I know this is off topic, but many on this board have opinions on the over-use of statins. Olsen, you've probably already seen this:

Cardiologists cast doubt on new statin recommendations. Guidelines released last week don't accurately estimate who's at enough risk of heart attack or stroke to merit the drug therapy, critics say.

Some of the nation's most influential cardiologists are challenging new recommendations that would greatly expand the number of Americans taking a statin medication to reduce their chances of a heart attack or stroke.

http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sc...#axzz2l73bhuiQ

Try this video for some really sobering information about statin toxicity!

Statins are cellular toxins.... watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF_3miYtuDM

I knew this day would come.... THROW OUT THE NUMBERS....

but instead now they expand criteria to include just about everyone! The Cholesterol Wars...have begun and no one is talking about how toxic they really are! (or how useless they are for the criteria that were just fabricated by "experts")

The Life Extension Foundation advocates statins in PD for neuroprotection.

http://www.lef.org/protocols/neurolo...disease_01.htm

Thanks Tupelo and MrsD.
Noted in new evaluation of the "risk calculator": "the calculator overpredicted risk by 75 to 150 percent, depending on the population." And has there ever been randomized control trial to prove risk calculators are any good? ever?

Before it was determined the "new risk calculator" was flawed, why was there recommendation to treat people with a 7.5% 10 yr risk of a cardiovascular event anyway? That means one has a 92.5% chance of not having a cardiovascular event. And if on Crestor, an 18% chance of developing diabetes mellitus type 2.

John Abramson, et al, authored a paper published in the british medical journal noting that the real "NNT" or "number needed to treat" for 5 years was 140 for stroke or heart attack. Thus, 140 people needed to be treated for 5 years for 1 person to avoid a heart attack or stroke. And that was without a reduction in overall mortality or even serious illness. And there was an 18% incidence of side effects from statins when there existed a cardiovascular disease 10 yr risk of 20% or more. And the FDA has even included a black box warning on all statins for side effects of diabetes Mellitus type 2 and "cognitive dysfunction"--meaning dementia-like symptoms.

I am incredulous that the new guidelines will place even more individuals on statins. 50% of the committee had financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry--these individuals sustained from voting on the final recommendation because of "conflict of interest concerns". Note they did not refrain from assisting in any of the other aspects of development of the guidelines. Just the final voting. Geez, I'll buy that...no conflict there.

Disclosure in case there is a new member reading this posting--I am deeply biased against statins. for any reason except for a middle aged male who has suffered his first cardiac event and then for only the acute period following the event, like 2 weeks. Not for life. and for women and males over 70--NEVER.

I notice in the listings of suggestions for treatments in the Life extension parkinson's article, simvastatin is not there.
The study of simvastatin and treatment of PD is now 3 yrs old. Would be very interesting if there are clinical studies utilizing statins for PD. The study should be run for >5 yrs since brain cholesterol has a half life of about 5 yrs. Any deficits due to decreased brain cholesterol levels would not be picked up if the study was less than 5 yrs. My suggestion If one wants to stay current with cutting edge alternative stuff, read info from the institute of functional medicine. madelyn

When I learned what the NNT for various procedures was, I was shocked..... including mammograms, I think the NNT for those is something like 3,000. I'll never have one again: instead I will have tomography done, where they look for hot spots which indicate cancer growth (faster cell division = hotter in that area). What a racket so much of our medical system is.

Thanks for shedding more light on this. Will the next big push be a lowering of the "normal" level for blood sugar so that more people will be classified as diabetic and pressured to take diabetes drugs? Scary.

Thanks for some great information, Madelyn, as usual. I felt the same way when I saw those guidelines.
Gary

This is already happening! Some new studies are coming out to explain that A1C does go up with age, and does not necessarily need drug treatment.

Watch the video I put up on statin toxicity.... I am guessing that statins kill cells in the pancreas... that is what is causing the rise in diabetes.

"...a 50 yo male with the ‘optimal’ numbers, if your SBP (systolic blood pressure--the upper number)goes up to 119, there is no impact on risk. if it then goes up 1 point, from 119 to 120, your life time risk abruptly goes from 5% to 36%, an increase of 31 percentage points and an increased relative risk of ASCVD of 620%...

(again, 5o yo) male total cholesterol goes up to 179, no impact. If it then goes up 1 mg/dl, from 179 to 180, life time risk goes from 5% to 36%, an increase of 31 percentage points and an increased relative risk of ASCVD of 620%. If your total cholesterol goes up from 199 to 200, that’s another 10 percentage point increase, from 36% to 46%, an increased relative risk of 27% (from 36%)...


Whatever helps sell those statins.

http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.p...in-guidelines/