Skip to content
First hand account of the dangers of high LDL
 
avatar
bobby75703 responded:
In the real world, those who lower their LDL with statins usually face an unpleasant revelation later down the road. Their artery plaque continued to grow despite the lower LDL.

Its a hard reality many have faced.
 
avatar
iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
Actually, no.......................


This study shows that in a population of statin na?ve, clinically stable but otherwise unselected coronary artery disease patients, cholesterol reduction using statins to mean LDL-C of approximately 70 mg/dL was associated with rapid regression of atheroma at 3 months. Early changes were highly correlated with changes after 12 months. These rapid structural changes were accompanied by early improvements in arterial stiffness and endothelial function that were sustained to 12 months. Use of multi-modal vascular MRI to detect early changes in atheroma and vascular function in small numbers of patients could prove to be an efficient strategy to screen novel anti-atherosclerotic agents.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2292239/
 
avatar
iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
No red flags, just some big picture thinking about the problem. The data is the data and the data supports the position of this paper. FYI, Google it, statins change he structure of plaques and make them less dangerous, there are hundreds of articles about it.
 
avatar
iride6606 replied to iride6606's response:
The findings of another paper, incredible.


Grayscale IVUS revealed that in the statin-treated patients, percent plaque volume index was significantly reduced over time, whereas no change was observed in the diet-only patients. IB-IVUS identified significant reductions in the percentage lipid volume index over time no change was observed in the diet-treated group. While OCT demonstrated a significant increase in fibrous cap thickness, such changes were not observed in the diet-only group. Differences in the changes in the percentage lipid volume index and fibrous cap thickness over time between the pitavastatin and diet groups were highly significant.


Conclusions Statin treatment induces favorable plaque morphologic changes with an increase in fibrous cap thickness, and decreases in both percentage plaque and lipid volume indexes.


Bottom line, only the statin group showed changes to arterial plaques.


http://imaging.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleid=1208293



 
avatar
bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
Yes, "incredible."
 
avatar
iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
I am glad to see Bobby agrees! Here's another paper that shows the continued benefit of statin use;


ConclusionsOur meta-analysis demonstrated that statin therapy (especially that involving a high dose and long duration and achieving <100 mg/dL LDL-C levels) can significantly decrease plaque volume (PV) in patients with SAP or ACS. These data suggested that statins can be used to reduce the atheroma burden for secondary prevention by appropriately selecting the statin regimen.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2261/12/70


Glad to see Bobby on board with this finally.
 
avatar
bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
No, Bobby is not on board with this. I never said I agreed. I simply stated "Yes incredible" to underscore how unrealistic the study results are

Do you see how you took what I said, and turned it around into what you wanted? Yet I never said I agreed. Manufacturing the outcome a person wants is one of the reasons I do not accept the studies you quoted.


iride, we do not have a drug that can reverse artery plaque. It does not exist. Even you yourself have acknowledged this to others in this forum.


"When something sounds too good to be true, it generally is"

Let the buyer beware.

 
avatar
iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
And to think I was so happy when I read that Bobby posted, "yes, incredible"! It's OK, this is new to me also although I did predicted this would be the case years ago.


Here's another paper that shows the same results;


Check this out!


At 1.2 years' follow-up, there was a significant 38% decrease in total plaque volume in individuals on statin therapy compared with patients not on statin therapy. This difference remained significant after adjustment for age, gender, and conventional risk factors. Significant changes in noncalcified volume (a 73% decrease) and mixed-plaque volume (a 10% decrease) also were seen in those on statins compared with the nonstatin group. In addition, calcified plaque remained relatively stable, decreasing by 3.5% in the statin therapy group compared with the nonstatin group.


http://www.ecardiologynews.com/specialty-focus/imaging/single-article-page/cta-tracks-plaque-volume-changes-with-statin-therapy/93e46306183e3542688f74fbdb7aac8c.html


It's not just about regression, more importantly it's all about stabilization. Stable plaques are less likely to rupture. The data was not able to be captured before as the scanning advances have come so far in the past few years.


THIS IS FACT BSED BIG PICTURE EVIDENCE.
 
avatar
bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
Lets make the picture even BIGGER.

I find it interesting that in the 25 year history of statins, they never showed reversal of artery plaque. Now all of a sudden "they do."

Would someone please explain to me WHY for the last 25 years statins failed to erase artery plaque, but now all of a sudden they miraculously perform this task?

Is somebody really going to tell me "Gosh Mr. Bobby, its a miracle! They may not have worked for the first 25 years in plaque regression. But they just started working now!"

I'm not biting the hook on this one.
 
avatar
bobby75703 replied to bobby75703's response:
Granted imaging has improved, but we still had imaging that could have proved a 38% plaque regression before. It never happened.

And this plaque stabilizing business...I'm still not biting.

Studies are the drug industry's most powerful marketing tool. Same goes for supplements. Same for the food industry.

Studies give credibility in the mind of the consumer. People have a tendency to accept the study, and they place their money on it. We hear about a study in the media and we run out and buy whats being sold.

Sadly many studies have become a HUGE marketplace for selling products. This is why I have backed of from quoting studies, even if they support my position.
 
avatar
iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
Oh Bobby, you obviously are responding without reading the link. It's all about Plaque Volume, when the structure changes their volume gets smaller, that's the regression their talking about. No one is claiming they are making plaques go away, they are just changing from soft palques to more stable, smaller calcified plaques.

FYI, no funding or conflict issues with these papers, again read the links they are intersting.

So, any data to show why this is not true or is it just a gut feeling based on core beliefs?
 
avatar
bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
No, not a gut feeling based on core beliefs. But rather observation the claims don't add up.

Again if statins offered this type of regression in plaque volume, it would have showed up 20 years ago. It didn't. Now today this amazing claim is being made.

If people want to accept the study making this claim, that's fine. Its their right. Its their choice. But you know me. I'm a tough sell on this.
 
avatar
iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
But rather observation the claims don't add up.

So a gut feeling based on core beliefs, that's fine to say. If you were basing this on fact I would think you would provide it, maybe not.

You're getting wrapped up on the work regression, again read the papers, plaques don't go away, their size is diminshed as they calcify as a affect of the statin so the overall volume is smaller. Also, not "a study", several studies.


Featuring Experts

There are no Expert stories for this community right now

Helpful Tips

Lower Cholesterol by changing my chemical balance - eating habits
With a history of heart disease in my family (father), I was all to aware of the need to keep my numbers under control. A few years ago, I ... More
Was this Helpful?
32 of 33 found this helpful

Related News

There was an error with this newsfeed

Related Drug Reviews

  • Drug Name User Reviews

Report Problems With Your Medications to the FDA

FDAYou are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.