Active Low-Carber Forums - No relation LDL to mortality over 60

Active Low-Carber Forums (http://forum.lowcarber.org/index.php)

- Cholesterol, Heart Disease (http://forum.lowcarber.org/forumdisplay.php?f=48)

- - No relation LDL to mortality over 60 (http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=473903)

No relation LDL to mortality over 60

A new Meta-analysis in the BMJ Open journal by many of the authors/cardiologist s we know active in Cholesterol controversy.

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/6/e010401

Quote:

Lack of an association or an inverse association between low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol and mortality in the elderly: a systematic review

Objective It is well known that total cholesterol becomes less of a risk factor or not at all for all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality with increasing age, but as little is known as to whether low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), one component of total cholesterol, is associated with mortality in the elderly, we decided to investigate this issue.
Abstract goes on...

Dr. Malcolm Kendrick is one of the authors and he is still plugging along on his magnum opus of what DOES ccause heart disease (if not cholesterol), part 17 published this week.

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2016/...ease-part-xvii/

Also this study in Daily Mail yesterday:

Quote:

Millions of people may be needlessly taking statins every day: Study claims lowering cholesterol may NOT slash heart attack risk
Study: Lowering cholesterol below a certain level doesn't cut heart risk
Reducing level of 'bad' LDL cholesterol from a ‘high’ to a ‘moderate’ level did have an impact on heart risk, reducing heart emergencies by 13%
But reducing levels from 'moderate' to 'low' levels - roughly the level targeted by the NHS - had no effect on patients at all

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...ttack-risk.html

And in today's MedPage

Quote:

CardioBrief: Cholesterol Observations Question 'Lower Is Better'
No added benefit for statin patients who reached very low LDL levels

A large observational study suggests that moderate lowering of LDL may be just as effective as intensive lowering. "Our results do not provide support for a blanket principle that lower LDL cholesterol is better for all patients in secondary prevention," the authors conclude.

In a paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Israeli researchers analyzed data from 31,000 patients with ischemic heart disease who received statins and remained adherent to treatment. They compared the rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in three groups of patients based on their LDL levels after at least 1 year of treatment: 9,086 had low LDL levels (below 70 mg/dL), 16,782 had moderate LDL levels (70 to 100 mg/dL), and 5,751 had high LDL levels (over 100 mg/dL). There was no significant difference in MACE between the low group and the moderate group but there was a significant reduction in events in the moderate group when compared with the high group. The adjusted rate of events per 1,000 person-years was 78.1 in the low group, 71 in the moderate group, and 81.3 in the high group. The same pattern emerged in a propensity-matched population.

Current European guidelines recommend that patients with ischemic heart disease receive treatment with a target of 70 mg/dL or below. U.S. guidelines no longer recommend targets, but a substantial proportion of lipid experts still believe in aggressive treatment targets. The results of the new study suggest that an aggressive target may not offer any additional advantage over a moderate target.

The study "represents an important effort in clarifying goals for long-term statin therapy," write the journal's editors in an Editor's Note. "The findings suggest that targeting an LDL cholesterol level of less than 100 mg/dL achieves the same cardiovascular risk reduction as more aggressive LDL cholesterol targets, which could help to minimize adverse effects that are more common with higher statin doses needed for lower LDL targets while maximizing benefits." But outside experts questioned the use an observational study like this to inform the cholesterol debate. "It is very, very hard to make conclusions from nonrandomized retrospective studies like this," said Michael Blaha, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins.

Given that too LOW TC is strongly correlated with the most deadly types of heart attack in the relatively young, saying that TC becomes less of a risk factor after 60 is more than a little misleading.

If you want to read a recently published research paper in a peer-reviewed journal about the ineffectiveness of statins, their potential dangers, and the deceptive statistics used to market them, here's a link to the article:

http://www.drperlmutter.com/wp-cont...-corruption.pdf

Alternatively, the author also has a video lecture covering the same topic as the paper:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX1vBA9bLNk

Very interesting stuff.

According to his cardiologist, my father developed T2 as a side-effect from taking a statin called Lipitor. The drug was prescribed after having had a heart attack.

It's a very dangerous world ever since Big Pharma got into bed with doctors and government agencies like the AHA. It's up to each of us to take care of our own health since most mainstream doctors are so out of touch with the latest research.

Another article on this study from Chris Clark:

http://www.christopherjamesclark.co...ogical-fantasy/

And from Prof Grant in NZ:

https://profgrant.com/2016/06/14/th...in-the-elderly/

A People's Pharmacy article on the latest study of Statins and Seniors, analyzing both heart risk and all cause mortality.

https://www.peoplespharmacy.com/201...rs-need-statins

Quote:

New Analysis Disputes Dogma that All Seniors Need Statins
Patients following recommendations from the American College of Cardiology take statins as they get older. Does the latest research contradict the experts?

......

Translating This Research into Plain English:

Here is our understanding of the ALLHAT-LLT research. Older people taking pravastatin did not live longer or have fewer heart attacks than those not assigned to the statin drug. There was actually a nonsignificant trend towards more deaths in the 75 and older group if they were assigned to pravastatin.
.....

There are more links to this study and others in the link above.

New Study: Taking Statins to Prevent Heart Disease May Shorten the Lives of People over 65

https://www.dietdoctor.com/new-stud...lives-people-65