Confirmation – Just say “No” to statins

Confirmation – Just say “No” to statins

Awareness Alert

As new afibbers, we often initially seek help from cardiologists and typically during the assessment, many of us are prescribed statins as routine, preventive care (captive audience). Many previous posts have discussed the ineffectiveness of statins, the side effects and risks and the fact that, as often stated, “cholesterol is not the enemy.” Past posts have referenced and quoted from Uffe Ravnskov's (MD, PhD) book, Cholesterol Myths and directed readers to the website of Duane Graveline, MD, aka Spacedoc who was severely damaged by obligatory statin use and wrote the book, Lipitor, Thief of Memory and Statin Damage Crisis.

In March 2015, a report by David M Diamond & Uffe Ravnskov was published in Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology titled Review - How statistical deception created the appearance that statins are safe and effective in primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

The authors describe deceptive statistical tricks to create the false appearance that cholesterol reduction results in reduction of heart disease and point out that the adverse effects include a greater risk of cancer, cataracts, dementia, diabetes and muscular-skeletal diseases… all for benefits that are trivial or worthless.[1]

Abstract
We have provided a critical assessment of research on the reduction of cholesterol levels by statin treatment to reduce cardiovascular disease. Our opinion is that although statins are effective at reducing cholesterol levels, they have failed to substantially improve cardiovascular outcomes. We have described the deceptive approach statin advocates have deployed to create the appearance that cholesterol reduction results in an impressive reduction in cardiovascular disease outcomes through their use of a statistical tool called relative risk reduction (RRR), a method which amplifies the trivial beneficial effects of statins. We have also described how the directors of the clinical trials have succeeded in minimizing the significance of the numerous adverse effects of statin treatment.
[www.tandfonline.com]

In this same review report published in Wise Traditions (Fall 2015) by Weston Price Foundation, the author also points out that “Japanese researchers present evidence that statins may cause coronary artery calcification and “can function as mitochondrial toxins that impair muscle function in the heart and blood vessels through depletion of CoQ10 and ‘heme-A’; and thereby, ATP generation.”

The authors found that statins inhibit synthesis of vitamin K2, the cofactor for matrix Gla protein activation which protects against arterial calcifications. Statins also inhibit the biosynthesis of selenium-containing proteins, one of which is glutathione peroxidase which suppresses peroxidative stress. Impairment of selenoprotein biosynthesis may be a factor on congestive heart failure similar to that observed in dilated cardiomyopathy seen with selenium deficiency.

The Japanese authors conclude: “The epidemic of heart failure and atherosclerosis that plagues the modern world may paradoxically be aggravated by the pervasiveness of statin drugs. We propose that current statin treatment guides be critically reevaluated. [1]

It’s worth reading through our past posts on the statin topic so you are aware. Recall that I suffered statin damage long before I began treating for Afib and was left with weak leg muscles as a result of only a few months use. Mitochondrial damage isn’t just specific by ‘legs only’ so quite likely, I also had/have some degree of mito/cardiac cell damage as well.

Knowledge = power. Knowledge also = health.

Jackie


[1] Wise Traditions, Volume 16, Number 3, Fall 2015, Weston Price Foundation, www.westonprice.org.
They encourage reproduction of information as long as credit is appropriately listed.

Uffe Ravnskoff, MD, PhD [www.ravnskov.nu]

Duane Graveline, MD - [www.spacedoc.com]

John Abramson, MD – Overdosed America
[www.townsendletter.com]
[www.afibbers.org]


Just some of the previous posts on the Statin Topic
[www.afibbers.org]

[www.afibbers.org]


8.06.2015 Author: F. William Engdahl

Shocking Report from Medical Insiders

A shocking admission by the editor of the world’s most respected medical journal, The Lancet, has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media. Dr. Richard Horton, Editor-in-chief of the Lancet recently published a statement declaring that a shocking amount of published research is unreliable at best, if not completely false, as in, fraudulent.

Horton declared, “Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

To state the point in other words, Horton states bluntly that major pharmaceutical companies falsify or manipulate tests on the health, safety and effectiveness of their various drugs by taking samples too small to be statistically meaningful or hiring test labs or scientists where the lab or scientist has blatant conflicts of interest such as pleasing the drug company to get further grants. At least half of all such tests are worthless or worse he claims. As the drugs have a major effect on the health of millions of consumers, the manipulation amounts to criminal dereliction and malfeasance.
Continue: [journal-neo.org]

In the Introduction to Lone Atrial Fibrillation - Towards a Cure (2002)* this forum's founder, Hans R. Larsen, writes:
A study carried out in 2001 by Kaiser Permanente concluded that the incidence of atrial fibrillation, which now affects 2.3 million Americans, will double over the next 50 years. This estimate may be conservative; a more recent study found that the incidence of atrial fibrillation has increased by 70% over the last 15 years.

Some would like to believe this is due to increasing age of the population, but perusing longevity statistics turns out such is not the case. Clearly a leading culprit is outright poisoning of the population by the industrial/medical complex, e.g. Big Pharma/Big Food/Mainstream Medical complex with statin prescriptions being a huge contributor.

* [www.amazon.com]

Jackie opened the archive's floodgate; using 'Advanced Search' this came tumbling out:

Jan. 2011. By Dr. Duane Graveline MD, MPH

Those of you who have been following my research during the past two years will know that I consider mitochondrial DNA damage as the ultimate result of statin drug intake.

Through mevalonate blockade, statins directly inhibit CoQ10 synthesis making mitochondrial damage and mutation all but inevitable. Furthermore, the inhibitory effect of statins on dolichol synthesis makes repair of DNA damage all the more difficult because of dolichol's vital role in glycoprotein (glycohydrolase) synthesis.

Recently I have learned of another biochemical substance that also is implicated in this process of mitochondrial maintenance. The name of this biochemical is pyrroloquinoline quinone with the shorthand version being PQQ.

This substance has been discovered only in the past decade with its vital role in mitochondrial support having been documented only in the past several years. From what I have read of this substance, trying to get beyond the hype, it is worth considering for those of us who have been damaged by statins, whether by cognitive dysfunction, permanent myopathy, ALS like symptoms, or peripheral neuropathy.

[continue: [www.afibbers.org]

More:

The latest book, Statin Toxic Side Effects: Evidence from 500 scientific papers (2015) by David Evans, offers more solid evidence in addition to his two earlier publications:

Low Cholesterol Leads to an Early Death - Evidence from 101 Scientific Papers (2012)
Cholesterol and Saturated Fat Prevent Heart Disease - Evidence from 101 Scientific Papers (2012).

He shows that statin use is associated with greater risk of diabetes, cancer, muscle damage, hypothyroidism, organ failure, liver problems, pancreatitis, peripheral neuropathy, lupus, skin abnormalities, asthma, reduced lung function, reduced cognition, neurodegenerative diseases, depression, suicide, damaged eyes, impotence and birth defects and heart disease.

Evans cites thirty-two studies showing statins won’t help with heart disease and are associated with increased risk of serious adverse cardiovascular events, higher cardiac death rates, increased adverse events and death in those undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery, increased risk of death in angioplasty patients, increased risk of heart failure, and double the risk of death in patients with coronary artery disease.

Case reports also show increased risk of osteoporosis and joint pain, cause both constipation and diarrhea, associated with colitis, bone loss, tendon rupture, urinary tract infections and general infections including MRSA. The list is long and covers several pages.

As for all the studies showing statins save lives, Evans sums them up neatly with a chart showing virtually identical numbers of people alive in the treatment and control groups in the 33 major studies used to tout statins.

Reference: Wise Traditions – Weston Price Foundation – Fall 2015
Review by Sally Fallon Morrell, President and Treasurer


Jackie

Timely.

Dr. David Brownstein's blog today offers this on statins:

Statins are the most profitable drugs in the history of the Big Pharma Cartel. In the U.S., the most stunning statistic about statin drugs is that nearly one-third of adult Americans currently take a statin medication. And, if the Powers-That-Be have their way, all Americans over the age of 50 would be prescribed a statin drug.

Why do so many people take a statin drug? Statins are prescribed for elevated cholesterol levels with the idea that statin use will lower the mortality from heart disease. What most health care providers and patients don’t know is that twenty years of research has failed to show that statin use significantly lowers the risk of dying from heart disease.

A recent British Medical Journal study looked at the mortality benefit from taking a statin medication for two to six years. (1) The authors performed a literature review of statin studies. They reported that if you are take a statin medication for two to six years to prevent your first heart attack—this is referred to as primary prevention—your death will be postponed by an average of 3.2 days. If you have already suffered a heart attack and are taking a statin to prevent another cardiac event—this is referred to as secondary prevention—your death will be postponed an average of 4.1 days.

So, let me summarize these findings. You will need to take a statin medication—which poisons a crucial enzyme in your body—for two to six years to live a few more days. I guess a few extra days would be ok if statins were inexpensive and not associated with serious adverse effects.

However, neither is true. Statins are not inexpensive and they are associated with severe adverse effects including mitochondrial dysfunction, muscle weakness and breakdown, brain fog, memory loss, dementia, and cancer.

Take a toxic drug for six years for an extra three or four days of life?

Fugetaboutit.

Folks, statins are a disaster. They fail nearly 99% who take them to prevent getting a heart attack. And, their mortality benefit is close to nonexistent as shown in this study. We are wasting a huge amount of scarce health care dollars on a class of medications that should be pulled from the market.

If you are taking a statin, my advice is to educate yourself about how effective the drug really is and decide if the benefits outweigh the side effects. Remember, it is up to you to decide whether to take any drug prescribed to you.

More information about statins can be found in my book, The Statin Disaster.

DrB

source: www.drbrownstein.com

There are a couple of articles in the NEJM regarding the randomised trials of statins vs placebo. The numerical results differ with the opinions cited above.

[www.nejm.org]
[www.nejm.org]

The report in the first post by F. William Engdahl goes on to say:

Other voices
Dr. Marcia Angell is a physician and was longtime Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), considered to be another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world. Angell stated,

..........“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.”

After reading Dr. Angell's book in 2006, I became disenchanted with NEJM's study reporting.

The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It Paperback

Jackie

The Truth About The Drug Companies
How They Deceive Us And What To Do About It

By Marcia Angell MD 2005

[www.amazon.com]
Look Inside, descriptions, reviews, Very Good used copies from $0.01 + S&H

During her two decades at The New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Marcia Angell had a front-row seat on the appalling spectacle of the pharmaceutical industry. She watched drug companies stray from their original mission of discovering and manufacturing useful drugs and instead become vast marketing machines with unprecedented control over their own fortunes. She saw them gain nearly limitless influence over medical research, education, and how doctors do their jobs. She sympathized as the American public, particularly the elderly, struggled and increasingly failed to meet spiraling prescription drug prices. Now, in this bold, hard-hitting new book, Dr. Angell exposes the shocking truth of what the pharmaceutical industry has become–and argues for essential, long-overdue change.

Currently Americans spend a staggering $200 billion each year on prescription drugs. As Dr. Angell powerfully demonstrates, claims that high drug prices are necessary to fund research and development are unfounded: The truth is that drug companies funnel the bulk of their resources into the marketing of products of dubious benefit. Meanwhile, as profits soar, the companies brazenly use their wealth and power to push their agenda through Congress, the FDA, and academic medical centers.

Zeroing in on hugely successful drugs like AZT (the first drug to treat HIV/AIDS), Taxol (the best-selling cancer drug in history), and the blockbuster allergy drug Claritin, Dr. Angell demonstrates exactly how new products are brought to market. Drug companies, she shows, routinely rely on publicly funded institutions for their basic research; they rig clinical trials to make their products look better than they are; and they use their legions of lawyers to stretch out government-granted exclusive marketing rights for years. They also flood the market with copycat drugs that cost a lot more than the drugs they mimic but are no more effective.

The American pharmaceutical industry needs to be saved, mainly from itself, and Dr. Angell proposes a program of vital reforms, which includes restoring impartiality to clinical research and severing the ties between drug companies and medical education. Written with fierce passion and substantiated with in-depth research, The Truth About the Drug Companies is a searing indictment of an industry that has spun out of control.

Amazon.com Review
Many Americans have wondered why prescription drugs have become so expensive while advertising for those drugs seems to grow exponentially. Former New England Journal of Medicine Editor Marcia Angell has some answers. The pharmaceutical industry, according to Angell, is fraught with corruption and doing a disservice to customers, the federal government, and to the medical establishment itself. In The Truth About the Drug Companies, Angell explains how a huge portion of the revenue generated by "Big Pharma" goes not into research and development but into aggressive marketing campaigns to sell their product. She describes how, even though the drug companies claim that it costs them an average of 802 million dollars per drug to develop new medicines, that figure is obscenely inflated since it factors in marketing as well as expected interest the company would have received had they invested the money in the open market. Meanwhile, Angell says, most of the R & D work is done by colleges and universities funded by the government. There are also problems with the drugs themselves, Angell indicates, since a majority are "me-too drugs", slightly modified versions of existing products which meant to address concerns of consumers most likely to spend money on pharmaceuticals. Thus, the market is filled with remarkably similar drugs to treat depression and high cholesterol while potentially life-saving medicines for diseases afflicting third-world countries are discontinued because they aren't profitable. In the books most damning passage, Angell tells of the high-priced junkets offered to doctors, ostensibly offered as educational opportunities that seem to constitute little more than bribes. The prognosis for reform is a grim one, Angell indicates, due to the massive cash reserves and lobbying efforts of "Big Pharma." Indeed, that lobby was hard at work trying to discredit her claims immediately upon the book's publication. But for anyone who's paid a pharmacy bill, The Truth About the Drug Companies is a fascinating read. --John Moe --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Publishers Weekly
In what should serve as the Fast Food Nation of the drug industry, Angell, former editor of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, presents a searing indictment of "big pharma" as corrupt and corrupting: of Congress, through huge campaign contributions; of the FDA, which is funded in part by the very companies it oversees; and, perhaps most shocking, of members of the medical profession and its institutions. Angell delineates how the drug giants, such as Pfizer and AstraZeneca, pay physicians to prescribe their products with gifts, junkets and marketing programs disguised as "professional education." According to Angell, the cost of marketing, both to physicians and consumers, far outweighs expenditures on research and development, though drug makers invoke R&D as the reason drug prices are so high. In fact, says Angell, with combined 2002 profits of $35.9 billion for the Fortune 500's top 10 drug companies, the drug industry is America's most profitable by far, thanks to disproportionately high prices, generous tax breaks and manipulation of patents to extend exclusive marketing rights to blockbuster drugs like Prozac and Claritin. Angell mounts a powerful case (and offers specific suggestions) for reform of this essential industry—a case worth bearing in mind as "big pharma" continues to oppose importing cheaper drugs from Canada.

There are also several articles which report specifically on statins and afib . These studies typically display relative risk or odds ratio, along with confidence intervals and significance level. Clinicians are hardly confused about the relationship between relative and absolute risk, and can of course convert between them. Relative risk admits further inference when the prevalence in the untreated population is small and/or imprecise. The general conclusion seems to be that statins reduce the relative risk of afib. Interestingly a recent study qualifies this by removing patients who underwent invasive cardiac procedures from the population and shows that the risk is reduced for both new and recurrent onset afib in observational but not randomized studies. This is quite interesting in that it demonstrates the importance of rigorous experimental design. It is not useful to paint all medical research with the same brush, people devote their lives to doing this research and many of them are not particularly well-compensated. Consider taking or reviewing a basic course on experimental design and arguing about each study on its merits.

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

From the Spacedoc website, a report by Stephanie Seneff, a Senior Research Scientist at MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, contains a clip on the relationship of statins and Alzheimer’s…

Statin drugs interfere with cholesterol synthesis in the liver, but the lipophilic statin drugs (like lovastatin and simvastatin) also interfere with the synthesis of cholesterol in the brain. This would then directly impact the neurons' ability to maintain adequate cholesterol in their membranes.

Indeed, a population-based study [7] showed that people who had ever taken statins had an increased risk to Alzheimer's disease, a hazard ratio of 1.21. More alarmingly, people who used to take statins had a hazard ratio of 2.54 (over two and a half times the risk to Alzheimer's) compared to people who never took statins.

What I think is happening is that the doctor is taking the patient off the statin drug once memory problems are noted, suspecting that the statin may be causing the problem. But it may well be too late at that point to recover. In my own studies on patient-provided drug side effect reports [8], I found a statistically significant increase in the mention of words and phrases associated with memory problems (p=0.011) in the statin drug reports compared to age-matched reports on a variety of other drugs. Continue: [www.spacedoc.com]

And two clips from another important contribution by Duane Graveline, MD, MPH on PQQ and Statin Damage … also relevant.....keeping in mind the critical role of mitochondria in heart energy production/function .....

……Those of you who have been following my research over the years will know that I consider mitochondrial DNA damage as the ultimate result for many people from taking statins.

Through mevalonate blockade, statins directly inhibit CoQ10 synthesis making mitochondrial damage and mutation all but inevitable. Furthermore, the inhibitory effect of statins on dolichol synthesis makes repair of DNA damage all the more difficult because of the vital role of dolichols in glycoprotein (glycohydrolase) synthesis.

A few years ago I learned of another biochemical substance that also is implicated in this process of mitochondrial maintenance. The name of this biochemical is pyrroloquinoline quinone with the shorthand version being PQQ.
The vital role of PQQ in mitochondrial support has only been documented in the past 15 years. From what I have read of this substance, it is worth considering for those of us who have been damaged by statins, whether by cognitive dysfunction, permanent myopathy, ALS like symptoms, or peripheral neuropathy.

……..The problem is that as we age, our mitochondria degrade and become dysfunctional. Compared with nuclear DNA, mitochondrial DNA is left almost entirely exposed to the ravages of free radicals. It attaches directly to the inner membrane where the mitochondria's furnace rages continuously.

Statin drugs directly hasten this process of mitochondrial DNA degradation by direct inhibition of CoQ10 and dolichol synthesis. The ultimate cause of statin associated adverse reactions is this progressive deterioration of mitochondrial DNA. PQQ is being touted not only for its extra anti-oxidant protection in the fight against free radicals, but also for its potential use for mitochondrial genesis. Continue [www.spacedoc.com]

Dr. Mercola interviews Dr. Stephanie Seneff - September 2011:
[Stephanie Seneff PhD: [people.csail.mit.edu]

Video: [articles.mercola.com]

PDF: [xa.yimg.com]

Please read the entire interview. This on PDF p. 7 is worth quoting:

Dr. Seneff: "I can tell you that in the 10 years since statins were first introduced, from 1980 to 1990, the incidence of heart failure doubled. Right now, heart failure has beat out cardiovascular disease as the number one cause of death in America. It just kept on going up along with the increased use of statins. It is very clear to me that statins are causing the heart failure. I can give you all the reasons why. Of course you know about coenzyme Q10 and that’s part of it. Statins not only interfere with cholesterol synthesis but they basically interfere with an early step in the mevalonate pathway. And that mevalonate pathway is the central pathway for all the sterols, steroid management in the body. All the sterol products; cholesterol, vitamin D – vitamin D is actually very, very similar to cholesterol and it’s produced from cholesterol in the skin. And then you have all the sex hormones – estrogen and testosterone, all of those and then you have cortisone. You have the dolichols which are involved in keeping the membranes inside the cells healthy. You have the Coenzyme Q10 which is critical to the energy generation in the Krebs cycle in the cell. All of these products of this pathway (mevalonate pathway) are messed up by statins. I don’t personally understand why anyone would think that was something that would be worth taking. Here we are with tens of millions of people feeling convinced that they have to take their statin drug to keep their LDL under control."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/06/2016 03:36PM by Moerk.

By Jackie, February 5 2007 [www.afibbers.org]

Caveat lector: Reliance on Published Studies Is Risky

Dear Readers~ This is another lengthy post but one that is especially relevant to our group since we read studies and do research.
Caveat lector: let the reader beware.

So often we reference clinical studies published in respected medical journals to support or refute a finding on a health issue, a drug, a supplement, procedure or medical device. Today, this is a risky practice.

The focus of this report is to alert readers as to why we should view studies with a critical eye (perhaps skeptical) and to create awareness about the bias or spin now permeating our most respected medical journal publications as well as the commercialization of clinical trial material to create demand for pharmaceuticals or medical innovations.

A number of years ago, some of the forward-thinking physicians who expanded their knowledge to include expertise in functional and nutritional medicine issued a caveat about studies. They said, “Follow the money trail” to examine the bias. This is especially true today. More and more criticism is coming forth from mainstream medicine about the bias of studies and the failure to separate out vested interests.

One such person is a physician who became so alarmed about this data manipulation that he left his practice to write a book to get the word out. This report centers mainly around two hour-long teleconference interviews in mid- and late- 2006 along with book contents with author, John Abramson, MD. This is not new news, but it’s important to understand that reliance on published studies can offer a false sense of security, correctness, accuracy, safety or honesty.

Most of the conventional medical community is unaware of the bias nor has the time to sort through the data to learn the true facts. Because they rely on pharmaceutical companies for continuing education, they are fed misinformation and biased data that places patient safety in jeopardy.

Dr. Abramson points out that three quarters of published study data in our most trusted and respected medical journals – the New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association and Lancet, are commercially funded; and, says that studies show that when drug trials are commercially funded, the odds are 5.3 times greater that commercially funded studies will conclude that the sponsor drug is the treatment of choice compared to studies of exactly the same drugs that are not commercially sponsored.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

The book, “Overdo$ed America – The Broken Promise of American Medicine” (Harper Collins Sept 2004) [www.amazon.com] was written by John Abramson, MD, a Family Practice physician who left his practice to go public to create awareness among healthcare consumers and his own medical profession that the drug companies are funding and manipulating data so that the truth about clinical trials or study results is often obscure and the safety of the public is in jeopardy. What he reveals about his findings is appalling and irrefutable because it’s right there if one has access and digs deeply enough. [Continue [www.afibbers.org]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/05/2016 11:12AM by Moerk.

Thank you safib, the insight and citations are appreciated.

However, the articles fail to distinguish between the two attributes of statins, namely lipid lowering and anti-inflammation. The efficacy of statins re: AF is logically (biophysically) due to Inflammation reduction, not lipid reduction.

The first article has this telling comment: (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22376147)
Statin therapy was significantly associated with a decreased risk of incidence or recurrence of AF. The benefit of statin therapy seemed more markedly in secondary prevention than primary prevention. These results provided some evidence for the benefit of statins beyond their lipid-lowering activity

The second article has this: (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22999824)
The hitherto published randomized clinical trials do not support a beneficial effect of statins on AF in patients not undergoing invasive cardiac interventions.

Surely this great forum addressed the distinction in convincing detail sometime in the past, so important for an AF sufferer who might otherwise be tempted to take a statin drug with hideous consequenses ? We should look.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/06/2016 04:04PM by Moerk.

Typically, when statins are prescribed, there is a failure to also prescribe using Coenzyme Q10 to help offset the affect of statins on mitochondrial ATP production for heart energy and function. Some reports are indicating that a few of the more enlightened physicians are starting to recommend it. But, just taking CoQ in therapeutic doses would accomplish much the same thing for energy and reducing inflammation without the potential for the statin damage.

Check out this report on CoQ by Naturopathic physician, Michael Murray

.... " CoQ10 Study Yields Important Results and Considerations
One of the most important nutrients for heart health is coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10). Its role in the heart is similar to the role of a spark plug in a car engine. Just as the car cannot function without that initial spark, the heart cannot function without CoQ10. Although the body can make CoQ10, considerable research shows significant benefits with supplementation in various health issues and in people taking cholesterol-lowering drugs (e.g., statins like Lipitor and Crestor). [doctormurray.com]


" Statin drugs like Crestor, Lipitor, and Zocor work by inhibiting the enzyme that the liver needs to manufacture cholesterol. Unfortunately, they also block the manufacture of other substances necessary for body functions, including CoQ10. That could explain the drugs’ most commonly reported side effects—especially fatigue and muscle pain. One large study, the ENDOTACT study published in the International Journal of Cardiology in 2005, showed that statin therapy significant decreased CoQ10 plasma levels, but that decrease could be prevented entirely by supplementing with 150 mg of CoQ10. Additionally, CoQ10 supplements significantly improved the function of the blood vessel lining—one of the key goals in the treatment and prevention of atherosclerosis. "


Jackie

Retrieved from Archive level 2008: [www.afibbers.org]

Excerpt:

HFD-511
Food and Drug Administration
5600 Fishers Ln.
Rockville MD 20857

Ancona, September 5th 2001

Object: Biochemical and Potential Clinical Consequences of Inhibiting Coenzyme Q10 Biosynthesis by HMG-CoA Reductase Inhibitors: A Critical Opinion by the International Coenzyme Q10 Association.

Dear Sirs,

Please accept this letter as a position statement on the growing problem of adverse side effects related to the use of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. The International Coenzyme Q10 Association is a group of scientists and medical professionals with a research focus on coenzyme Q10, which plays a crucial role in cellular ATP production. It has been demonstrated that HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, also known as statins, block the biosynthesis of coenzyme Q10 and of dolichol, besides the well known effect on cholesterol synthesis. Several studies have shown that administration of different kinds of statins can lead to a parallel decrease of coenzyme Q10 and cholesterol in plasma (1- 9, 19). Animal studies have also demonstrated a tissue depletion in the course of statin treatment (10 - 12) which was particularly evident in aged animals (13) . We can reasonably hypothesize that in some conditions where other CoQ10 impoverishing situations exist, treatment with statins may seriously impair plasma and possibly tissue levels of coenzyme Q10. A physiological decline in tissue CoQ10 has for instance been implicated in ageing (17,18) which would make the elderly more susceptible to statin-induced CoQ10 depletion.

Read full letter and list of references at [www.icqa.org]

[continue: [www.afibbers.org]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/06/2016 05:26PM by Moerk.

From [www.afibbers.org]
Statins & Preventing Blood Clots
March 2009
===============

Shannon

The claimed benefits of this study on blood clots appear to be due mostly to statin's anti-inflammatory effect, which can be achieved using other means like Omega 3, Beta-sitasterol and Zyflamend among a host of other natural and much safer agents without any of the significant down sides and risks of statins.

No doubt, this article is being widely circulated by Big-Pharmacy's deep connection with the national and world press outlets. Alas, we don't see so much coverage of the dangers of statins, unfortunately. These drug are too big a cash cow.

===============

Hans Larsen

Boy, those statin people really are desperate to sell their drug! Now they are recommending that people take it to prevent venous thromboembolism (DVT). Venous thromboembolism occurs mostly in elderly people and is particularly associated with air travel and other activities where immobility is a factor.

The trial showed that taking Crestor reduced the incidence of DVT from 0.34% to 0.19% per year or a 44% relative decrease. Looking at it another way, Crestor reduced the incidence of DVT by 13 cases/year among 8900 treated people. This means that in order to avoid one (1) case it would be necessary to treat 685 people every day with Crestor. At $3.45/pill this works out to a yearly cost of $863,00 to prevent one case of DVT or $8.6 million to save one life (mortality rate for DVT is about 10%). Nice work if you can get it!

Fortunately there is a much simpler, far less expensive and totally safe way of preventing DVT. Take nattokinase! A clinical trial of pinokinase (a blend of pycnogenol and nattokinase) found that airline passengers with a high risk of DVT were completely protected whereas 7.6% of passengers taking placebo experienced DVT. Now that is protection!

Here are the details of the Pinokinase trial. Please note that it is the nattokinase that protects against DVT while the pycnogenol protects against edema.

"Pinokinase is a recently developed proprietary blend of nattokinase and pycnogenol specifically aimed at preventing edema and venous thrombosis during long-haul flights. Pycnogenol is a water extract from the bark of French maritime pine and had been found effective in controlling edema. It is a strong antioxidant, has significant anti-inflammatory effects, and increases capillary wall resistance. Flite Tabs, the brand name pinokinase preparation, contains 150 mg of a proprietary mixture of nattokinase and pycnogenol and is manufactured by Aidan in Tempe, Arizona.

A group of British and Italian researchers recently reported that pinokinase (Flite Tabs) is indeed effective in preventing edema and venous thrombosis. Their clinical trial involved 204 airline passengers at high risk for venous thrombosis traveling between London and New York (a 7-8 hour flight). Half the passengers were randomized to receive 2 capsules of Flite Tabs two hours before the flight with 250 ml of water. The other half of the experimental group received placebo capsules in a similar fashion. The presence of blood clots in the veins of the leg was determined with ultrasound scanning within 90 minutes of the beginning and completion of the flight. The degree of edema experienced during the flight was determined through a combined edema score including ankle circumference, discomfort, subjective swelling, and a standard edema test.

The researchers observed no thrombotic events in the Flite Tabs group, but discovered 5 cases of deep vein thrombosis and 2 cases of superficial thrombosis in the control group. Thus the total incidence of venous thrombosis was 7.6% in the control group versus 0% in the Flite Tabs group. The average edema score increased by 12% in the control group after the flight, but decreased by 15% in the Flite Tabs group. The researchers conclude that Flite Tabs are effective in controlling edema and reducing thrombotic events during long-haul flights[112].

These very recent findings add to the evidence of nattokinase’s effectiveness in preventing thrombosis. Deep vein thrombosis is caused by blood stagnation in the veins, particularly in the legs. There is evidence that a significant source of blood clots in permanent afibbers with cardiovascular disease is the left atrial appendage where blood tends to stagnate during atrial fibrillation. It would seem likely that nattokinase might also be very effective in preventing thrombosis in the left atrial appendage."

112. Cesarone, MR, et al. Prevention of venous thrombosis in long-haul flights with Flite Tabs. Angiology, Vol. 54, No. 5, Sept-Oct, 2003, pp. 531-39

Excerpt from "Thrombosis and Stroke Prevention - 2nd Edition".

===============



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2016 05:01PM by Moerk.

From [www.afibbers.org]

-- scroll down about 7/8 to:

GeorgeN
February 13, 2011 03:15PM

Here is an interview of Dr. Graveline by Dr. Mercola:
[articles.mercola.com]

and a transcript of the interview if you'd rather read it, or if Mercola makes you register to see the videos:
[mercola.fileburst.com]

GeorgeN

Daily Statins For All? More Media Nonsense
Source: David Brownstein, MD. blog


Be still my beating heart. One day after writing a blog post describing how taking a statin for six years gives you three or four more days of life, CNN publishes an article titled, “Global study lays groundwork for daily statin usage to prevent heart disease.” (1) This study is referred to as the HOPE-3 trial. The author of the CNN article was summarizing the findings from a New England Journal of Medicine Study released today. (2)

(BTW: This study was funded by Big Pharma Cartel member AstraZeneca who, you guessed it, makes Crestor—the statin drug used in the study.)

Could I be wrong? I have been stating that statins fail nearly 99% who take them, yet the CNN article stated that those who took Crestor (when compared to those that took a placebo) for nearly six years had a 24% reduction in heart attacks, strokes or heart-related deaths. Furthermore, the authors of the study stated, “The HOPE-3 trial provides evidence to reinforce some current guideline recommendations and to influence future guidelines.”

I am not sure what guidelines the authors want to reinforce, but perhaps they meant the Dr. B guidelines. The Dr. B guidelines have said for years that statin drugs fail nearly 99% who take them. Let’s see if the HOPE-3 trial findings agree with my guidelines.

You see, in HOPE-3, 3.7% of those that took a statin drug over 5.6 years had a heart attack, stroke or suffered a heart-related death compared to 4.8% who took a placebo. The CNN article correctly stated that this was a 24% reduction in the statin-treated group (3.7%/4.8%). However, the reported 24% reduction is a relative risk reduction. As I have taught medical students, residents, and other physicians for years, the relative risk ratios are used by Big Pharma to make a poorly performing drug look better than it actually is. In fact, the relative risk concept is meaningless in a clinical study. It provides no useful information for the clinician to decide whether a particular therapy is useful or not.

The absolute risk difference of risk is a more meaningful way of interpreting data in order to use it clinically. What is the absolute risk difference in the HOPE-3 trial? It is 1.1% (4.8%-3.7%). That means, according to HOPE-3, 91 subjects would have to take a statin medication for nearly six years to prevent one cardiovascular event. In other words, the drug (Crestor) failed nearly 99% who took it—they received no cardiovascular benefit.

Folks, this study agrees with everything I have written about statins. In fact, my wife Allison (who just edited this post for me), just said, “You have been saying that for a long time. I am sick of hearing about it.” Allison does have a point. I am tired of hearing the lies perpetuated about statin drugs.

The HOPE-3 trial does reinforce the Dr. B guidelines for statin use – namely no one should be prescribing or taking any drug that fails nearly 99% who takes it.

DrB
Source: [blog.drbrownstein.com]

References:
(1) [www.cnn.com]
(2) [www.nejm.org]


[ A comment at the end of the CNN report worth noting: …. “Topol, who was not involved in this study, also highlighted that in this trial, cataracts are a newly identified side effect associated with the medication for lowering cholesterol.” ]

NO