprotein convertase subtilisin–kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor, to effective statin therapy reduced LDL-C from 92 mg/dL to 30 mg/dL and decreased the composite cardiovascular outcome over 2.2 years from 11.3% to 9.8%, a 15% relative reduction. Of note, both drugs were only tested in high-risk individuals.

There are some caveats to the new evidence. Although no significant safety signals emerged with either drug, some consider the benefits to be relatively small. The US Food and Drug Administration determined in 2016 that the IMPROVE-IT trial was insufficient to expand the label for ezetimibe to include reducing the risk of myocardial infarction and stroke. 

Left unmentioned is the meta-analysis that I recently reported on in which all-cause mortality was not decreased by any of these "therapies."

So yeah, you might get a 15% relative reduction in heart attack risk (but a real reduction of about 1.5%!but other causes of mortality go up by enough to erase the alleged "benefit."

May I remind you that dead is dead and the reason is only of interest to people who have a reason to pump "interventions" that cost money?

Speaking of which, let's talk conflicts:

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: The author has completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and reported that he received research grants from Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), the US Food and Drug Administration, all through Yale; works under contract with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; chairs a cardiac scientific advisory board for UnitedHealth; is a participant and participant representative of the IBM Watson Health Life Sciences Board; is a member of the Advisory Board for Element Science and the Physician Advisory Board for Aetna; and is the founder of Hugo, a personal health information platform.

Two sources of funds make and sell things in the medical space, and what's worse two more are regulated insurance companies who can only make more money, since their operating margins are regulated, if the cost of health care goes up.

You got that one folks?  Let it sink in -- companies that are limited to a "X" operating margin (for insurance firms it's typically 10%) can only make more money if the gross amount of loss in whatever is being insured against rises.

There is no other way to make more because their margins are fixed; there is no opportunity to make more money by becoming more efficient as a firm because that will simply be clawed back through forcible reduction of premiums charged by the states.

Therefore they are incentivized to waste money (rather than save it) and to see the underlying expense of whatever they're insuring against go up instead of down.

This is not a function of whether someone's an ******* it is a simple fact of arithmetic that nobody can change so long as the firm in question is regulated insurer!

Then there's this, which at this point is nearly 10 years old in print:

When asked why, he gave the Journal a cryptic answer in the form of a Japanese proverb: "The indigo dyer wears white trousers."

That's the guy who invented statins -- he was at the time up for the Lasker Award, often called "America's Nobel."

The question asked him of him was why won't he take them since his cholesterol was elevated and they were recommended to him?

The answer he gave, quoted above, is one that only an intelligent individual understands -- which, presumably, all doctors are or their credential, a PhD, is worthless.

Here's what that quote means, if you happen to be unaware: Indigo dye is inherently toxic and a residual from the process remains on the clothes and thus harms the wearerwhich the dyer is fully aware of. He thus won't wear his own product because he knows it will harm or kill him but he finds no problem selling that problem to others despite actual knowledge of its harm.

Given these facts and the lack of disclosure of the recent published work showing no reduction in all-cause mortality for this class of drugs, along with the now ten year old quote from the guy who discovered them, perhaps you can explain why the rope hasn't come out and the search for lampposts begun in earnest by the general public, with the strong implication made that either politicians fix this rank exploitation and outrageous asset-stripping (not to mention intentional harm) by the medical industry, putting a stop to both using existing, 100+ year old law, or the people WILL using far less-pleasant means.

Go to responses (registration required to post)
 
Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
A One-Sentence Bill To Force The Health-Care Issue

Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

 
Comments.......
User: Not logged on
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Showing Page 1 of 2  First12Last
User Info JAIL. NOW DAMNIT. in forum [Market-Ticker]
Als
Posts: 535
Incept: 2010-03-12

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Reminds me of my brother the marathoner at 68. The man had to give up running due to a knee problem. The Dr. said either quit the running or I can put in a new knee your choice. The man has never had anything more than an ulcer most of his life.

So he's in the Dr's office last year and his Dr. says I want to put you on this drug as a prevention. My brother laughed at him and why is there anything wrong with me? The Dr said no it is just preventative medication. Than why should I take it.

My brother is 6'3" 175lbs at 68, he'll be 69 next month. He's had zero BP or heart problems ever.
Vernonb
Posts: 1848
Incept: 2009-06-03

East of Sheol
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
The whole mess sounds like a bad pulp fiction teleplay but the sad truth is that this is curently happening. They've been able to get away with this for so long because heart disease is a slow process created by continual abuse of self and diet.

This scam works to prolong the wealth extraction. And still no jail time or public hanging?

How long before they start putting this crap into the water supply to 'help' people. If you can put such a poison into the water why not another poison to take the the populace hostage by paying for "the antidote."

Totally criminal.


And if you don't think this fraud hasn't been discussed to poison the water to perpetuate these scams, USA health 'authorities' are out to poison us all.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2277....


----------
"Mass intelligence does not mean intelligent masses."
Nickdanger
Posts: 642
Incept: 2011-06-12

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
The fraud is pervasive.

It has been ingrained into the sheeples' heads, especially since the pharmaceutical companies began using television advertising directly to the consumer. "Ask your doctor if this medicine might be right for you." Although the listed side effects often seem to be much worse than the affliction, most people evidently ignore this. Apparently this mode of advertising is particularly effective because it encompasses a majority of the ad spots on many network shows. The media is profiting handsomely from all the advertising dollars. They are all in on the scam.

----------
Grammar: the difference between knowing your **** and knowing you're ****.
Thorvold
Posts: 192
Incept: 2013-09-12

NY
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
UnitedHealthcare's 2018 proposed Medicare Supplemental plan rate increase is 5.4% this year in NY per 7/26/2017 notice. The increase is requested "due to a change in the anticipated benefit costs expected with the plan." Higher benefit costs, higher rates, and higher profits. Nice racket. I once had what the article refers to as "effective statin therapy" recommended by a physician as a prevention. Never went back. I can do without all the effects of such treatments. No prescription bottles around here.
Jfms99
Posts: 203
Incept: 2009-10-06

Msumelle, Ar
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I have no trouble believing this.

Back in about 2005 I was diagnosed with Type II Diabetes. Right off the bat the doctor prescribes medication for not only that, but he puts me on Blood Pressure medication as a Ace Inhibitor, to help my kidneys he says, and then cholesterol drugs.

At the time I was walking about three miles a day. As soon as I started taking the cholesterol medication I started having leg pain and trouble with my walking. So I quit, told my doctor, long story short I tried all the different brands with the same side effect.

I started doing my own research and found out just how dangerous these drugs were and told my doctor. He was unimpressed and just told me the information I had given him to read was just someone with an agenda. I pointed out what agenda did he think the drug companies had.

I then ran across a book by a Danish doctor named Dr. Uffe Ravnskov, his book "The Cholesterol Myth, copyright 2000. In that book the doctor went through everything on how the cholesterol was not a culprit, and he had personally read and studied, to that time, every study on Statin Drugs and their protocols.

His conclusion was that no compelling case was made and also that most all of the studies trying to prove such a correlation were paid for one way or another by the Major Drug companies.

Statin Drugs have been, not only the biggest fraud perpetrated on a gullible public, but also one of the single most profitable scams ever done and legally at that. So now we have the main doctor who helped invent this drug and he won't even take it, what in Hell does that tell you??????

Now we have this new drug on the market that cost something like $14,000 a year plus, and the trick is to get the insurance companies to sign on and pay for it.

Karl is right they all should be in jail.
Tickerguy
Posts: 149426
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Blood pressure is another one.

Ok, so "normal" is 120/80 or (both numbers) below.

Anything between 120-138 or 80-89 will almost-inevitably lead your doctor to immediately stick you on medication.

Here's the problem -- there are dozens of things that will transiently increase your blood pressure. Nearly all are not dangerous. For example, drink a nice big fat espresso and your systolic will go up by as much as 15pts! That's enough right there to tag you and if your doc puts it in your CHART you're ****ed instantly from a health insurance perspective. Then, HERE COME THE DRUGS!

What's even WORSE is that a small percentage of the population has a psychological reaction to the doc sticking the damn cuff on your arm and THAT boosts the reading! In that case there's literally NOTHING wrong with you at all but again, 10pts is 10pts and it can be enough to get you flagged.

Two hours later the spike will be gone -- but the FINANCIAL damage to you will NEVER GO AWAY, and in fact the "spike" wasn't dangerous in the first place!

Now systolic readings over 140 or diastolic readings over 90 ON A ROUTINE, REGULAR BASIS are dangerous. VERY dangerous. I've walked past the machine in the grocery store and seen 170/110! Whoever that was is a literal walking stroke.

BTW if you haven't noticed over the last 10 years or so the automated cuff machines have shown up in every dental office I'm aware of, and they're recording it. I have intentionally ****ed with my dentist several times by guzzling 2 or 3 espressos before going to have my teeth cleaned. Last time I went in cold, ZERO -- heh heh heh...... Yeah, it made quite a difference smiley Pre-Obamacare I would have never done this, but now, **** 'em. I'll pollute their data since I know good and ******n well there's exactly zero wrong with me in that regard.

In terms of LIFESTYLE, regular exercise -- even LIGHT exercise such as walking a mile three to five days a week -- can easily take 10pts off your blood pressure. Losing the extra 100lbs can take ALL of the high blood pressure off. Type II diabetes and high blood pressure are synergistic for reasons that I don't understand, but they are -- which is why if you get a Type II diabetes diagnosis you'll usually be tossed on at least a low-grade blood pressure med as well. So cut the ****ing carbs and get rid of BOTH at once.

For a FEW people salt matters, but the near-universal nostrum to restrict sodium not only is useless for those who are not susceptible to it as the cause it can actively kill you if it comes with a diuretic prescription, which it frequently does, because unless VERY carefully monitored (which NEVER happens, by the way, outside of a hospital ward due to both having to be stuck all the time to draw the blood AND the cost of doing so) that can cause a potassium imbalance and that's a great way to have a heart attack.

These days you can buy a perfectly-capable electronic blood pressure cuff from a dozen manufacturers (note: all probably the same internally, and all made in China too) for less than $50. Unlike a glucometer it eats only batteries, so it's a buy-it-once deal unless you damage it somehow. They're not as accurate as the one in your doctor's office but they're damn close and they don't cost $10,000 either. More-importantly you can check blood pressure when you first get up (before you eat or drink anything that can tamper with the reading) and at any other time during the day you believe is worthwhile. Finally, like a glucometer, only YOU have the results. If you don't have or want to spend the $50 a hell of a lot of drug stores and grocery stores with drug counters have "sit down, push button" style units in them, and they're usually both free and require no identifying information from you. I suspect those are reasonably accurate as well.

If you THINK you may be one of the few people with a serious reaction to salt having a unit means you can trivially measure that (and without sticking yourself with anything either since the cuff is painless) and figure it out with certainty rather than guess. If you ARE one of those people then you need to pay attention not just to salt but to anything that has a diuretic or dehydrating effect (e.g. ALCOHOL!) because if you restrict salt materially AND wind up in a diuretic situation you are at SEVERE risk and there's no "home test" for proper potassium balance. It'd be a good idea in that case to eat more broccoli (very high in potassium, more than bananas), incidentally. In fact I'd go so far as to suggest that if you're salt-sensitive (for real, not your doc shooting off his mouth) you ought to avoid alcohol entirely, and nominally caffeinated drinks (coffee/tea/etc, whether with caffeine or not) probably ought to be avoided as well for the same reason.

So yeah, high blood pressure is real and it's really bad. But false positives for it are pretty common simply due to the things that will transiently raise it, but such transient increases are for all intents and purposes harmless. If you have reason to suspect (e.g. you get a couple of bad readings in the grocery store) buy a meter and see what's really going on before some doc sticks you in a box and starts stuffing you full of pills.

----------
Winding it down.
Patriarch
Posts: 1175
Incept: 2007-10-18

your account summary
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Choose your biologic parents well. That didn't work? Ok, then take care of yourself and do NOT ask the medical system to bail you out for a lifetime of poor maintenance.
Take control of yourself, or there is a 100% chance that someone else (for a hefty fee) will take control of you if you let them. Doctors will ask for a waiver if you choose to not follow their program. Give it to them and rely on them for proven benefits, and refuse unproven benefits. That, of course means that one must read up and educate themselves on what really works and what is mostly propaganda.
And if your chemotherapy is killing you, speak up and say something. I see people willing to blindly follow their MD advice because they are desperate or uneducated or both. Like the Joker said, "Nobody panics when things go according to plan. Even if the plan is horrifying!

----------
Our elected take an oath to serve. Time to add: I will not serve in a capacity which I am not able to comprehend or am incapable of by mental defect of any kind, nor will I use the excuse of intellective deficiency if found in violation of this oath/affirmation, which backs charging wayward politicians with treason.
Kgmqt
Posts: 100
Incept: 2013-08-19

Minnesota
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
With blood sugar levels it is mostly diet that sets the spikes. With blood pressure it is a number of different events - diet, caffeine, activity, mood, stress level, time of day. Like you said, just putting the cuff on for some people may cause a spike. Also, blood sugar spikes are bad, but with blood pressure it is more the average over time that matters. The spike isn't so bad but the continuous elevated BP does the damage.

If you really want to mess with the numbers at your dentist I was taught a trick to lower your BP dramatically. Hold your hand out at arms length and blow on it like you are trying to blow out a candle - about 6-10 times, then test. Dropped mine about 20 points.
Nonsensical
Posts: 111
Incept: 2017-06-16

Los Angeles, Ca
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Never trust the team doctor. If I had a son, I don't know if I would prevent him from playing football, but I certainly wouldn't encourage it.

Let's set aside CTE as that's in the public spot light. What's not is the issuance of drugs, primarily pain killers, especially Toradol (vitamin T as it's commonly referred to).

We're all taught to believe that doctors and the medical community are such caring individuals and want nothing but what's best for us. Of course there's caring individuals, but the notion that as a community they are doesn't seem to be supported by much evidence.

When team doctors inject you with toradol they don't do any cross referencing, and they don't run down all the side effects--and that's required when a physician or pharmacists prescribes a drug to you. But the teams have your entire medical records and check ups--when you go through the combine you go through a full medical check, and the team performs one as well. Regularly (they want to know what they're invested in). There were guys who got toradol shots who had asthma! It's barred from prescribing it to people with asthma. The players didn't know this because it was never told, and the doctor knows, and he could've cross referenced that player's medical record, but they never do.

Perhaps it's changed...Yeah, right.

Think these doctors are as a community all loving and caring, then read this: https://www.sbnation.com/2016/8/3/123101....

Kidney failure and the doctors knew it and not only didn't tell the player, they kept injecting him with toradol. And is the American Medical Association up in arms?! Of course not. Where's the medical community's outrage, not as individual doctors but as a community?

Then when it comes to these experiments and research, there's rarely, if ever any publication of negative results: this is either bad science or it's fraudulent. As a responsible scientist you have to publish not just the findings and conclusions, but the entire experiment (even the calibration of every instrument, and this is vital) so it can be replicated, examined and other scientists in the future can do "their own equations", that is, if further down the line they run into a problem, they can back track and look at all the previous findings and theories to see if there's false assumptions made in the past that they're assuming are true today.
Orionrising
Posts: 28
Incept: 2017-01-26

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
oh yeah on the BP thing... my wife had a doctor yelling at her about how she was gonna die if she didn't take high blood pressure meds.... cause she tested high at the doctors... cause doctors are stressful. Got a BP monitor, perfectly fine the rest of the time.
Whitehat
Posts: 95
Incept: 2017-06-27

New York City
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
It is interesting to note that abandoning much of the so-called medical advice cures a variety of conditions. My case an auto-immune condition in my teens and twenties decided to attack my digestive track and gave me something akin to Crohn's disease. I never ate the garbage carb diet to the extent that most American's do, but it was present. My accountant with Crohn's disease recommended the book, "Breaking the Vicious Cycle" by Elaine Gottschall. Essentially it is the Atkins diet very strictly avoiding carbs that you might be allergic to. Close to fifteen years of hell were over in a matter of months. Interestingly a lot of the other aspects of my condition such as skin blemishes and lesions disappeared. Fatigue was improved as well as a lot of things. Even little things like caries forming in teeth ended.

This protocol was around for many years before the book was written, yet all of my doctors were proscribing this and that, which i refused to take once i learned the potential side effects. All they want to do is keep running tests until they see some value or have a observation that fits a model and then write a prescription. Few want to think or explore options even when you are willing to pay. You just have to use them as a pair of hands for things that you cannot do yourself for which they are trained.

I think that the reason for this is that doctors are in a safe harbor with the standard of care. The drug companies tell them what to do and they take this easier path, the standard of care. This is their favorite expression even when something outside works, they reject it. I guarantee that the minute the authorities change the tune on statin drugs, they will change their tune. Sadly, they are interchangeable parts in the system, most not better than most. It is amazing how much study and work it takes to become a dumb person. This last observation is from one of the few good ones who read all of the research and had posted in his office an old NYTimes magazine article, "What if it all was a Big FAT Lie." Guess what the article was about.

----------
There are two ways to be rich: One is by acquiring much, and the other is by desiring little.
Whitehat
Posts: 95
Incept: 2017-06-27

New York City
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie? NY Times, July 7, 2002

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazi....

----------
There are two ways to be rich: One is by acquiring much, and the other is by desiring little.
Lobo
Posts: 387
Incept: 2013-12-25

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Tickerguy wrote..
So yeah, you might get a 15% relative reduction in heart attack risk (but a real reduction of about 1.5%!) but other causes of mortality go up by enough to erase the alleged "benefit."


For those on statins, death from all causes increases as you drive cholesterol below ~180 mg/dl. Opps! We dropped your chances of a heart attack, but increased your risk of diabetes and cancer. Sorry about that. Please pay your bill on your way to the cemetery. (See the figure at the bottom. That is from "Statins stimulate atherosclerosis and heart failure: pharmacological mechanisms", Okuyama, et. al., Expert Reviews in Clinical Pharmacology, 8(2), 189-199 (2015).)

The drug companies and their doctor stooges also play the "relative risk reduction" game. I've seen a phone app for doctors that uses the Framingham risk score to show absolute risk at current age and cholesterol levels with a "predicted" risk at 70 years of age. Nothing changes but the age. The predicted result shows the increased risk relative to the current risk. If your current risk is 6% (absolute) and at 70 your risk is 9% (absolute), that is a 50% increase relative to your current risk. The first result that the app shows is the current risk (absolute). What shows up in the second, predicted, risk box for 70 years old in the app? the relative risk, 50%! And the bastards don't tell you that it is relative risk, they just present it as "risk." That tactic is common enough that one doc wrote an article about it: "Fallicies in Modern Medicine: Statins and the Cholesterol-Heart Hypothesis", Miller, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Vol 20, No. 2, Summer 2015.
Inline

----------
Village Idiot
Dennisglover
Posts: 715
Incept: 2012-12-05

Huntsville, AL
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Whitehat -- Extremely compelling article there. I've got its link in my webpage repository, and thanks to you! This writer is smart, and comprehensive.

----------
TANSTAAFL
Smacktle
Posts: 1826
Incept: 2009-01-20

Texas
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
They've been trying to put me on statins for years. I stopped going to doctors because of it.

----------
The faults of the burglar are the qualities of the financier.
- George Bernard Shaw
Vernonb
Posts: 1848
Incept: 2009-06-03

East of Sheol
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Wow.... thanks Lobo.
For anyone interested here is a synopsis of the article.

Statins stimulate atherosclerosis and heart failure: pharmacological mechanisms", Okuyama, et. al., Expert Reviews in Clinical Pharmacology, 8(2), 189-199 (2015).)

https://cdn.vortala.com/childsites/uploa....

----------
"Mass intelligence does not mean intelligent masses."
Analog
Posts: 1433
Incept: 2010-12-29

arkansas ozarks
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Thanks for that NYT article link , Whitehat.

Vernonb wrote
Quote:
heart disease is a slow process created by continual abuse of self and diet.


I think back to my thirties and forties. I regularly pigged out on popcorn cooked in of course vegetable oil and gallons of Bryer's ice cream.
Got up to 200 pounds.
Had first heart attack at 49. Quadruple bypass.
Second one and triple bypass and pacemaker at 59 twelve years ago.

Doc says now i have amazing amount of heart disease. I firmly believe it was those two decades of abuse.

A little over a year now on LCHF . Down to 160 pounds, six inches off waist line, morning glucose bounces 105 to 125 . I noticed it came down about 15 points when i quit the 40 mg Atorvastatin.

Angioplasty in June cleaned out LAD and Circumflex both were 90% blocked.
I feel so much better that i believe the body does heal as you guys say.

Question to biochemist types here

Quote:
For somebody with my obvious predisposition to clogging arteries
is there any benefit to a minimal dose of statin? Doc is begging me to go on 10mg. Is there a tradeoff i should evaluate ?
???

I'm asking for just educated scientific opinion not medical advice .

a.

----------
Never trust a computer with anything important.
Tickerguy
Posts: 149426
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
IMHO, no.

The reason is that the drug-company sponsored studies only managed to show a four day improvement in lifetime in people who (1) had already had a heart attack and (2) were compliant with daily dosage over a couple of years.

That's a statistical zero in people who are high risk for a second or subsequent heart attack.

The problem is that the side effects include a doubling of Type II diabetes risk and you know your blood glucose control is marginal. That is, you're in the "high risk" bin for that bad side effect; I know of no study that has differentiated between those bins in that risk, but it's logical to expect that the odds are worse than a doubling statistically if you're predisposed to metabolic issues. IF it causes that then you almost certainly will have not four days more but materially fewer days, never mind the co-morbidity that comes from Type II diabetes.

So while the statin will definitely lower your cholesterol if it can't improve your survival odds over a multiple-year period to a statistically-material degree in people with a similar risk and medical history profile why take the side effect risk?

----------
Winding it down.
Analog
Posts: 1433
Incept: 2010-12-29

arkansas ozarks
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List

Quote:
why take the side effect risk?


Thanks KD. Yes i'm diabetic prone too. It killed Dad but he incited it with massive infusions of Jack Daniels and Tylenol #4 for a decade.

That chart Lobo posted at 18:55 puts a number on it. Thanks
I see Doc tomorrow will find out where i'm running.

I was about 280 shortly before first heart attack. Blood bank sent me a "Get thee to a Cardiologist" letter that i blew off.


Reading that article Vernonb linked i think i'll substitute CoQ10 for Atorvastatin for a while and see what that does.


A decision is only as good as the information it's based on. I appreciate this information on which to base further self experiments.



What's to lose ? Between diabetes and MCI i'll take the latter.

Thanks Guys

a.

----------
Never trust a computer with anything important.
Vernonb
Posts: 1848
Incept: 2009-06-03

East of Sheol
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Analog I'm 56 and have been there myself as far as weight and diet never had a heart attack but have been admittted to ER with BP of 220/180 (ran out of pain medicine following a complex dental surgery). No that is not a typo BTW. Im lucky to be here without serious problems.

Not sure how I got so lucky but I did get serious about blood pressure when I was 26 after that incident. If there is no arterial damage (cracks) the body should not have to do gross maintenance to repair the gratuitous daamge. I think proper BP control helped to stop a lot of the damage. a person with diabetes however is under even more stress in repair.

I have some calcification but tests showed me to be more than 98% clear in all arteries. I then got serious about the diet but all the advice was WRONG it appears. Dropped 150 lbs by end of 2008. I have more endurance than most 20-somethings esecially in the heat (lol) but i ttill need to lose some more.

Best of luck to you buddy!

----------
"Mass intelligence does not mean intelligent masses."
Mannfm11
Posts: 5387
Incept: 2009-02-28

DFW, Tx
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I'm beginning to wonder if more than a few drugs have positive effects. I recall hearing Dick Cheney say Statin drugs saved his life. Does he really know? It is estimated medicine kills 400k people a year, 10% of the population over the typical life span. And we are being brainwashed and forced to participate.

I had 2 great grandfather's live past 84. I believe both of their wives lived past 70. My grandmother's father was literally a pioneer, having participated in the Oklahoma land rush. He was also a noted hard drinker. The Other grandma's dad lived past 90. He peddled fruit on the streets of Atlanta. Neither lived in luxury. Medicine had next to nothing to do with their longevity.

All my grandparents lived past 80. Mom's mother lived to 95 and she refused to take a lot of their drugs. Doctors probably saved her life a few times, but it was surgery to repair internal problems like gallbladder and hernias. Not diseases.
If my mother's family, 1 sibling died in her 50's, 2 in their early to mid 70's, 2 in their early 80's, 1 at 86 and 1 still alive in her late 80's. Their parents averaged 88 between them.

My point is, modern medicine has little to do with longevity. Other factors, like less physically and accident prone lifestyle are a large part, as many were maimed or killed in the past just in the act of living. Sanitation has improved. Epidemic diseases have been eradicated. In the meantime, we are being poisoned


----------
The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.---John Kenneth Galbraith
Analog
Posts: 1433
Incept: 2010-12-29

arkansas ozarks
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Thanks Vernonb

My BP runs low and always has.

That article quotes one Dan Murphy


If this is same guy
www.danmurphydc.com
Apparently he's a chiropractor working for Nutri-West who sell supplements.
makes me question cred of that article...

still i'll try coQ10.

a.

----------
Never trust a computer with anything important.
Doctor5
Posts: 2
Incept: 2017-07-01

greenville, NC
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Go review the 4 S study from the mid 90s. first study to show benefit to statins reducing adverse cardiovascular events. thereafter rate of coronary bypass and stent procedures went way down. may not be due to lipid lowering but perhaps an unknown "pleiotropic effect". same is true for procedures on the carotid artery to prevent stroke. currently still way overdone. but with statins, for whatever reason, the stroke rate from carotid disease is way down. can supply references if wanted but currently not at the computer i need. just let me know.
Tickerguy
Posts: 149426
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
Go review the 4 S study from the mid 90s. first study to show benefit to statins reducing adverse cardiovascular events. thereafter rate of coronary bypass and stent procedures went way down. may not be due to lipid lowering but perhaps an unknown "pleiotropic effect". same is true for procedures on the carotid artery to prevent stroke. currently still way overdone. but with statins, for whatever reason, the stroke rate from carotid disease is way down. can supply references if wanted but currently not at the computer i need. just let me know.

Here's the problem -- one study that hasn't been replicated, or even a NUMBER of studies that are later unable to be replicated do not an argument make. If you ADVOCATE same then you're either INTENTIONALLY ignoring contrary evidence or worse.

You're claiming a study from the 1990s says mobidity went "way down."

Well, ok, then that result should be able to be routinely replicated, and should have been replicated on all the studies since.

That hasn't happened.

Quote:
Those who challenge the cholesterol hypothesis are accused of cherry-picking the data. Ironically, pro-statin researchers themselves are the ones who are guilty of cherry-picking. A recent article in The Lancet, published in 2016, purported to end the statin debate, ostensibly to silence dissenting views[7]. Yet, despite billions invested in developing medicines to reduce LDL-C drastically, there remains no consistent evidence for clinical benefit with respect to either events or mortality.

For instance, there are 44 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of drug or dietary interventions to lower LDL-C in the primary and secondary prevention literature, which show no benefit on mortality[8]. Most of these trials did not reduce CVD events and several reported substantial harm. Yet, these studies have not received much publicity. Furthermore, the ACCELERATE trial, a recent well-conducted double-blind randomised controlled trial, demonstrated no discernible reduction in CVD events or mortality, despite a 130% increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and a 37% drop in LDL-C. The result dumbfounded many experts, sparking renewed scepticism about the veracity of the cholesterol hypothesis[8].

There also appears to be no clear reduction in coronary heart disease mortality in western European countries from statins for primary and secondary prevention[9]. More recently, a post-hoc analysis showed no benefit of statins (pravastatin) in elderly people with moderate hyperlipidaemia and hypertension in primary prevention, and a non-significant direction toward increased all-cause mortality among adults 75 years and older[10]. Alarmingly, an assessment of industry-sponsored RCTs showed the median increase in life expectancy for selected participants in secondary prevention trials who adhered to taking statins every day for several years was a mere four days[11].


Source: http://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/20....

I'll take your "4 S" study and raise you the FORTY FOUR randomized controlled trials that despite dropping cholesterol levels DID EITHER NOTHING AT ALL OR VERY LITTLE TO REDUCE CVD EVENTS, and several REPORTED SUBSTANTIAL HARM.


----------
Winding it down.

Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Showing Page 1 of 2  First12Last