I hear it all the time for varying different reasons not just theories about heart disease but others also. And it seems that the more that mainstream society comes to agree the more alarmed people are that anyone would disagree. One good example would be Dr. Atkins controversial and proven findings. Seems that the medical establishment is 99.9 percent drones that are rather comfortable with simply memorizing the predominant consensus of opinion and regurgitating it than actually exercise their brains to take a step beyond researching and plagiarizing established opinion. Using logic or thinking outside the box is beyond their infantile reasoning capabilities.
It is not really cholesterol but LDL. LDL is the protein made by the liver that deposits fats in the artery walls. HDL the good cholesterol is a protein made by the liver that takes fats deposited in the arteries back to the liver. Women have higher HDL before they hit menopause and that serves a cardiovascular protectant. After menopause they are no longer protected as the amount of HDL is effected by the estrogen level which drops after menopause. The fats that are really bad are the trans fats especially and then the saturated fats. Alot of times it isn't possible to reduce the bad cholesterol enough by diet and exercsise alone which I believe is usually about 10-15%. That is where cholesterol lowering drugs come in. They have certain drugs that can lower LDL, raise HDL, and some that work on triglycerides. The only way to find out is to get a fasting lipid profile which your doctor can perform. There are certain genetic diseases where people have heart attacks in their early 20's becasue they do not have LDL receptors on their livers and therefore have atherosclerosis at a very young age for example familial hypercholesteriemia. There are two forms of this disease one is worse thatn the other. THey get things call xanthomas on their eyelids which are really just deposits of cholesterol. Statin drugs work really well with a small risk of rhabdomyolysis which is a break down in skeletal muscle that if not caught can be serious. The break down of skeletal muscle is hard on the kidneys because of what is called myoglobinuria. Anyway, that is why is you are started on a statin because your cholesterol is too high (the level at which they start you on one depends on how many risk factors you have for example diabetes, smoker, obese, mother or father died young of a heart attack ect). The results of statins have been so good that they keep lowering the cholesterol level at which they start people on the drugs. When started on a statin you have to go and get a liver function test about 3 months later to make sure it isn't having a bad effect on your liver by raising your LFTs such as AST and ALT. These levels can also be used by the way to see if someone is an alcoholic by measuing the ALT over the AST. IF it is greater than 2 that is characteristic of an alcoholic causing damage to theri liver. Also they will tell you to watch for muscle cramps which may be an indication that you are having an adverse reaction with some muscle break down (rhabodomyolysis). Ultimately these drugs are going to be the reason people start living alot longer becuase the major killer or old people other than cancer is heart disease and stroke.
Conspiracy theories are not a good way to approach your healthcare by the way. Medicine in the US is very good.
also statins have been shown to reduce heart attacks in people who already have severe atherosclerosis. Part of the reason is it is thought that it reduces the inflammation in the plaques on the arterial walls which makes them more likely to emobolize or break off and go to the heart or if on the left side of the heart to the brain and cause stroke. That is why if someone has a heart attack one of the first things they do is start them on a statin. Small daily doses of aspirin 80 mg are also very protective in people with heart disease as they work as a platelet inhibitor helping to reduce the formation of clots. Generally, they also get heparin for a short period of time and coumadin for a longer perior of time following hear attack, stroke, or pulmonary embolism, or deep venous thrombosis due to clots.
Would rhabdomyolysis be proportional to the amount of Statin taken? Or even on the same scale and characteristic? In other words have tests shown 0% positive for rhabdomyolysis up until a threshold is reached in medication level and thereafter a steep climb?
It's mostly due to genetic susceptability but I assume the effects would be worse to someone who is genetically suceptable at higher doses. Overall the risk is small. Here is something to give you an idea: Rhabdomyolysis Cohort studies indicate a rate of 3.4 (1.6 to 6.5)/100,000 person years (1 in 29,000 per year) from cohort studies, supported by RCTs and notifications. Mortality with rhabdomyolysis is about 10%, giving a statin-specific death rate of about 1 in 300,000 per year. This is about 15 times less likely than dying in a car accident in a year. http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band147/b147-3.html
Hopefully, the patient is going to call the doctor if they start getting muscle pain and peeing brownish urine and the drug can just be stopped before too much damage is done. Overall they are great drugs though from a risk benefit perspective.
No doubt you are making an excellent point of what a person will see at the Macro level the obvious symptoms. I am however concerned with symptoms not so very obvious, not so very discernable. So then am I to believe then that it is pretty much the hockey stick analogy? i.e. on a dosage scale the positives are on a relatively linear slope while the negatives are minuscule up to a point? That is all I'm asking I have no idea but am speculating. Also and up front I will let you know this is a typical question the type I would ask as a litmus test to gage in my mind where to catalogue the copious and appreciated amount of information you have provided. Are there also points of interest within for example cardiovascular disease that are interesting due to either un-explained or understood facts that contradict the current consensus of opinion? An example being several studies showing a population group that have cholesterol levels that seem to buck the theory i.e. relatively low levels of bad cholesterol and non the less high levels of cardiovascular disease? This is just an example I am not referring to any specific study any contradiction could apply. Just wondering are there any? Yes or No and if there are then are you confident that they have been given due consideration?
If you want high quality information of the caliber that your doctor would use as a reference with all the adequate references at the end and you take the time to look up and understand the points made you will be able to possible improve your ability to discern junk science and conspiracy theories from studies that have scientific validity and reproducibiillty. The source I am referring to is emedicine. This is a high quality source used by physcians available free for the most part over the web. If your cholesterol is in fact high then I would suggest following your doctors recommendations. I would not however suggest going into his office and starting to get off on a bunch of side discussions like the above as there is no way he could actually practice medicine and adress the concerns of a "smurf" like mentality. If you want a medical opinion about the Atkinson diet that would be fine but I would not suggest going off on tangents. Medical doctors just don't have time for that kind of thing. I don't really have the time or desire to delve into this kind of muck either it obviously won't go anywhere and it doesn't interest me having a medical background and not a degree from the Art Bell institute of skepticism.
Here is a quality article on the effects of high cholesterol on the cardiovascular system: http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic182.htm Hmg-Coa reductase inhibiters = statins (statin is the root name for example simvastatin)
Anyway, I think the macro level I am talking about is living longer and spending less time in the hospital. I would suggest a key word search using words like mortality and morbidity and statins and cardiovascular disease and side effects if you want more information than I am prepared to give you off the top of my head.
With regard to the Atkins diet: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/press/releases/press11082006.html With regard to nutrition in general: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/index.html Even with eating nothing but grass like a cow so to speak alot of people are unable to lower their bad cholesterol levels and their is a limit on what diet can do. That is where the drugs come in: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats.html
But damn it I do love my steak n bacon. I'll just go back to taking my Vitorin or Vytorin what ever it is. Plastic surgery was controversial before it was mainstream. The issue here is hereditary. Now we have ugly people becoming "foe fuckworthy" and now even more ugly people in the gene pool. Now even more ugly people equals more plastic surgery dollars ....... LOL there is your Smurf, Art Bell conspiracy. I know Dr.s are in the business of paying off student loans and impressing friends. I also know there ineptitude regarding simple matters like figuring out how to use Outlook to send out a distribution e-mail leaves precious time for discussing medicine. That's why I'm asking you. And between all the inaccurate personal observations I think you provided me with some good insight. As for heart disease was it CHD? I do not think I am all together conspiratorial if I think that the next huge leap in understand will be made in the study of genetics. (non-controversial) But the next big leap in remedy will be made using hormone research (controversial) Like mainstream medicine being amazingly slow to admit that they were wrong about the love affair for the carbohydrate. They will be equally slow to look for what is right under their nose regarding hormone research. So where are you at with your studies? Am I understanding that you have decided to go into Neurology? Stop fucking around on Fugly discussing something that is not your specialty and get back to studying. I'll be eager to hear about the latest cutting edge discoveries regarding the brain.