US $ 24

More About the DVD

Why Support this Film?

 

Read the reviews on Amazon by clicking on the image below:

  • STATIN NATION: The Great Cholesterol Cover-Up
    STATIN NATION: The Great Cholesterol Cover-Up
    Rethink Productions
Sign-up for updates
This form does not yet contain any fields.
    MEMBERS
    « At Last, the Tide has Turned! | Main | The New Medicine Will Be More About Physics Than Biology »
    Tuesday
    Nov092010

    British Heart Foundation Continues to Support Statins

    Here is the latest headline from the British Heart Foundation (BHF):

    “Research by BHF-funded scientists has shown that when it comes to cholesterol, ‘lower seems to be better’ for protecting us against heart attacks... The researchers looked at the effects of increasing the dosage of statins, a medicine that reduces cholesterol. They showed that a bigger drop in cholesterol – from more intensive treatment with statins – cut risks even more.”

    This refers to a study just released in the Lancet. This study, and the media hype that the BHF have created about it, is nothing more than an attempt to confuse and mislead people.

    If you read the headlines and the summary report you could certainly be forgiven for thinking that statins are wonder drugs and cholesterol really is humanity’s nemesis. This study did indeed find a reduction in heart attacks associated with more intensive use of statin drugs. However, there are at least four major reasons why the results are misleading.

    The first reason is that the reduction in risk quoted in the interpretation of the study refers to a reduction in LDL cholesterol that is not normally seen in real life. This exaggerates the perceived benefits.

    The interpretation refers to reductions in LDL levels of 2-3 mmol/l. The authors state that this reduction in LDL cholesterol would reduce the risk of a vascular event (such as a heart attack) by 40-50 percent.

    Well, LDL cholesterol is typically around 2-3 mmol/l anyway, so the suggestion that it could be reduced by 2-3 mmol/l is nonsense – most people would have to be clinically dead to achieve this drastic reduction. So, the suggested risk reduction is completely academic and for most people could never happen.

    The second reason is that, as usual, relative percentages are used instead of absolute percentages. This problem is ubiquitous in statin clinical trials and I have commented on it many times before. The risk reductions of 40-50 percent are relative percentages, which can only mislead people. In real terms, the percentages come down to single digits or less.

    The third reason is that, as usual, the issue of deaths from all causes is not addressed. Statins can reduce the risk of suffering a heart attack or other cardiovascular event, but at the same time, these drugs can also increase the risk of dying from other causes, and overall, there is usually no net benefit.

    There is not much point in taking an expensive medication if the risk for one disease is reduced at the cost of increasing the risk for another disease within the same time period.

    I called the BHF today and asked them for the data concerning deaths from all causes. The press office said they didn't know, but they did kindly send me the full report for the study.

    In this trial, the risk of dying from any cause was reduced from 2.3 percent to 2.1 percent. So, in real terms, the benefit of more intensive statin use equates to a risk reduction of just 0.2 percent.

    But even this meagre 0.2 percent risk reduction may not be experienced by real people who take statins. This issue relates to the fourth problem with this study.

    The forth reason why the results are misleading is that the analysis did not distinguish between people at a lower risk for a heart attack and people at a higher risk.

    Around 7 million people are taking statins in England alone, and in America it is estimated that more than 20 million people may be taking them. The vast majority of these people are taking statins for primary prevention. This means that they do not have cardiovascular disease but are given the medications in the hope of preventing future disease.

    To date, there is no convincing evidence that statins provide any net benefit to people when they are taken for primary prevention - they do not reduce the overall death rate. This was the conclusion of the latest analysis in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

    The analysis that the BHF are supporting includes data from higher risk groups - the results do not represent the majority of people who currently take a statin.

    PrintView Printer Friendly Version

    EmailEmail Article to Friend

    Reader Comments

    There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

    PostPost a New Comment

    Enter your information below to add a new comment.

    My response is on my own website »
    Author Email (optional):
    Author URL (optional):
    Post:
     
    Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>