you are right of course. But it is not so easy.
There are thousands of studies done in the last few years alone - all effectively pointing to a problem with current medical treatment protocols around this issue. A quick search with Google will find them for you - many of them from very reputable organizations and published in many equally reputable peer reviewed journals. Have a look at the NIH and the American Cardiologists associations website - they store just about everything. I suspect not much of it gets read by those that should.
Non of the research we are talking about is from the pharmaceuticals. Of course not. Those are companies that need to earn money to exist. Nothing wrong with that. They are not charity. If they are going to spend large amounts of money on research it better result in patents and a sellable product. If you where a share holder I don't think you would be pleased with the board if they would sanction anything that will reduce your companies turnover would you now ?
There are many, many studies of varying nature out there showing you what to do - yes, it takes a bit of effort to find them and evaluate them with respect to what you are after but that's life for now.
Now, we have been moaning about statins in general. But let's have a look at something new, just to illustrate what is going on.
About two years ago I got an invitation from my cardiologist to participate in a new drug trail. I was given some forms to fill in and given brief information (only after I asked for it - still rather vague). It was a new drug that lowered LDL significantly in a different way. I was interested but somehow the paperwork got lost. Anyway, glad it did.
The drug is PCSK9. Google it. I will not bore you with the details on what it does.
Here are some facts:
It lowers LDL in all subjects significantly (>50% is easily achievable).
Around 70% of study subjects (not on the placebo) reported side effects (including very severe ones - much the same as statins do, just much worse).
There is zero evidence at this stage that it helps in any way with cardiac issues (too new for that).
It's being fast tracked to market. Two manufacturers have now been approved already and it's available for treatment.
It's very expensive (around R15.000 per month, needs one injection per month).
Celebrations all around and earnings estimates in the billions. It's the next big money maker. Or is it - time will tell ?
So, to put not too fine a point to it - we throw this out there, not very well researched as to long term effects (including desirable effects), much criticism abounds, big media statements on what a great and wonderful advance we made (perhaps true, we just don't know yet) and even my doctor is keen to give this to every patient, no matter what.
Now get this: For the first time in like ever - these drug companies are stating that this is ideal for patients that cannot tolerate statins. Before this little problem was hardly even acknowledged to exist (it's just in your head as my doc would say 10 years ago).
There are so many remedies and good research out there (yes, some bad as well). Yet it gets completely ignored. So will this article you refer to. It's just another one...
Something is really, really wrong. Badly.
rattex wrote:A US study quoted in the guardian today shows that lowering cholesterol can raise the risk of death. The study is presented in the BMJ (British Medical Journal), so I think the main stream will slowly have to sit up and take notice.
Replacing animal fat in the human diet with vegetable oil may not lower the risk of heart disease, and might even boost it, according to a study that challenges a cornerstone of dietary advice.
Switching from saturated to unsaturated Omega-6 fats did result in lower blood cholesterol in a trial with nearly 10,000 participants, the US study said, but not the expected reduction in heart disease deaths.
Those with a greater reduction in cholesterol “had a higher rather than a lower risk of death”, according to the research published by the medical journal BMJ.
“If blood cholesterol values are not a reliable indicator of risk of cardiovascular disease, then a careful review of the evidence that underpins dietary recommendations is warranted,” he wrote in the BMJ.