Cholesterol: Another Wrong Conclusion

Poor Predictor: Researchers reported that the cholesterol levels in women were not associated with stroke, while there was only an association in men with levels higher than 9mmol/litre. The average in UK men is 5.5.

I don't know where people's heads have been since the cholesterol bonanza began, but my stand is that these pundits overlooked a known fact, which now seems to be getting press after some 30 years. 

It's triglycerides!  And this is what I learned in college, what will really hurt you and lead you along the slippery slope to heart attack and stroke.

I have often written that once milk began to be homogenized, things started going down hill. This practice by commercial dairies caused dairy fat to be "osmosed" directly into your blood, in fool fat form.  Clogged arteries are the end result, that s if course unless you follow a health promoting food plan or use proper supplementation.

The comes the low-fat/non-fat diet and all kinds of health problems reach new, high levels.  More drugs, less benefit, more cases, no recovery, lack of prevention too!

High levels of cholesterol do not predict the risk of stroke.

They did detect an increased risk in men, but only when cholesterol was at almost twice the average level.

The report in Annals of Neurology recommends using a different type of fat in the blood, non-fasting triglycerides, to measure the risk.

The Stroke Association said triglyceride tests needed to become routine to reduce the risk of stroke.

A total of 150,000 people have a stroke in the UK each year. Most are ischemic strokes, in which a clot in an artery disrupts the brain's blood supply.

The research followed 13,951 men and women, who took part in the Copenhagen City Heart Study.

During the 33-year study, 837 men and 837 women had strokes.

Poor predictor

They reported that the cholesterol levels in women were not associated with stroke, while there was only an association in men with levels higher than 9mmol/litre. The average in UK men is 5.5.

The researchers at Copenhagen University Hospital said this was "difficult to explain" as LDL, or bad, cholesterol is known to cause atherosclerosis which can block arteries.

They did notice a link, in both men and women, between the risk of stroke and non-fasting triglycerides.

They believe these fats are a marker for "remnant cholesterol" which is left behind when other forms of cholesterol are made.

Dr Peter Coleman, deputy director of research at The Stroke Association said: "Tests for triglyceride levels aren't routinely carried out in the UK unless there is significant concern."

"We know that high levels of fats, such as cholesterol, increase your risk of having a stroke. However, this research shows the importance of measuring the fat triglyceride, as well as cholesterol.

"This study highlights the importance of measuring triglycerides routinely in order to reduce a person's risk of stroke." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12505230

Read more »

Posted in: cholesterol,first natural health news,stroke,triglycerides

More on Low Cholesterol Dangers

Several years ago I started a thread about the risk of having too low levels of cholesterol, following on all of the work I had been trying to do over many years to educate people about the risk of cholesterol lowering drugs.

One sad situation is that of a friend who with his MS doctor agreed to using these drugs.  He ended up in a wheel chair.

It is just all hit or miss in prescribing these days.  More " miss", and probably why incoming House leader Boehner thinks we have the best health care in the world here in the US. Consistent ranking in the high 30s and 40s tells otherwise.  But I guess we aren't on the payola train like most members of Congress these days.

I happened to see this link so I thought I'd add it in to the 30+ posts on the low cholesterol and related "health matters" -

The Overlooked Health Risks of Very Low Cholesterol

Selected posts from Natural Health News
Natural Health News: Low Cholesterol Risks

Nov 13, 2008

While most hear about how high cholesterol is so bad and how many risky drugs you need, often you don't hear that low cholesterol can impair your immune function or defer review of other more risky markers. Triglycerides included.

More reports on low cholesterol and cancer

Feb 23, 2008

Some studies have linked low cholesterol levels to higher death rates from cancer in general, Dr. Kouichi Asano, of Kyushu University, Fukuoka, and colleagues explain in the International Journal of Cancer. "With respect to gastric ...

Low Cholesterol Does A Body Bad - Once More, with feeling

Dec 23, 2008

This new study, with a reasonable sample size, unlike most studies I review, raises concern over low cholesterol levels. As someone who has been a skeptic on the cholesterol drug mania for so very many years I am pleased to see this ...

Cholesterol lowering drugs already known to be linked with cancer

Aug 21, 2008

But wait a minute, even if this were true, how about if lower levels of cholesterol actually increased our risk of other important conditions? Might an increased risk of, say, cancer, offset any apparent advantages of low cholesterol ...

Read more »

Posted in: cholesterol,health care ranks low in US,low cholesterol,low cholesterol dangers

Antioxidants aid arterial health

Who needs Liptor when antioxidant vitamins and minerals, good nutrition, and other health promoting activities like exercise keep your innards healthy while improving cardiovascular health -- better blood sugar and better cholesterol profiles.?

HOLON, Israel, July 7 (UPI) -- Vitamin C, vitamin E, co-enzyme Q10 and selenium supplement had beneficial effects for those with cardiovascular risk factors, researchers in Israel said.
Reuven Zimlichman and colleagues at the Wolfson Medical Center in Israel said the study involved 70 patients from the center's hypertension clinic.
"Antioxidant supplementation significantly increased large and small artery elasticity in patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors," Zimlichman said in a statement. "This beneficial vascular effect was associated with an improvement in glucose and lipid metabolism as well as significant decrease in blood pressure."
The research team randomized the 70 patients to receive either antioxidants or placebo capsules for six months.
The study, published in the journal Nutrition  Metabolism, found that at the three-month and six-month mark, patients in the antioxidant group had more elastic arteries -- a measure of cardiovascular health -- better blood sugar and better cholesterol profiles.

Read more »

Posted in: arteriosclerosis,blood sugar,cholesterol,heart health,minerals,statins,vitamins

Aloe Vera, Not Dangerous Drugs

Shawn M. Talbot, PhD, author of A Guide to Understanding Dietary Supplements, the aloe plant also “has been shown to exert beneficial effects on cardiac disease risk factors by reducing blood levels of cholesterol, triglycerides, and glucose.”

Learn more about Aloe

Read more about Aloe 

Read more »

Posted in: aloe vera,blood sugar,cholesterol,glucose,heart disease,triglycerides

Triglycerides: The Real Fat That Can Kill You

New blood fat heart disease
I am not sure where medicine or these alleged researchers have been burying their heads in the sand but I've known about the impact of triglycerides for a hell of a long time.

I've also known that the problem with the rapid rise in cardiovascular dis-ease began rising in the mid to late 1950s when the dairy industry began homogenizing milk.

The problem with homogenization is that the fat globules become so small that they flow by osmosis through the digestive system directly into the blood stream.

Now they want to make you believe that this is a "new" blood fat. And yes it is different than cholesterol, which generally is not known to kill you.

Since I've known about this from college studies in medicine and nutrition, about 45 years has whistled by.

Things must be pretty dusty in the brains of mainstream medicine.

New blood fat heart disease link
A type of blood fat different from cholesterol may play a key role in heart disease, a study suggests.
Cambridge University researchers looked at the role of triglycerides, which is produced in the liver and derived from foods such as meat and dairy products.
The analysis of 350,000 people from 101 previous studies found those with higher levels of the blood fat were more likely to have heart disease.
But experts warned more research was needed to confirm the link.

The analysis centred on a specific gene which is known to influence the levels of triglycerides, the Lancet medical journal reported.

“ It could yet prove to be an important step towards tackling cardiovascular disease but we mustn't get ahead of ourselves ”
Mike Knapton, British Heart Foundation

Previous research has looked into the issue, but has been inconclusive.
But the latest study found those with the variation in the gene which boosted triglyceride levels had an 18% greater risk of heart disease than those that did not.
Lead researcher Dr Nadeem Sarwar said the findings suggested the blood fat could be causing heart disease in some way.
But he added further research involving the lowering of the levels of the blood fat was now needed to confirm the suspicion.
"Such trials should help establish whether lowering triglyceride levels can reduce the risk of heart disease."
Mike Knapton, of the British Heart Foundation, said: "It could yet prove to be an important step towards tackling cardiovascular disease but we mustn't get ahead of ourselves.
"There still needs to be larger trials before we can know whether lowering triglyceride levels can reduce heart disease risks.
"For now, people should continue to follow advice on diet, exercise, stopping smoking and medication which are still the best ways to tackle your heart disease risk."
Dr Sonia Anand, of Canada's McMaster University, agreed.
"The true nature of triglycerides effect on coronary risk still needs further clarification."

Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/8664917.stm
Published: 2010/05/06 © BBC MMX

Read more »

Posted in: atherosclerosis,cardiovascular disease,cholesterol,triglycerides

Taking Too Many Pills

There is a recent TV commercial for Crestor that has a woman explaining about how her doctor put her on the drug to help her reduce LDL, or what is marketed as " bad cholesterol".

When I hear this commercial I want to have equal time to explain something very important to doctors and to women.   Since I don't have the gazillions of disposable income that the PhRMA companies have, I don't have a snowflake's chance in hell of this, so I'll address it here.

One of the most problematic health issues today is thyroid function.  Part of the problem is that it is not only overlooked as important in today's Big Insurance+Big PhRMA controlled medical care, but it is also porrly diagnosed.

Yes, folks, the TSH test won't tell you " squat" !

What also is missing is that thyroid dysfunction cause your cholesterol level to rise.

Since this concept is basic physiology why is your doctor pushing a drug on you to lower cholesterol when properly evaluating thyroid function is a much better place to start?

This is also very much related to gall bladder function which can be resolved without "cutting it out" !

Another generally overlooked is the vital part sound nutrition plays in the prevention and treatment of disease, yet mainstream media continues to ignore this vital concept.

Recently, the New York Times also looked at the issue of pushing pills, especially as the vultures from PhRMA and the buzzards from Big Insurance begin their efforts to round you up for the kill, following the passing of the so-called "health" bill. (Just recall that HillaryCare wanted everyone to be taking Prozac, and we know what a disaster the SSRI drugs have become.)

Risks Seen in Cholesterol Drug Use - "With the government’s blessing, a drug giant is about to expand the market for its blockbuster cholesterol medication Crestor to a new category of customers: as a preventive measure for millions of people who do not have cholesterol problems."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/business/31statins.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

And so did the London Daily Mail

D. Mail 29.3.10 "A NATION OF PILL-POPPERS"
Dept of Health data reveals we each pick up more than 16 prescriptions a year on average, twice as many as 20 years ago. The boom is partly put down to a profit-hungry pharma industry inventing & exaggerating ailments & then blitzing doctors to boost sales. The NHS spent £22million a DAY on prescription drugs in England in 06 - a 60% rise in real terms on 10 years earlier.
-
(A colleague's comment: Prof. Michael Oliver, emeritus professor of Cardiology at Edinburgh University, wrote in the British Medical Journal in March last year that healthy older people are being turned into patients by GPs who are too quick to prescribe pills for high blood pressure, cholesterol & mild diabetes. The standard for these is based on much younger people's needs. The professor stated that few older people are allowed to enjoy being healthy as a bureaucractic demand for documentation can lead to over-diagnosis, over-treatment & unnecessary anxiety - known as "the medication of health." GPs are pressurised by the government to hit targets & this has overtaken personal advice from GPs. Incentives known as "Quality & Outcomes Framework" mean a proportion of GP practice-income is dependent on hitting targets. He questions whether patients are warned about medications' side-effects & whether older people could be allowed to return to their previous unencumbered & reasonably fit lives.

Please note that our organization offers an excellent thyroid testing kit, and health and nutrition counseling,
http://leaflady.org/detect.html

Read more »

Posted in: cholesterol,Health Detective,Natural Nutrition for health and healing,nutrition,pill popping,thyroid

Eggs Now an Approved Food

UPDATE: 17 August, 2010 - How Hens are Confined

Eggs have always been a health promoting food, except that somewhere along the line some diet dictocrat decided they were not heart health because they contained cholesterol.

This false notion led to those egg white products loaded with food processing chemicals to enhance shelf live and preserve the products in fluoride containing polyfilm lined paper boxes.

Its a wonder all this took so long to get out in the news. Here is an earlier story from 2001 supporting eggs for health.

And another piece on the health promoting lecithin in egg yolk. Lecithin helps keep your arteries free of plaque and in good shape.

My preference is for organic, free-range brown eggs. Brown eggs have higher sulfur content and that's another health plus.

Regular eggs 'no harm to health'
Limiting egg consumption has little effect on cholesterol levels, research has confirmed.

A University of Surrey team said their work suggested most people could eat as many eggs as they wanted without damaging their health.

The researchers, who analysed several studies of egg nutrition, said the idea that eating more than three eggs a week was bad for you was still widespread.

But they said that was a misconception based on out-of-date evidence.

Writing in the British Nutrition Foundation's Nutrition Bulletin, they said eating saturated fats was far more likely to cause health problems.
Researcher Professor Bruce Griffin said eggs were actually a key part of a healthy diet, as they were particularly packed full of nutrients.

Ingrained misconception

He said: "The ingrained misconception linking egg consumption to high blood cholesterol and heart disease must be corrected.

"The amount of saturated fat in our diet exerts an effect on blood cholesterol that is several times greater than the relatively small amounts of dietary cholesterol.

"The UK public do not need to be limiting the number of eggs they eat - indeed they can be encouraged to include them in a healthy diet as they are one of nature's most nutritionally dense foods."

While elevated blood cholesterol levels increase the risk of heart disease, only around a third of the cholesterol in the body comes from the diet.

Other factors such as smoking, being overweight and physical activity can influence blood fat and cholesterol levels and heart disease risk.

The British Heart Foundation (BHF) dropped its advice to limit egg consumption to three a week in 2007 in light of new evidence.

However, research by the British Egg Information Service suggests 45% of consumers still believe it was sensible to limit consumption.

Victoria Taylor, a senior BHF dietician, said: "We recommend that eggs can be eaten as part of a balanced diet.

"There is cholesterol present in eggs but this does not usually make a great contribution to your level of blood cholesterol.

"If you need to reduce your cholesterol level it is more important that you cut down on the amount of saturated fat in your diet from foods like fatty meat, full fat dairy products and cakes, biscuits and pastries."

In 2007 the Egg Information Service was banned from re-running a television commercial from the 1950s which urged viewers to "go to work on an egg" to celebrate its 50th anniversary.

The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre said the slogan went against the principle of eating a varied diet.

Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/7882850.stm
Published: 2009/02/11 © BBC MMIX

Read more »

Posted in: cholesterol,eggs,health news,heart healthy food,lecithin,natural health news,natural news,nutrition

Correcting One of Those Cholesterol Myths

I notice from time to time that people are searching for information about keeping arteries clean and healthy. This may be associated with the rash of anti-cholesterol drug-dosing-on-a-rampage panic, or earnest queries.

Order lecithin granules through simply4health.org to help us continue this work.

I am not a fan of soy. It might be said that if I suggest a soy based supplement that I am ignoring my own best advice. My greatest concern about soy today are the facts that it is generally a GMO crop and it does have many negative health effects.

On the up side, a long used supplement, especially for those who have been convinced that eggs are evil, you might find some salvation in lecithin.

Lecithin is good for you in that it contains phosphatidyl choline, phosphatidyl inositol and essential fatty acids as linoleic acid in a tablespoon of granules. It also contains fish-oil-like, omega-3 linolenic acid. Any one of these substances is not found in a standard daily diet.

Choline & Inositol are essential for the breakdown of fats and cholesterol. And lecithin helps prevent arterial congestion, helps distribute body weight, increases immunity to viral infections, cleans the liver and purifies the kidneys.

Dr. Michael Sharon suggests that it "improves the condition of patients with neurological disorders such as tardive dyskinesia (a side effect of anti-psychotic drugs), Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease or pre-senile dementia."

It may help with improving attention span which would certainly benefit ADD/ADHD issues.

Lecithin helps in maintaining the surface tension of cell wall membranes. Without enough lecithin, the cell wall hardens. This condition contributes to premature aging of the cells. The surface tension of the cell, maintained by lecithin is also responsible for transmitting nerve impulses and messages through or from the cell.

Udo Erasmus, PhD shares some lecithin function facts -

"Lecithin helps keep cholesterol soluble. In a food like eggs, which contain a large amount of cholesterol, it is especially important that lecithin be of high quality.

"Lecithin keeps cholesterol isolated from arterial linings, protects it from oxidation, and helps prevent and dissolve gall and kidney stones by its emulsifying action on fatty substances.

"Lecithin is necessary in our liver's detoxification functions, which keep us from slowly being poisoned by breakdown products of metabolic processes that take place in our body. Poor liver function is a common forerunner of cancer. According to some healers, cancer always involves the liver. Deficiency of either Choline or EFAs can induce cancer in experimental animals, and is likely involved in causing some human cancers.

"Lecithin increases resistance to disease by its role in our thymus gland. Here, EFAs are precursors of several prostaglandins, as well as being vital as part of the ammunition made by our immune cells to kill bacteria (fatty acid peroxides are used to produce bacteriocidal hydrogen peroxide).

"Lecithin is a phospholipid that makes up 22% of both the high density (HDL) and low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol-carrying vehicles in our blood. These vehicles keep cholesterol and triglyceride fats in solution in our bloodstream and carry them to and from all parts of our body.

"Lecithin is an important part of membrane phospholipids that are involved in electric phenomena, membrane fluidity, and other functions for which EFAs are responsible.

"Finally, lecithin is an important component of bile. Its function in digestion is to break food fats into small droplets (emulsify them), to increase their surface area, speeding up the digestion of fats by enzymes."

Other helpful information about lecithin is that each serving (1 tbsp.) contains:
Choline 275 mg, Inositol 168 mg, Potassium 108 mg, Linoleic Acid (omega 6 EFA) 2,025 mg, Phosphatidylcholine 1,760 mg, Phosphatidylethanolamine 1,530 mg, Phosphatidylinositol 1,070 mg, Linolenic Acid (omega 3 EFA) 260 mg.

and Lecithin

Breaks up fats and cholesterol, Excellent for a healthy heart
Contains the Highest Phosphatide concentration available (98% or more!)
Is a Rich source of GLA (Gamma Linoleic Acid)
Helps the body utilize Vitamins A,D,E and K
Is Excellent for memory, concentration and recall
Cleanses liver and kidneys
Helps the body absorb nutrients

Lessen Chronic Inflammation
People whose diets supplied the highest average intake of choline (found in egg yolk and soybeans), and its metabolite betaine (found naturally in vegetables such as beets and spinach), have levels of inflammatory markers at least 20% lower than subjects with the lowest average intakes, report Greek researchers in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (Detopoulou P, Panagiotakos DB, et al.)

Compared to those whose diets contained <250 mg/day of choline, subjects whose diets supplied >310 mg of choline daily had, on average:

* 22% lower concentrations of C-reactive protein
* 26% lower concentrations of interleukin-6
* 6% lower concentrations of tumor necrosis factor alpha

Compared to those consuming <260 mg/day of betaine, subjects whose diets provided >360 mg per day of betaine had, on average:

* 10% lower concentrations of homocysteine
* 19% lower concentrations of C-reactive protein
* 12% lower concentrations of tumor necrosis factor alpha

Each of these markers of chronic inflammation has been linked to a wide range of conditions including heart disease, osteoporosis, cognitive decline and Alzheimer's, and type-2 diabetes.

In an accompanying editorial in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition entitled, "Is there a new component of the Mediterranean diet that reduces inflammation?," Steven Zeisel from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill noted that choline and betaine work together in the cellular process of methylation, which is not only responsible for the removal of homocysteine, but is involved in turning off the promoter regions of genes involved in inflammation.

"Exposure to oxidative stress is a potent trigger for inflammation. Betaine is formed from choline within the mitochondria , and this oxidation contributes to mitochondrial redox status ," Zeisel continued.

"If the association between choline and betaine and inflammation can be confirmed in studies of other populations, an interesting new dietary approach may be available for reducing chronic diseases associated with inflammation," he concluded.

Recommended daily intakes of choline were set in 1998 at 550 milligrams per day for men and 425 milligrams a day for women. No RDI has been set for betaine, which, since it is a metabolite of choline, is not considered an essential nutrient.

Practical Tip: Egg yolks are the richest source of choline, followed by soybeans. Spinach, beets and whole wheat products are primary sources of betaine. (Olthof MR, van Vliet T, et al. J Nutr)

Read more »

Posted in: arteries,cholesterol,cleansing,eggs,health,health education,health news,inflammation,lecithin,natural health news,natural news,neurological problems,tardive dyskinesia,weight loss

Cholesterol and Statins: Another physician reviews the Jupiter study

UPDATE: 21 April, 2010 -
Cholesterol Drugs May Lower Men's Sex Drive
Some new studies believe that low testosterone is associated with prostate cancer.
Eating your way to lower cholesterol Note that we do not support the use of plant sterols as they are mainly sourced from GMO soy and canola oil

ORIGINAL POST
In addition to the many posts (136) here on Natural Health News, there is a selection of related articles on our main website.

Statins reduce cardiovascular disease in healthy people, and why this study is a poke in the eye for the cholesterol hypothesis

By Dr John Briffa On November 10, 2008

It’s been going this way for a while: even healthy people should be on the cholesterol-reducing drugs known as statins. That, in a nutshell, is the verdict of a study published over the weekend which found that even in people deemed to be at low risk of cardiovascular disease, treatment with rosuvastatin (Crestor) at a dose of 20 mg per day almost halved the risk of ‘vascular events’ (such as heart attack, stroke, and death from these conditions) in middle-aged and elderly men and women. Overall risk of death was down too in those taking the rosuvastatin, to the tune of 20 per cent. Average length of treatment was a shade under two years.

These results look impressive, but it does need to be borne in mind that the study population were essentially healthy. And, because of this, the risk of things like heart attacks and strokes is generally low in this population. Just to put this in perspective, the risk of vascular events was 2.2 per cent in the group taking the statin, but 2.8 per cent in those on placebo. In other words, what is known as the absolute risk reduction (as opposed to the relative risk reduction) was a little over half a percent.

It is perhaps also worth reflecting on the fact that treatment with rosuvastatin was associated, compared with placebo, with a significantly increased risk of developing diabetes. Curiously, the authors of the study say this effect could “reflect the play of chance.” In other words, even though there was a statistically significant enhanced risk of diabetes in those taking the statin, it may have nothing to do with the statin, and everything to do with bad luck. Curiously, the authors are not similarly circumspect about the positive effects of statins seen in this study.

But the reason for writing about this study is not so much to put the results in this context, but more to explore what these results say about the widely accepted context that cholesterol causes cardiovascular disease. On the face of it, this study strengthens this concept. But I’m not so sure.

You see this study was done in individuals whose cholesterol levels were not deemed to be risky. Individuals had to have LDL cholesterol levels of less than 130 mg/L (3.37 mmol/L) to qualify. However, to qualify for the study individuals did have to have elevated levels of a substance known as C-reactive protein (CRP). CRP is a marker for inflammation in the body, and inflammation is believed to be a key underlying process in the development of cardiovascular conditions such as heart disease and stroke.

Significant benefits were seen individuals who had elevated CRP levels, but no other major risk factors for cardiovascular disease (and LDL cholesterol levels of 100 mg/L or less). This inevitably throws up the possibility that in this study, the benefits of rosuvastatin came, at least in part, through its ability to reduce CRP levels. CRP levels actually dropped by 37 per cent on average in this study.

Cholesterol levels dropped too (LDL levels actually halved), but as the authors point out, the clinical benefit associated with this was much larger than expected. This finding also adds weight to the idea that rosuvastatin’s benefits may have been less to do with bringing cholesterol levels down, and more to do with an anti-inflammatory and/or other actions.

Previously on this site I have cited a 2006 review of the evidence regarding the relationship between cholesterol and cardiovascular outcomes such as heart attacks and strokes [2]. Having reviewed a broad range of available evidence, the authors of this review stated that: ‘…no clinical trial subgroup analyses or valid cohort case control analyses suggesting that the degree to which LDL cholesterol responds to statin independently predicts the cardiovascular risk reduction.” In other words, there is no robust relationship between cholesterol levels and degree of risk of cardiovascular disease.

This is not the only review that has found this. In another from the same year, researchers reviewed 13 studies in which statins were used in individuals who had suffered from ‘acute coronary syndrome’ (i.e. heart attack and angina). Statin therapy was found to reduce risk of cardiovascular disease, but this was independent of LDL cholesterol reduction. The authors concluded that there is no significant evidence that reduction in LDL cholesterol level explains the clinical benefits seen with statin therapy on cardiovascular disease risk [3].

And what of studies that have assessed the relationship between CRP and cardiovascular outcomes? The lead author of the recent NEJM paper was also the lead author of a paper published in 2005 that assessed data from another large statin study (the so-called ‘PROVE-IT’ study) [4]. The study concluded: “Patients who have low CRP levels after statin therapy have better clinical outcomes than those with higher CRP levels, regardless of the resultant level of LDL cholesterol.”

From the same year, comes another study in which the relationship between LDL cholesterol and CRP levels and development of the process which narrows the coronary blood vessels in heart disease (atherosclerosis) in individuals treated with a statin. Atherosclerosis actually regressed in patients with the greatest reduction in CRP levels, but not in those with the greatest reduction in LDL cholesterol levels [5].

Another way of unpicking the role of cholesterol in health would be to go beyond statins, and look at the effectiveness of other cholesterol reducing drugs or strategies on overall risk of death. This latest study, and others (particularly in those at high risk of cardiovascular disease) found statin therapy is associated with a reduced risk of death. A review from 2005 assessing the impact of cholesterol reducing therapy on overall mortality. Here are the results:

Statins – statistically significant reduction in risk of overall mortality

Fibrates – NO statistically significant reduction in risk of overall mortality

Resins – NO statistically significant reduction in risk of overall mortality

Niacin – NO statistically significant reduction in risk of overall mortality

Diet – NO statistically significant reduction in risk of overall mortality

Some people argue that the failure of other cholesterol-reducing strategies is because they don’t reduce cholesterol enough. I suppose that’s one potential explanation. Here’s another: cholesterol reduction doesn’t have broad benefits for health.

References:

1. [1] Ridker PM, et al. Rosuvastatin to Prevent Vascular Events in Men and Women with Elevated C-Reactive Protein. New England Journal of Medicine. Epub 9th November 2008.

2. Hayward RA, et al. Narrative review: lack of evidence for recommended low-density lipoprotein treatment targets: a solvable problem. Ann Int Med 2006;145:520-530

3. Hulten E, et al. The effect of early, intensive statin therapy on acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2008;166:1814-1821

4. Ridker PM, et al. C-reactive protein levels and outcomes after statin therapy. New Engl J Med 2005;352:20-8.

5. Nissen SE, et al. Statin therapy, LDL cholesterol, C-reactive protein, and coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2005;352: 29-38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from Dr Briffa’s Blog: http://www.drbriffa.com
URL to article: http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2008/11/10/statins-reduce-cardiovascular-disease-in-health-people-and-why-this-study-is-a-poke-in-the-eye-for-the-cholesterol-hypothesis/
URLs in this post:
[1] Ridker PM, et al. Rosuvastatin to Prevent Vascular Events in Men and Women with Elevated C-Reactive Protein. New England Journal of Medicine. Epub 9th November 2008.: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMoa0807646

Read more »

Posted in: cholesterol,Crestor,health news,John Briffa,Jupiter study,natural health news,natural news,statins

And Now for the Rest of the Story

Just this past Sunday (9 November, 2008) I posted this article on Natural Health News: Boosting Drug Sales with Studies.

I added one follow-up article earlier today, and now I am happy to give you something to think about in terms of why sound nutrition is a better option than wholesale use of drugs. Supplements certainly do edge out the pharmaceuticals in this study.

You'll also see how it is totally possible to fool a lot of the people a lot of the time -

Why treat nutritional deficiency with drugs?
(OMNS, November 13, 2008) A recent study suggested that statins might be used to avoid the effects of nutritional deficiency. Writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Jupiter group described a study of statin drugs in people with high C-reactive protein and low cholesterol. (1) High C-reactive protein levels are associated with inflammation and heart disease/stroke. The authors concluded that, in apparently healthy persons with elevated C-reactive protein levels, rosuvastatin (Crestor) significantly reduced the incidence of major cardiovascular events.

Their much-publicized claim, that this statin lowers the risk of heart attack by approximately one half, is technically correct though highly misleading. The reported annual incidence of coronary events was 37 people in 10,000 (controls) and 17 people in 10,000 (treated). Similar results were reported for risk of stroke. When expressed as a proportion, a 46% improvement (17/37) sounds large. However, an improvement of 20 events (37-17) in 10,000 people known to be at risk is less impressive. Such an improvement means that 500 people (10,000/20) with this increased risk would need to take the tablet daily for a year, to prevent one person suffering an event.

The paper does not explicitly report deaths. One reason for this may be that if a person on statins suffered a heart attack, that person was about three times more likely to die than a control who was not on statins.

The cost of rosuvastatin per person is approximately $1000 per year. So, treating enough people to prevent one heart attack costs $500,000 per year. Since about 70% of the heart attacks were not fatal, prevention of a single death from heart attack would cost even more, approximately $1,700,000. Giving the benefit of the doubt, we may allow for a similar reduction in stroke and say that "only" $250,000 is needed to protect one person from a stroke or heart attack. It is hardly surprising that Astra Zeneca's share price increased by $1.3 billion dollars on release of this paper and the corresponding media hype. (2)

The media suggested millions of healthy people could cut their risk of heart disease by taking statins. (3) They also claimed that statins could cut the risk of heart attack for "everyone". (4) This is inaccurate and incorrect. The study did not include normal healthy people, only a sample of a relatively small number of people, suffering from inflammation (increased C-reactive protein) - a known cause of heart disease and stroke. Out of 89,890 people considered for inclusion, 17,802 people (19.8%) met the specific criteria of poor health for the study. Widespread prescription of statins to healthy people is not supported by these findings.

The fact that statins produce a modest improvement is unsurprising, since they are known to lower inflammation, as do many nutritional supplements. It has pointed out that Crestor lowered C-reactive protein by 37%, but vitamin E lowers it (C Reactive Protein) by 32%, (5) and vitamin C by 25.3%. (6,7) These effects are similar to those of statins and would be expected to provide comparable benefits, without side effects and at a lower cost.

Crestor and other statin drugs have serious side effects. The incidence of established side-effects, such as rhabdomyolysis (0.3 per 10,000 per year), myopathy (1.1 per 10,000) and peripheral neuropathy (1.2 per 10,000 per year) seems low, (8) but may be underestimated as it takes time to establish long-term side-effects. (The depletion of coenzyme Q10 by statins is a particular concern.) The figures imply that for every ten people who avoid a cardiovascular event, at least one previously healthy person will suffer a non-trivial side effect of the statin drug.

The doctors reported a statistically significant increase (270) in diabetes in the statin group compared to the placebo group (216). Over the course of the study, this corresponds to an increased risk of approximately 61 in 10,000 people. So, the number of people on statins reported to become diabetic was greater than the number that avoided a heart attack! These people might have shorter lives and be at greater risk of heart disease in the long term.

Notably, the Jupiter study was stopped early, which the authors admit prevents assessment of how side-effects might outweigh reported benefits in the longer term. The study was to last 3-5 years and the criteria for stopping were not included in the original published design. (9) The paper claims that when the study was stopped "these [diabetic] events were not adjudicated by the end-point committee". The committee either knew about the diabetes in which case it was considered, or it did not and the committee was not doing its job properly.

The Jupiter name stands for Justification for the Use of statins in Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin; the reader might think this "justification" sounds more like a marketing plan than a scientific endeavor. The researchers did not address the underlying cause of the inflammation and increased C-reactive protein: they simply treated the condition with drugs. In many cases, raised C-reactive protein is a result of nutritional deficiency. (10)

It is worth mentioning that several nutritional supplements inhibit inflammation and lower C-reactive protein, without causing known side effects. Deficiency in vitamins A, (11) B6, C, E, A, folate, carotenoids and lycopene, (12) and selenium (for example) is associated with raised C-reactive protein. (13,14,15) We suggest that the $250,000 cost of preventing a single cardiovascular event with rosuvastatin might be better spent funding a study of such inexpensive alternatives the deficiency of which may be the cause of the problem.

The people at risk could be encouraged to supplement their diet and restore their health without using these expensive drugs to conceal their underlying sickness.

Stick with the supplements!

References:

(1) Ridker P.M. Danielson E. Fonseca F.A.H. Genest J. Gotto A.M. Kastelein J.J.P. Koenig W. Libby P. Lorenzatti A.J. MacFadyen J.G. Nordestgaard B.G. Shepherd J. Willerson J.T. Glynn R.J. for the JUPITER Study Group (2008) Rosuvastatin to Prevent Vascular Events in Men and Women with Elevated C-Reactive Protein, NEJM, 359(21), 2195-2207.

(2) Mail Online (2008) Crestor news helps AstraZeneca market value leap by more than £1.3bn, 9:25 PM, 10th Nov.

(3) Smith R. (2008) Millions could cut heart attack risk by taking statins, study finds, telegraph.co.uk, 7:55AM GMT, 10 Nov.

(4) Hope J. (2008) The new statin drug that cuts the risk of heart attacks and strokes for EVERYONE, Daily Mail, 11th Nov.

(5) Devaraj S. Tang R. Adams-Huet B. Harris A. Seenivasan T. de Lemos J.A. Jialal I. (2007) Effect of high-dose alpha-tocopherol supplementation on biomarkers of oxidative stress and inflammation and carotid atherosclerosis in patients with coronary artery disease, Am J Clin Nutr, 86(5), 1392-1398.

(6) Block G. Jensen C.D. Dalvi T.B. Norkus E.P. Hudes M. Crawford P.B. Holland N. Fung E.B. Schumacher L. Harmatz P. (2008) Vitamin C treatment reduces elevated C-reactive protein, Free Radic Biol Med, Oct 10. [Epub]

(7) Sardi B. (2008) The Headline You Should Be Reading: Statin Drugs Don't Save Lives And May Increase Your Risk For Diabetes, Knowledge of Health Report, Nov 11.

(8) Law M. Rudnicka A.R. Statin Safety: A Systematic Review, The American Journal of Cardiology, 97(8), Suppl 1, S52-S60.

(9) Ridker P.M. JUPITER Study Group (2003) Rosuvastatin in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease among patients with low levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein: rationale and design of the JUPITER trial, Circulation, 108(19), 2292-2297.

(10) Ford E.S. Liu S. Mannino D.M. Giles W.H. Smith S.J. (2003) C-reactive protein concentration and concentrations of blood vitamins, carotenoids, and selenium among United States adults, European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 57, 1157-1163.

(11) Root M.M. Hu J. Stephenson L.S. Parker R.S. Campbell T.C. (1999) Determinants of plasma retinol concentrations of middle-aged women in rural China. Nutrition 15, 101-107.

(12) Boosalis M.G. Snowdon D.A. Tully C.L. Gross M.D. (1996): Acute phase response and plasma carotenoid concentrations in older women: findings from the nun study, Nutrition, 12, 475-478.

(13) Friso S. Jacques P.F. Wilson P.W. Rosenberg I.H. Selhub J.(2001) Low circulating vitamin B(6) is associated with elevation of the inflammation marker C-reactive protein independently of plasma homocysteine levels, Circulation, 103(23), 2788-2791.

(14) Devaraja S. Jialal I. (2000) Alpha tocopherol supplementation decreases serum C-reactive protein and monocyte interleukin-6 levels in normal volunteers and type 2 diabetic patients, Free Radical Biology and Medicine, 29(8), 790-792.

(15) Upritchard J.E. Sutherland W.H. Mann J.I. (2000): Effect of supplementation with tomato juice, vitamin E, and vitamin C on LDL oxidation and products of inflammatory activity in type 2 diabetes, Diabetes Care, 23, 733-738.

Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine

Read more »

Posted in: cholesterol,Crestor,health news,natural health news,natural news,niacin,nutrition,supplements,vitamin C,vitamin E

Low Cholesterol Risks

Professionals only supplements resources that I rely on in my clinical work usually publish reports on studies of natural supplements that help health concerns.

While most hear about how high cholesterol is so bad and how many risky drugs you need, often you don't hear that low cholesterol can impair your immune function or defer review of other more risky markers. Triglycerides included.

I've educated on triglyceride issues for so long it seems funny to me that its just hitting headlines. Still its not prominent in the media to equal the risk to your health.

The real warning should be that yes, high triglycerides will kill you.

The Deadly Truth about Low Cholesterol
It’s a common misconception with fatal consequences: Many people still believe that low total cholesterol levels mean you’re not at risk for stroke, heart attack, or any of the other deadly risks that come with cardiovascular disease.

But in reality, nothing could be further from the truth—and unless you’re paying close attention to one particular group of fats called triglycerides, your heart could be a ticking time bomb, no matter how healthy your cholesterol might look.

Triglycerides are naturally manufactured and stored by both your liver and fat cells. At normal levels, they’re a crucial source of energy for your body—but start producing more than you can store, and those excess triglycerides will be dumped into your bloodstream, where they can wreak havoc on your arteries, heart, pancreas, and liver.1

Studies have shown that abnormally high triglyceride levels raise your risk of heart attack threefold—and when accompanied by low levels of high-density lipoproteins (HDL, or “good” cholesterol), your risk jumps a staggering 16 times higher. In fact, this ratio is one of the single strongest predictors of heart attack risk, even more accurate than the better-known LDL (low-density lipoprotein, or “bad” cholesterol) to HDL ratio.2 And it isn’t just your heart that suffers. Studies show that risk of stroke, obesity, diabetes, and liver disease are all linked to these dangerous fats.3-5

Keeping triglycerides in check is absolutely critical to your health—and a simple combination of omega-3 fatty acids, niacin and a supplement blend™ can make all the difference. One recent trial showed that supplementing with fish oil daily slashed triglyceride levels by 46 percent in as little as eight weeks.6 And niacin boasts nearly five decades of research demonstrating that it not only reduces triglycerides and LDL cholesterol, but also increases HDL levels by up to 29 percent.7-8

Finally, be wary of your blood sugar: Numerous clinical trials have shown that refined carbs and sugar can actually double triglyceride production.9-10 Tossing sugary sodas and boosting protein intake can help.11 So can supplementing with natural blood sugar managing agents like bitter melon, goat’s rue and quercetin.12-13A comprehensive formulas like some we use in our work contain these ingredients along with several others, including cinnamon. Clinical trials reveal that this popular spice can reduce triglycerides by 23 to 30 percent.14

References:

1. Webster’s New World Medical Dictionary, 3rd edition, William Schiel, Jr, MD, Author, 2008, Webster publishing.

2. Gaziano, JM., Hennekens, CH. Fasting triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein, and the risk of myocardial infarction. Circulation. 1997 Oct 21; 96(8):2520-5.

3. Grundy, SM., Cleeman, JI., Merz, CN., Brewer, HB, Jr., Clark, LT., Implications of recent clinical trials for the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. Circulation. 2004 Jul 13; 110(2):227-39. Review. Erratum in: Circulation. 2004 Aug 10; 110 6):763.

4. Tanne, D., Koren-Morag, N., Graff, E. Blood lipids and first-ever ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack in the Bezafibrate Infarction Prevention (BIP) Registry: high triglycerides constitute an independent risk factor. Circulation. 2001 Dec 11; 104(24):2892-7.

5. Kadikoylu G, Yavasoglu I, Bolaman Z. Plasma exchange in severe hypertriglyceridemia, a clinical study. Transfus Apher Sci. 2006 Jun; (3):253-7.

6. Vega GL, Chandalia M, Szczepaniak LS, Grundy SM. Effects of N-3 fatty acids on hepatic triglyceride content in humans. J Investig Med. 2008 Jun; 56(5):780-5.

7. Crouse, JR. 3rd. new developments in the use of niacin for treatment of hyperlipidemia: new considerations for use of an old drug. Coron Artery Dis. 1996 Apr; 7 (4):321-6.

8. Drexel H. Nicotinic acid in the treatment of hyperlipidaemia. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2007 Nov;21 Suppl 2:5-6.

9. Teff, KL., Elliott, SS., Tschop, M., Dietary fructose reduces circulating insulin and leptin, attenuates postprandial suppression of ghrelin, and increases in triglycerides in women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2004 Jun;89(6):2963-72.

10. Furtado, JD., Campos, H., Appel, LJ., Miler, ER. Effects of protein, unsaturated fat, and carbohydrate intakes on plasma apolipoprotein B and VLDL and LDL containing apolipoprotein C-III: results from the OmniHeart Trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Jun;87 (6): 1623-30.

11. Parks, EJ., Skokan, LE. , Timlin., Dingfelder, CS. Dietary sugars stimulate fatty acid synthesis in adults. J. Nutr. 2008 Jun: 138 (6): 1039-46.

12. Sridhar MG, Vinayagamoorthi R, Arul Suyambunathan V, Bobby Z, Selvaraj N. Bitter gourd (Momordica charantia) improves insulin sensitivity by increasing skeletal muscle insulin-stimulated IRS-1 tyrosine phosphorylation in high-fat-fed rats. Br J Nutr. 2008 Apr;99(4):806-12.

13. Rivera L, Morón R, Sánchez M, Zarzuelo A, Galisteo M. Quercetin ameliorates metabolic syndrome and improves the inflammatory status in obese zucker rats. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2008 Sep;16(9):2081-7.

14. Anderson RA. Chromium and polyphenols from cinnamon improve insulin sensitivity. Proc Nutr Soc. 2008 Feb;67(1):48-53.

Read more »

Posted in: cholesterol,health news,inflammation,LDL,natural health news,natural news,triglycerides

Should women who have paid for statins be given their money back?

I think Dr. John Briffa has a point of consideration here. If you follow this blog you know we are also big skeptics about the statins and are most concerned with the health problems they create and the ones they really do not help.

Again marketing seems to be the drive behind the sales of this class of drug. Yet more and more you read articles that seem to tell you that statins will fix just about everything.

You can do much more for your health without these drugs and other newer ones from the recombinant-GMO aisle.

Also remember that the majority of medical texts are written with men in mind and women's health - for the most part - seems to remain an aside.

The same pervasive thinking must be in the halls of Big Pharma as well.

Related to this topic are some of our posts on the benefits of vitamin C and vitamin E for heart health and other health concerns, while MSM muddies the water on the facts: Just Like the Cholesterol Myth.

By Dr John Briffa
October 24, 2008

Cholesterol-reducing drugs known as statins are hugely popular and highly profitable. It’s a shame, then, that they aren’t very effective. I say this because while they have been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events such as heart attacks, they do not reduce the overall risk of death when essentially healthy individuals are being treated. This was the conclusion of an analysis of 8 studies which had been performed using individuals with no previous diagnosis of cardiovascular disease [1]. This analysis also revealed that for one individual to be protected from a cardiovascular event (heart attack or stroke) over a 5-year period, 67 people would need to be treated.

Other evidence analysing the effectiveness of the national treatment guidelines in the USA, Canada, the UK and New Zealand has revealed the so-called ‘number needed to treat’ (NNT) varies from 108-198 [2]. These startlingly high NNTs have caused some to question whether statins are really the wonder drugs some would have us believe them to be.

But wait, it gets worse. Because the limited ‘benefits’ of statins seems to be confined mainly to men. The research has found that even in women with diagnosed cardiovascular disease and/or history of heart attack or stroke, statins do not reduce overall risk of death. And in healthy women, they don’t reduce the risk of cardiovascular events (heart attacks and strokes) either. The crashing failure of statins in women was fully elucidated in an analysis from British GP Malcolm Kendrick in the BMJ last year [3].

The singular failure of statin drugs to help women was highlighted this week in the British Medical Journal [4]. In a news piece, our attention was brought to an analysis from a professor of law and a professor of clinical epidemiology in the USA. The paper focuses on the most widely prescribed statin of all - atorvastatin (Lipitor) [5]. It looks at the evidence for the effectiveness of this drug in treating essentially women with no history of cardiovascular disease. In line with previous evidence on statins, there was no significant benefit to be found.

But the authors of this analysis go further by questioning the fact that when Lipitor is promoted and advertised, there’s plenty of talk about the fact that it reduces the risk of heart attacks, but no mention of it’s stunning lack of success with regard in women. They accuse Lipitor’s manufacturers of a lack of candour here, and also ask questions of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the USA. At a bare minimum, they say, the FDA should be using its muscle to protect people against misleading marketing. They also suggest that women who have paid out of their pockets as a result of false promises should be compensated for the money they’ve effectively wasted.

The authors conclude: Our findings indicate that each year reasonably healthy women spend billions of dollars on drugs in the hope of preventing heart attacks but that scientific evidence supporting their hope does not exist.
According to the BMJ new piece, Pfizer have responded to the article in the form of a statement, which I can’t locate on the web. In this statement, Pfizer claims that “Cardiovascular disease is a major cause of death in women as well as men and it ultimately kills as many women as men. However, onset of disease is delayed by some 10-15 years in women compared to men; thus the National Institutes for Health (NIH) ATP III guidelines define age as a risk factor in women at age 55, compared to age 45 for men. In addition, the AHA CVD Guidelines for Women were updated in 2007 and recommend that healthcare professionals should focus on women’s lifetime heart disease risk, not just short-term risk.”

Let this not distract us from the fact, I say, that statins have not been shown to benefit essentially healthy women. And let’s not forget either that for each person that benefits from taking statins, many, many others don’t.

References:

1. Abramson J, Wright JM. Are lipid-lowering guidelines evidence-based? Lancet 2007;369:168-169

2. Manuel DG, et al. Effectiveness and efficiency of different guidelines on statin treatment for preventing deaths from coronary heart disease: modeling study. BMJ 2006;332:1419

3. Kenrick M. Should women be offered cholesterol lowering drugs to prevent cardiovascular disease? No. BMJ 2007;334:983

4. Dobson R. Atorvastatin advertising misled over benefits for women, study claims. BMJ 2008;337:a2209

5. Eisenberg T, et al. Statins and Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Moderate-Risk Females: A Statistical and Legal Analysis with Implications for FDA Preemption Claims. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. Published Online: Sep 5 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article from: http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2008/10/24/should-women-who-have-paid-for-statins-be-given-their-money-back/

Read more »

Posted in: cholesterol,health,health news,natural health news,natural news,statins,women