Myth #5: Everyone should be
on prescriptions to control
cholesterol
This scenario would certainly pro-
vide considerable benefit to the financial
balance sheets of pharmaceutical compa-
nies that make statin drugs, but the public
health benefits are somewhat more dubi-
ous. Statin drugs deplete coenzyme-Q10,
which is central to cellular energy pro-
duction and heart health. They can also
cause muscle pains and weakness, flu-
like symptoms, liver dysfunction, periph-
eral neuropathy, cognitive impairments,
total global amnesia and interfere with
neuro-synaptic transmissions in the brain.
Although some statin drugs, most no-
tably Lipitor, have been shown to lower
heart attack risk and lower cholesterol, it
is now believed that they are two inde-
pendent effects. The latest scientific infor-
mation suggests that statins reduce heart
attack risk by reducing silent inflamma-
tion; the same risk reduction mechanism
attributed to fish oil, stress reduction and
healthy lifestyles. All of the latter do not
carry the potential risk of statin side ef-
fects and are quite a bit less costly to
implement. Several studies comparing
omega-3 fish oils to statins demonstrate
significant reduction in all cause mor-
tality in heart failure patients taking fish
oil, but statins did not affect all cause
mortality or cardiovascular admissions.
One drug, Zetia, is not absorbed and
lowers cholesterol in the gut. It has no ef-
fect on blood vessels or systemic inflam-
mation and has failed to demonstrate any
effect on the progression of atheroscle-
rosis. Recent studies have shown partici-
pants taking Ezitimibe (active ingredient
in Zetia and Vytorin) may actually have an
increased risk for cardiovascular events by
increasing carotid intima-media thickness.
A recent pharmaceutical industry
sponsored study concluded that giving
Crestor to people with normal choles-
terol reduced the risk of cardiovascular
events by 50%. This reduction was at-
tributed largely to the reduction of in-
flammation as measured by C-reactive
protein. This sounds impressive until
one scrutinizes the raw data. It turns out
that the 50% percent risk reduction oc-
curred in less than 3% of the study popu-
lation. In other words, there was no ef-
fect in more than 97% of participants.
Things that make you say: “Hmmm…”
www.naturalnutmeg.com February 2010
27
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56