https://www.express.co.uk/life-styl...eart-medicine-fail-harms-health-study-reveals "Analysis showed those who suffer a heart attack and take a daily cholesterol-busting pill for five years will increase their life expectancy by just four days. The research casts fresh doubt on the effectiveness of drugs prescribed to six million people in the UK and has reignited the debate over their true worth. A coalition of experts in Britain and the US joined forces to declare there is “no consistent evidence” that the pills reduce death rates." The senior medics suggest the simplest and safest way to achieve a healthy heart is through better diet and more exercise. Consultant cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra, the report’s author, said: “It’s clear appropriate lifestyle interventions deliver far more impressive results compared to those of current medications without the side-effects and at a much lower cost. There are 44 randomised controlled trials of drug interventions to lower cholesterol in the primary and secondary prevention literature which show no benefit on mortality. “Most of these trails did not reduce cardiovascular events and several reported substantial harm. Yet, these studies have not received much publicity.” “The seductive theory that cholesterol in the blood and the diet is the enemy, and therefore must be lowered at all costs, has diverted attention from the unnatural increase in sugar intake that has a greater influence on obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. It’s time for a rethink and a change in our diets.” Be careful of the "If this pill can save one life isn't it worth it?" bullshit. Cholesterol has been proven to not be the direct cause of many coronary events so why shoudl doctors blindly prescribe a medicine to reduce cholesterol. If cholesterol was the key, wouldn't the results be AMAZING in trials? But they are not. Statins DO reduce cholesterol so BIG disconnect.
Again, very different argument than the concept that 3% to 1.9% isn't significant. A much sharper and more persuasive argument, I'd add. Focus on this one!
I am pointing out that the 3% to 1.9% number is Bullshit because the study is flawed. Also, the 3% number ironically corresponds to DETAILED research that shows cholesterol is NOT the culprit in coronary heart disease. If it was, should the at risk group see only 3% events? If cholesterol was the main risk factor then placebo groups with high cholesterol should see 50% coronary events (fatal and non-fatal). That alone showed the study was bullshit and has been disproven. I add also that it is not significant either because you have no idea how much the remaining "saved" 1.8% outlived normal expectancy wihtout taking the medication. They were not tracked through mortality nor was other means measured. Medicine is not validated because it takes a tiny population of affected people and makes it smaller when the alternative treatments come with no side effects and improve several other risk factors. The 3% to 1.9% and other claims are the statistical lie told to the FDA and doctors to convince them to prescribe the medicine. I cannot believe FDA approved a drug based on this bullshit but FDA serves the drug industry and there is no money in diet and exercise (cannot patent it). And yes I can say with a clear conscience that a medicine that moves a group from 3% to 1.9% at the high cost AND serious side effects is not significant enough to warrant government sanction even if those numbers were accurate (which they are not).
ALso not included in the 3% to 1.9% is the damage the statins do causing other damage that is probably higher than the 3% if you did nothing: “Given that statins give the illusion of cardiovascular protection in obese individuals, predispose to the development of Type 2 diabetes in up to one in 50 patients and cause reversible side-effects in up to 29 per cent of users, stopping statins may paradoxically save more lives and improve quality if life in those taking them.”
"The most severe adverse effect of statins is called rhabdomyolysis, where muscle is "dissolved" and the breakdown products block the kidneys, with fatal consequences. The Food and Drug Administration, which licenses medications in America, has been forced to review the safety of one statin in particular: Crestor. This came after David Graham, the FDA's leading drug safety expert, turned whistleblower last autumn to raise concerns about levels of kidney damage. Beatrice Golomb, a scientist at the University of California in San Diego, has been sponsored by the National Institutes of Health to investigate the effects of statins on mental function in 1,000 patients. It is understood she has recorded a number of problems ranging from memory lapses to changes in personality."
Another view of statin efficacy is obtained by converting the percent "improvement" values to "Number needed to treat" (NNT). This is just a mathematical exercise that can be done for statin clinical trials. This tends to expose (and thus neutralize) the misleading pro-pharma bias seen in the percent values. Obviously even a minuscule improvement would be desirable IF it were cost & side-effect free; but of course it ain't free. For example see: Statins in Persons at Low Risk of Cardiovascular Disease – TheNNTTheNNT also NNT for Statins vs. the Mediterranean Diet The above site states: NNTs and Statins Time frame matters too. According to The NNT Group, statin drugs given for five years, in order to prevent heart disease in people who have no history of heart disease, is 104.(2) That means that 104 people have to take statins in order to prevent one extra person from having a heart attack. The NNT Group calculates the number needed to harm (NNH) as well. According to its findings, one in 50 people on statins develops diabetes and one in ten experiences muscle damage as defined as rhabdomyolysis. Undiagnosed muscle pain, such as myalgia, wasn’t included. The picture changes when considering patients who have a history of heart disease. In this case, according to the reviewers, the statins NNT is 83 in order to prevent an additional death from occurring and 39 for preventing a nonfatal heart attack.(3) The harms are the same as in the previous instance. In comparison, the Mediterranean diet has been studied in a large randomized trial and is included on The NNT website. When followed for five years, the Mediterranean diet has an NNT of 61 for preventing stroke, heart attack or death with no harms noted.(4) So, according to The NNT, the Mediterranean diet appears to be a better choice than statins for primary prevention of stroke, heart attack or death.
There is no difference whatsoever other than in the amounts ingested of course. All the table sugars are naturally occurring. Naturally occurring sucrose (from beets or cane) is fructose and glucose bonded together by a glycosidic bond. The sucrose in a sugar beet is identical to the sucrose in a sugar bowl. The bond connecting fructose to glucose to make sucrose, undergoes acidic hydrolysis in the stomach to make equal molar amounts of 'naturally occurring' fructose and glucose. The result is no different than if you ingested equal molar amounts of fructose and glucose separately. You can vary the amount of sugars you ingest, but changing the source of a sugar doesn't change the sugar. Grapes are a source of fructose and a sugar bowl is an indirect source of sucrose. The Fructose that comes from eating sucrose on your Cheerios is identical to the fructose that comes from eating a grape.