Statin Drugs from Terry Cotter on Vimeo.
She says:
1. You can lower LDL by 8-10% by diet.
2. She tries to fool people by using statistics....
At 32 seconds she says 'There are a lot of benefits'
OK grab a piece of paper and note down the benefits she identifies...
a. they reduce CVD deaths and events
Right...try reading this
She quotes studies - OK here's a major one:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0071769/
I quote:
Statin versus placebo, subgroup analysis by statin intensity
All-cause mortality
- High quality evidence showed that statins are more effective when compared to placebo at reducing all-cause mortality at up to 6 years,but the effect size is too small to be clinically important [26 studies, n=120,329].
- High quality evidence showed that low-intensity statins are more effective when compared to placebo at reducing all-cause mortality at up to 6 years, but the effect size is too small to be clinically important [12 studies, n=48,978].
- High quality evidence showed that medium-intensity statins are more effective when compared to placebo at reducing all-cause mortality at up to 5 years, but the effect size is too small to be clinically important [8 studies, n=42,687].
- High quality evidence showed that high-intensity statins are more effective when compared to placebo at reducing all-cause mortality at up to 5 years, but the effect size is too small to be clinically important [6 studies, n=27,664].
CV mortality
- High quality evidence showed that statins are more effective when compared to placebo at reducing CV mortality at up to 6 years, but the effect size is too small to be clinically important [22 studies, n=118,938].
- High quality evidence showed that low-intensity statins are more effective when compared to placebo at reducing CV mortality at up to 6 years, but the effect size is too small to be clinically important [11 studies, n=50,127].
- High quality evidence showed that medium-intensity statins are more effective when compared to placebo at reducing CV mortality at up to 5 years, but the effect size is too small to be clinically important [7 studies, n=42,248].
- Moderate quality evidence showed that high-intensity statins are more effective when compared to placebo at reducing CV mortality at up to 6 years, but the effect size is too small to be clinically important at up to 5 years, but the effect size is too small to be clinically important [4 studies, n=26,576].
Non-fatal MI
- Moderate quality evidence showed that statins are more clinically more effective when compared to placebo at reducing non-fatal MI at up to 6 years [21 studies, n=91,482].
- Moderate quality evidence suggested that there may be no clinical difference between low-intensity statins when compared placebo at reducing non-fatal MI at up to 6 years, but the direction of the estimate of effect favoured low-intensity statins [13 studies, n=40,589].
- High quality evidence showed that medium-intensity statins are more clinically more effective when compared to placebo at reducing non-fatal MI at up to 5 years [4 studies, n=28,068].
- High quality evidence showed that high-intensity statins are more clinically more effective when compared to placebo at reducing non-fatal MI at up to 5 years [4 studies, n=22,825].
Stroke
- Moderate quality evidence suggested that there may be no clinical difference between statins when compared to placebo at reducing stroke at up to 6 years, but the direction of the estimate of effect favoured statins [19 studies, n=109,244].
- High quality evidence showed that low-intensity statins are more effective when compared to placebo at reducing stroke at up to 6 years, but the effect size is too small to be clinically important [10 studies, n=44,310].
- Moderate quality evidence suggested that medium-intensity statins are potentially more effective when compared to placebo at reducing stroke at up to 5 years [5 studies, n=38,350].
- Moderate quality evidence suggested that there may be no clinical difference between high-intensity statins when compared to placebo at reducing stroke at up to 5 years, but the direction of the estimate of effect favoured high-intensity statins [4 studies, n=26,575].
Well - that's not very impressive!
53 seconds..."nothing we could do..."
What sort of incompetent is she?
a. DIET
b. EXERCISE
c. STRESS REDUCTION
All of these are within the skills of a health provider...
Impressive figures at 1.09...or not. BUT no mention is made of any changes in lifestyle.
If I have a heart attack or similar and someone gives me statins I STOP SMOKING, STOP THE BOOZE etc.
It is ridiculous to say the situation has not changed!!!
1.15: "I feel fine why do I have to take something"
Maybe people feel fine if they lose weight, sleep better, exercise more and thus STOP statins!
1,21: "20% have side effects but they're usually reversible"....over what time period? 20 years?
1.34: slide showing statin misconceptions.
Low risk of side effects...20% is LOW
Don't lower heart disease risk. 1% is acceptable?
Side effects outweigh benefits. They DO if you don't get the benefits!!!
Please go and look at it.
10% - 20% lower risk of CVD events or deaths.
That is at 1.52.
OK let's look and see what it really says....
Under LIMITATIONS
"Limitations:
The risk for recurrent adverse reactions to statins could not be established for the entire sample. It was also not possible to determine whether patients actually took the statins."
And this is 'research'?
Anyway, I digress. Look at the actual data:
" Four years after the presumed adverse event, the cumulative incidence of the composite primary outcome was 12.2% for patients with continued statin prescriptions, compared with 13.9% for those without them"
So 1.7% more people had events - could that have anything to do with a whole host of other risk factors or were they ALL excluded and statins isolated?
2.19 - the internet has done a disservice.
Read the above again and judge for yourself.
2.37 - diets have not been proven to work
Sigh... just google it...
2.45 - your diet is part of the equation
No contradiction then!
No comments:
Post a Comment