Comments on: How do researchers end up recommending a drug they concede has no benefit?

By: Butter vs Margarine – Why I Trust Cows More Than Chemist - Modern Health and Nutrition

Sun, 17 Aug 2014 03:46:14 +0000

[…] are many drugs that have been proven to lower LDL cholesterol, but not all of them actually lead to a reduction in heart […]

By: Butter vs Margarine – Why I Trust Cows More Than Chemists

Butter vs Margarine – Why I Trust Cows More Than Chemists — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 19:59:47 +0000

[…] are many drugs that have been proven to lower LDL cholesterol, but not all of them actually lead to a reduction in heart disease. That’s because there’s a lot […]

By: Butter vs Margarine – Why I Trust Cows More Than Chemist - Weight Loss and Fitness Success

Sun, 29 Sep 2013 16:24:45 +0000

[…] are many drugs that have been proven to lower LDL cholesterol, but not all of them actually lead to a reduction in heart […]

By: Butter vs Margarine - Why I Trust Cows More Than Chemists

Butter vs Margarine - Why I Trust Cows More Than Chemists — Sat, 18 May 2013 14:46:54 +0000

[…] are many drugs that have been proven to lower LDL cholesterol, but not all of them actually lead to a reduction in heart […]

By: DAVORIN PILJIC

DAVORIN PILJIC — Sat, 13 Apr 2013 10:52:26 +0000

Dr Briffa, you are a rebel! Be careful that they will visit you late at night!

Doctors should treat lifestyles, not just individual ailments.

By: Drug company pays off shareholders to avoid court case | Dr Briffa's Blog - A Good Look at Good Health

Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:29:35 +0000

[…] Despite this, the authors of the review recommend that doctors use ezetimibe to lower raised cholesterol, though two out of the three authors have taken money from the drug’s manufacturer (Merck) for ‘consulting’ and lecturing. You can read the relevant blog post here. […]

By: Ian Day

Ian Day — Sat, 30 Mar 2013 14:26:12 +0000

“But unfortunately, given the long-established benefit of statin therapy, a cholesterol trial without statin therapy would not be possible today, particularly in subjects with [coronary heart disease].”

To what extent is “long-established benefit” better than “received wisdom” ? We all “know” the benefits because they keep telling us. Now we see that such benefits are so great that trials without the benefits of statins are likely to be considered “unethical.”

By: Gus Fagan

Gus Fagan — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 22:13:19 +0000

I agree with your comments pointing out that eztimibe made no difference. But does it follow then that the statin on its own was effective in that it ‘significantly reduced [major cardiovascular events] by 41% in the simvastatin plus ezetimibe group (Figure 3).’ In the interests of not confusing those of us who agree with you on statins, you ought to make some comment on this claim.

By: Stacie

Stacie — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:59:12 +0000

To NM: I also have wondered why Dr. Dayspring, who does appear to “get it”, is so gung-ho about statins and reducing cholesterol. Now I know why. As you say, he is a”‘gun for hire.” I will henceforth discount anything he says. Also, if people understood exactly how statins work and what they really do, they would run for the hills. That such a toxin is legal and approved for use is mind boggling to me. I highly recommend “How Statins Really Lower Cholesterol and Kill You One Cell at a Time”, by the Yosephs. I really appreciate and agree with Dr. Briffa’s stance on these drugs, that it is the effect on health, not cholesterol levels that counts. Of course, most people, doctors, etc. are only looking at the soft, surrogate endpoints.

By: david manovitch

david manovitch — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:42:25 +0000

Cholesterol in food does not lead to cholesterol in the blood. Cholesterol is anyway good in the same way that oxygen or water is. They are all essential for life, but too much of any of these can cause problems. There are some families who have what we call congenital hypercholesterolaemia and without medical intervention they tend to get heart attacks in in their 40s and rarely reach the age of 60. I would view this group as a special case, and that relatively high levels of cholesterol in other people are probably less toxic. I believe that they are most likely due to eating a highly processed, high carbohydrate, high sugar Western diet and if that is avoided then any health problems associated with a relatively high cholesterol can be avoided.

When I was at medical school in the 1970s the upper limit of normal for cholesterol was claimed to be 7.0, but now is around 5.5. However nobody really knows what a normal or optimal level of cholesterol is or how variations in it affect health. If as somebody posted above, one has a cholesterol of 12.3 then my advice would be to try a statin but to radically alter your diet if you have not done so already to emulate a hunter gatherer or paleo diet and take plenty of exercise, keep alcohol consumption low and avoid tobacco.

As for the studies quoted, they are quite useless. If it is felt unethical to omit a statin from the equation then they should be comparing ezetimibe plus statin, against a statin alone, not placebo. One has to wonder if these studies was sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.

By: Deane Alban

Deane Alban — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:49:38 +0000

If I may add a note for Ben…

Get a copy of The Cholesterol Myth by Dr.’s Bowden and Sinatra. Your cholesterol is not a good indicator of heart disease. It’s much more complicated than that. You need to measure your particle size not just your cholesterol levels. Ask your doctor for a VAP test. He may or may not know what that is. At least in the US, you can order this test for yourself online.

You are way too young to spend the rest of your life on these devastating drugs. Keep looking and you’ll find your answer.

By: pat

pat — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:14:36 +0000

after having a stroke post-operatively (carotid endarterectomy) I was put on statins, none of which suited me, so I now take fenofibrate – whats the low-down on this? Thanks, Pat

By: Dr John Briffa

Dr John Briffa — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:36:24 +0000

Gill W

Leaving the possibility of the placebo effect aside, you have completely missed the major point of this blog post: the impact exetimibe has on your cholesterol is irrelevant – it’s the impact it has in your health that counts. So, what evidence is there that exetimibe benefits health (including cardiovascular health)? Answer: there is none.

By: Gill w

Gill w — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 13:46:27 +0000

Recently the Welsh Assembly asked all GPs in Wales to take people off ezitembe if possible because of cost. I have atherosclerosis with a totally occluded Rt internal carotid artery and a bad family history. I agreed to stop it for a trial period of 6weeks. I also take 10mg simvastatin ( the highest dose I can tolerate) my cholesterol rose from 4 to 5.2.
40 mg of statins made me ill and weren’t as effective as the lower dose and ezitembe
For me it is proven to work.

By: NM

NM — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 13:38:53 +0000

Ah. I see Dr Dayspring on that list. That solves a particular puzzle: I always wondered why someone who “gets” so much of this (that sat fat is benign etc, that glycating carbs are metabolically problematic and so on) nevertheless is such a fan boi for any new lipid medication. He’s basically a a gun for hire.