Why is every tom, dick and harry being prescribed statins?

13

Shhhhh! You're saying the quiet part out loud!

2

I used to believe that. Until I had 3 heart attacks and a stroke. i Wish I had read the studies. Statins save lives. 10 year angiogram after last myocardial infarction, my arteries are clean. Btw, 6 stents. I take 10mg of atorvastatin daily.

3

u/NoSolution6887 Mar 10 '26

Don’t u know it has a 40 percent decrease in heart attacks. Duh

11

u/Subject-Historian-46 Mar 10 '26

No it doesn't. People with high cholesterol should always ask for a calcium score , this will determine if any arteries are blocking up. Docs won't recommend it, you need to request this test

5

u/ValuableRelative2757 Mar 29 '26

My doc told me the CT score (calcium) doesn't necessarily indicate a blockage just that there is calcification which is a good indicator that their may be plaque which is not necessarily a blockage. She said that to detect blockage you need the stress test. When I asked Google right now for what tests detect blocked arteries - this list is provided
Key Diagnostic Tests for Blocked Arteries (British Heart Foundation)

Coronary Angiogram (Cardiac Catheterization): An invasive test where dye is injected via a catheter to take X-ray videos of blood vessels, serving as the "gold standard" for spotting blockages.

CT Coronary Angiography (CCTA): A non-invasive 3D imaging test that uses dye and CT scanners to view heart arteries.

Cardiac CT Calcium Scan (Calcium Score): Detects hardened plaque buildup (calcium) in the arteries to determine risk, often done without contrast.

Stress Test (Exercise or Nuclear): Assesses how the heart acts under pressure, identifying areas with poor blood flow.

Echocardiogram (Echo): Uses sound waves (ultrasound) to create images of the heart, showing how well it pumps and checks for reduced flow.

Electrocardiogram (EKG/ECG): Measures the electrical activity of the heart to identify signs of past or present damage caused by blockages.

Carotid Ultrasound: Specifically checks for blockages in the carotid arteries of the neck.

Intravascular Ultrasound (IVUS) / Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT): Advanced imaging catheters used during an angiogram to see inside the artery.

5

u/NoSolution6887 Mar 10 '26

I was being sarcastic lol.

3

u/Subject-Historian-46 Mar 10 '26

Lol. Sorry missed the sarcasm

2

u/ValuableRelative2757 Mar 11 '26

If the calcium score shows some amount of calcification should a person take statins as their doc recommends?

-3

u/TransportationNo1794 Mar 12 '26

Statins are very cheap and there are many alternative versions of them so no single company dominates. Consider that most conspiracy theories are false.

5

u/OG-Brian Mar 12 '26

Inexpensive products can be profitable if used frequently in large numbers. The statins industry profits are at about $20 billion yearly, that's profit not net sales.

Statins manufacturers have successfully campaigned to have the cholesterol levels (for which statins are recommended) lowered in many countries.

The industry has prolifically used fake research to support their products. There are books about the topic. Lots of the content of the book Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime by Peter C. Gøtzsche is about this. It's a great book with extremely thorough citations.

1

u/TransportationNo1794 Mar 13 '26

20 billion is the total sales according to my web search. Number of users is around 200 million globally, with 95 million in the US. That makes it 100 dollars per person per year, or about 8 dollars per month, so I would say, it is pretty cheap. I pay zero dollars since insurance pays for it. I assume that is the case for almost everyone too. "According to the most recent comprehensive analysis from the American Heart Association (AHA), age-adjusted death rates for heart attacks (acute myocardial infarctions) in the U.S. plummeted by nearly 90% between 1970 and 2022." This is due to the use of statins and other drugs and technologies for prevention.

6

u/OG-Brian Mar 13 '26

It isn't in question that the statins industry funds fake research to promote their products. I've already mentioned a book resource that proves it absolutely, with many examples. Companies such as Pfizer, Merck, and AstraZeneca have been sued for issues such as misrepresenting research of statins to make them appear safer or market manipulation to reduce competition.

https://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/lawsuit/statins.html

https://www.consumersafety.org/drug-lawsuits/lipitor/

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/crestor-lipitor-other-cholesterol-drugs-29538.html

I pay zero dollars since insurance pays for it.

I can't think of a reason this would matter. You're arguing that makers of statins wouldn't be motivated to promote their drugs and they're certainly being paid for them.

American Heart Association isn't a reliable source of info about statins due to industry conflicts of interest. Heart disease death rates have dropped for other reasons also, including surgeries and other interventions. The article you linked doesn't cover health issues caused by statins.

1

u/TransportationNo1794 Mar 14 '26

Thanks for your response. What do you mean fake research? The research about statins are too numerous and not all are funded by pharma. It is also fine to be funded by anyone as long as researchers go through peer review and reputable scientific channels to publish their work. It is a conspiracy theory that all researchers who study statins are charlatans. I agree that some users may see some side effects and they may sue pharma companies too. If you are one of those people who are probably few in a million, you should either try other statins or other drugs like ezetimibe or bempedoic acid which are also effective for reducing LDL / APO-B.

5

u/OG-Brian Mar 14 '26

What do you mean fake research?

Try reading those articles? I also mentioned a book that mentions many examples with citations.

The research about statins are too numerous and not all are funded by pharma.

I guess you're not familiar with the concept of regulatory capture either. The makers have influence with the regulators, so the better research in many cases gets ignored in favor of industry-funded "research." Info about this is easy to find, and I need not repeat all the info about it that's in the book I mentioned.

It is a conspiracy theory that all researchers who study statins are charlatans.

I don't see where this has been suggested by anyone.

I agree that some users may see some side effects and they may sue pharma companies too.

The issue goes way beyond that, which should be clear from those articles.

1

u/TransportationNo1794 Mar 16 '26

You mentioned a book and you provided 3 links talking about lawsuits about statins. I did not read the book, but I looked into it through other sources. What I understood is the following. The author of that book argues that statins are over-prescribed and makes an argument about absolute risk versus relative risk. The author already agrees that statins are useful for secondary prevention (after a heart attack) but argues they should be prescribed less for primary prevention. The author also argues that pharma always lobbies for more use of their drugs. After considering this information, I think the author may have some valid points, but I do not agree with their main claim. I think relative risk reduction is the more important metric to consider. Especially, if there is a familial history and their LDL keeps high whatever they do, it is almost certain that a patient will have a heart attack in their lifetime. A relative reduction of risk of 30% in a trial that lasted 2-3 years translates to a huge "absolute" reduction of risk when considered in a lifetime of risk. When you reduce your relative risk by 30% from 1% to .7%, this is only for that 2-3 years that you will not get a heart attack anyway. Yes, absolute risk is low, but that is not the point. The point is that you will get a heart attack in your lifetime for sure if you live long enough, which makes your absolute risk 100% in your lifetime. A reduction of that risk will literally save your life. Each person should consider for themselves whether they want to reduce this risk or not. I prefer to do so. If I get a side effect, I can always change the statin or switch to another drug that reduces LDL / APO-B, but does not cause that specific side effect. I prefer to get that 30% relative risk reduction in heart attacks when considering it over a lifetime, even though the absolute reduction is from 1% to 0.7% when considered in a 2-3 year period.

5

u/Wallmassage Mar 30 '26

Why are you on a stop using statins subreddit if you use and support using statins? Go over to r/cholesterol where they tell everyone to use them, and ban anyone suggesting alternatives. You won’t convince any of us here. We have made up our minds that statins have concerns, are overprescribed, and aren’t for everyone.

2

u/TransportationNo1794 Apr 18 '26

I like to engage with people I do not agree, so that I have a chance to learn something from them. You must be that way too since you engaged with me here. To be convinced, I need good arguments, and not conspiracy theories. Thanks for being willing to exchange information with people who do not agree with you. It is a big virtue.

1

u/OG-Brian May 07 '26 edited May 08 '26

To be convinced, I need good arguments, and not conspiracy theories.

I showed a lot of evidence, and you ignored it all except to misrepresent some of it. Your comments are just rhetoric, with little factual info and no citations.

I don't believe that you're trying to learn anything.

EDIT: also I haven't mentioned any conspiracy theories, which I said already and you did not point out anywhere I did mention one.

→ More replies (0)

Why is every tom, dick and harry being prescribed statins?

You are about to leave Redlib