Latest test results

[JJ]

Very interesting studies. Makes one wonder if all this worrying about our numbers is worth it....

Naturally we should all try to keep them at a respectful level and eat right and exercise, but alot of folks are getting almost obsessed if their numbers aren't at the right level.

Have a good one, and stay cool....

[jaeg]

I am new to this site but just got my test results back. My HDL is 247 and LDL in 161. HDL .58. My Dr. put me on statins - Lipitor and I was miserable. I felt like I had been run over by a truck. I was so sore I could hardly walk. I quit after 2 wks. Now I am trying to find some natural drugs to help lower my LDL. Also more exercise and diet. I also was just told I have a severe bone loss in my hip and spine. I believe that all this might relate to menopause issues. Any suggestions you can give me will be appreciated.

[Stumper]

Originally Posted by cathyinto

From Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig as written for Weston A. Price Foundation

Honolulu Hearth Program (2001)
This report, part of an ongoing study, looked at cholesterol lowering in the elderly. Researchers compared changes in cholesterol concentrations over 20 years with all-cause mortality.34 To quote: “Our data accords with previous findings of increased mortality in elderly people with low serum cholesterol, and show that long-term persistence of low cholesterol concentration actually increases risk of death. Thus, the earlier that patients start to have lower cholesterol concentrations, the greater the risk of death. . . The most striking findings were related to changes in cholesterol between examination three (1971-74) and examination four (1991-93). There are few studies that have cholesterol concentrations from the same patients at both middle age and old age. Although our results lend support to previous findings that low serum cholesterol imparts a poor outlook when compared with higher concentrations of cholesterol in elderly people, our data also suggest that those individuals with a low serum cholesterol maintained over a 20-year period will have the worst outlook for all-cause mortality.”

MIRACL (2001)
The MIRACL study looked at the effects of a high dose of Lipitor on 3086 patients in the hospital after angina or nonfatal MI and followed them for 16 weeks.35 According to the abstract: “For patients with acute coronary syndrome, lipid-lowering therapy with atorvastatin, 80 mg/day, reduced recurrent ischemic events in the first 16 weeks, mostly recurrent symptomatic ischemia requiring rehospitalization.” What the abstract did not mention was that there was no change in death rate compared to controls and no significant change in re-infarction rate or need for resuscitation from cardiac arrest. The only change was a significant drop in chest pain requiring rehospitalization.

ALLHAT (2002)
ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial), the largest North American cholesterol-lowering trial ever and the largest trial in the world using Lipitor, showed mortality of the treatment group and controls after 3 or 6 years was identical.36 Researchers used data from more than 10,000 participants and followed them over a period of four years, comparing the use of a statin drug to “usual care,” namely maintaining proper body weight, no smoking, regular exercise, etc., in treating subjects with moderately high levels of LDL cholesterol. Of the 5170 subjects in the group that received statin drugs, 28 percent lowered their LDL cholesterol significantly. And of the 5185 usual-care subjects, about 11 percent had a similar drop in LDL. But both groups showed the same rates of death, heart attack and heart disease.

Heart Protection Study (2002)
Carried out at Oxford University,37 this study received widespread press coverage; researchers claimed “massive benefits” from cholesterol-lowering,38 leading one commentator to predict that statin drugs were “the new aspirin.”39 But as Dr. Ravnskov points out,40 the benefits were far from massive. Those who took simvastatin had an 87.1 percent survival rate after five years compared to an 85.4 percent survival rate for the controls and these results were independent of the amount of cholesterol lowering. The authors of the Heart Protection Study never published cumulative mortality data, even though they received many requests to do so and even though they received funding and carried out a study to look at cumulative data. According to the authors, providing year-by-year mortality data would be an “inappropriate” way of publishing their study results.41

PROSPER (2002)
PROSPER (Prospective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk) studied the effect of pravastatin compared to placebo in two older populations of patients of which 56 percent were primary prevention cases (no past or symptomatic cardiovascular disease) and 44 percent were secondary prevention cases (past or symptomatic cardiovascular disease).42 Pravastatin did not reduce total myocardial infarction or total stroke in the primary prevention population but did so in the secondary. However, measures of overall health impact in the combined populations, total mortality and total serious adverse events were unchanged by pravastatin as compared to the placebo and those in the treatment group had increased cancer. In other words: not one life saved.

J-LIT (2002)
Japanese Lipid Intervention Trial was a 6-year study of 47,294 patients treated with the same dose of simvastatin.43 Patients were grouped by the amount of cholesterol lowering. Some patient had no reduction in LDL levels, some had a moderate fall in LDL and some had very large LDL reductions. The results: no correlation between the amount of LDL lowering and death rate at five years. Those with LDL cholesterol lower than 80 had a death rate of just over 3.5 at five years; those whose LDL was over 200 had a death rate of just over 3.5 at five years.

Meta-Analysis (2003)
In a meta-analysis of 44 trials involving almost 10,000 patients, the death rate was identical at 1 percent of patients in each of the three groups—those taking atorvastatin (Lipitor), those taking other statins and those taking nothing.44 Furthermore, 65 percent of those on treatment versus 45 percent of the controls experienced an adverse event. Researchers claimed that the incidence of adverse effects was the same in all three groups, but 3 percent of the atorvastatin-treated patients and 4 percent of those receiving other statins withdrew due to treatment-associated adverse events, compared with 1 percent of patients on the placebo.

Cathy,

Why don't you take a look at the Johns Hopkins Researchers that found out that the use of Statins actually began to clear arterial plaque in as little as *6* months, using MRI scanners ?

THAT would be REAL medicine, as Johns Hopkins is the name in medical research.

[Stumper]

Cathy,

as always some of the info from the 'fruit and nut group' is so deceptionary or incomplete. Here is your info:


ALLHAT (2002)
ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial), the largest North American cholesterol-lowering trial ever and the largest trial in the world using Lipitor, showed mortality of the treatment group and controls after 3 or 6 years was identical.36 Researchers used data from more than 10,000 participants and followed them over a period of four years, comparing the use of a statin drug to “usual care,” namely maintaining proper body weight, no smoking, regular exercise, etc., in treating subjects with moderately high levels of LDL cholesterol. Of the 5170 subjects in the group that received statin drugs, 28 percent lowered their LDL cholesterol significantly. And of the 5185 usual-care subjects, about 11 percent had a similar drop in LDL. But both groups showed the same rates of death, heart attack and heart disease.



NOW, this is from the ALLHAT site:

ALLHAT pravastatin and usual care groups both attained substantial cholesterol reductions, resulting in a relatively modest cholesterol difference between them.
Accordingly, ALLHAT found only a small decrease in cardiovascular disease event rates (non-significant) for pravastatin compared with usual care and no difference in mortality.
**The study results {do not alter} current cholesterol treatment guidelines, **which are based on a series of clinical trials with larger cholesterol reductions than that observed in ALLHAT. Thus, cholesterol lowering by lifestyle changes and drug treatment *is recommended* to reduce cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality.


Notice that ALLHAT states that their study results DO NOT change cholesterol guidelines BECAUSE other clinical trials are MUCH GREATER and larger than ALLHAT and involve GREATER cholesterol reductions. Also note that ALLHAT is RECOMMENDING *drug* treatment and lifestyle changes to reduce CHD.

I bet I could go through all of your quotes and find similar deceptions and missing information.
Conspiracy theorists...Geeez

[Stumper]

And even today I saw not one body bag at McDonalds. I only saw smiling old men in the morning and smiling people in the afternoon and ALL were happy.