Dr Dingle's Blog / cholesterol deception

Low Omega 3 oils not cholesterol is a risk for heart disease.

Low Omega 3 oils not cholesterol is a risk for heart disease.

A recent large study of 2500 participants (mean age 66 years, 54% women), a higher Omega-3 Index was associated with significantly lower risks for total mortality, for non-CVD and non-cancer mortality, and for total CVD events. Those in the highest omega 3 levels compared to those in the lowest had a 34% lower risk for death from any cause and 39% lower risk for incident CVD. These associations were generally stronger for docosahexaenoic acid than for eicosapentaenoic acid. When total cholesterol was compared it was not significantly related with the health outcomes.

Early studies in the 1980s investigating Greenland Eskimos began the research into the benefits of the omega 3 fatty acids. In Greenland, the fatty acid intake from seafood is high and there is a lower prevalence of autoimmune and inflammatory conditions. Omega 3 has been shown in many studies to help inhibit and even reverse inflammation. The omega 3 fatty acids found in walnuts, flaxseed, butternuts, and fish oils have anti-inflammatory properties, decreasing the amount of arachidonic acid in cell membranes.

Several recent studies have linked higher blood levels and/or dietary intakes of the long-chain n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) with greater longevity. Blood omega 3 levels were inversely associated with total mortality rates in the Cardiovascular Health Study, and similar results were seen in the Heart and Soul Study. Consistent with this, there is an inverse relationship between the Omega-3 Index and the rate of telomere attrition, a marker of cellular aging.

Omega 3 fatty acids work through a number of mechanisms, each having different effects, to reduce inflammation. As well recent studies suggest that some of the beneficial effects of fish oil are due, in part, to their antioxidant benefit.

Read more →

2017 Dr Dingle’s February Wellness Presentations.

2017 Dr Dingle’s February Wellness Presentations.

7.00 -9.00 PM. Wednesday nights

445 Charles St North Perth

$12 online/$20 at the door www.drdingle.com

February 1, 2017 : Probiotics, People and Poo 

http://tix.yt/probiotics   February 8, 2017 : Reducing Toxic Overload in our Kids 

http://tix.yt/toxic-kids February 15, 2017 : 7 Steps To Permanent Weight Loss 

http://tix.yt/7stepstoweightloss

February 22, 2017 : Living Longer, Ageing Well. The science of living a full life http://tix.yt/ageingwell

Read more →

Cholesterol research myths

Cholesterol research myths

An interesting dimension of pharmaceutical companies’ practices is that the same corrupt drug companies that reap money from drugs conduct the research, pay the researchers and control the research—including what is and is not published. Drug companies engage in censorship, bribery, corruption, fraud, suppression of negative studies and all varieties of unscrupulous tactics to sell their products; there are literally hundreds of studies that demonstrate this. At the simplest level, most medical research is financed by pharmaceutical companies seeking support for drugs that are either on the market or in development.

Recently, I wrote a couple of blogs that described the problems with the JUPITER study.  The independent analysis of the same date showed no benefit and more importantly it bought into question the strong vested interests sponsoring the study.  What was also neglected in the reports on the original JUPITER study was that it showed an increase in the risk of various side-effects including diabetes. But the biggest problem with the JUPITER study was the study itself. Most people assume  that science is pure and there is not going to be any research bias. This is not the case and certainly not the case with JUPITER trial. First of all the exclusion criteria was very lengthy and contained common conditions including postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy, past or current use of lipid lowering therapy, diabetes, liver disease, uncontrolled hypertension, cancer within five years, hypothyroidism, recent history of alcohol or drug abuse or other medical condition that might compromise the successful completion of the study, inflammatory conditions including severe arthritis lupus or inflammatory bowel disease and so on.  That means a lot of people, average people could not be included in the study and its selected specifically to achieve a specific outcome.

In an earlier study called the CORONA trial they looked the same drug over a period of 32.8 months and found while it significantly lowered LDL cholesterol, similar to those reported in the JUPITER trial, it performed no better than a placebo on the primary outcome, deaths from cardiovascular causes, non-fatal MI and non-fatal stroke. There was also no difference between the drug and placebo cardiovascular cause, or cause death, or any coronary events.

This was further compounded by the fact that the JUPITER study was supposed to go of 3-4 years however was terminated at 1.9 years while some of the results appeared positive.  You can’t change a study half way through it just because you might show some positive results.

Read more →

More cholesterol deception

More cholesterol deception

An old but worthwhile article by Duff Wilson, March 30, 2010 in the The New York Times “Risks Seen in Cholesterol Drug Use in Healthy People” highlights yet again the fatal flaws we have in promoting cholesterol lowering drugs.

The study Duff Wilson reports on found a 55 percent reduction in heart attacks, 48 percent reduction in stroke, and a 45 percent reduction in angioplasty bypass surgery. Sounds good doesn’t it? Unfortunately it is another example of statin statistics where they are not giving you all the real information and what they are giving you is designed to mislead everyone (especially doctors who don’t know how to read stats).

The actual rate of heart attacks was only 0.37 percent, or 68 patients out of 8,901 who took the placebo (a sugar pill). Those who took the statin (Crestor) dropped to 0.17 percent, or 31 patients. That is a 55 percent relative risk reduction but only 0.2 percentage real (or absolute) risk reduction — or 2 people out of 1,000. That is 500 people need to be treated with the statin for a year to avoid one usually survivable heart attack. Doesn’t sound so good any more does it? The stroke numbers were similar. This is considered statistically significant but nowhere near clinically significant and well below the real reduction of 50% people expect to get from a drug. In fact 2500 times less than what the public expect. The most ridiculous part of all this is that 7 grams of almonds will give 2-4 times the benefit of the drug. At $3.50 a pill, to prescribe the statin for 500 people for a year would be $638,000 to prevent one heart attack. At that price you could have free almonds for everyone, gym membership and personal coaching thrown in for a year. My option of course would not only reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke a lot more but also reduce all chronic illness and save hundreds of lives out of 500 people. Where has all the common sense gone.

 

If you want the full article go to http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/business/31statins.html

 

Please copy this blog and send it on to everyone you know

Read more →

Big studies are the first hint that statin drugs don’t work

Big studies are the first hint that statin drugs don’t work

The first hint that the statin drugs don’t save lives is the size of the studies. If the drugs were so effective and the “miracle drugs” they are made out to be, researchers could treat 100 or maybe even 20 patients and see a benefit. Yet these meta-analyses use thousands of people—10,000, 50,000 or even 90,000—treated to show a benefit. If it is so good why do they need such large samples?

 

As readers of the scientific journals we should not get confused between statistical significance and clinical significance. “Statistically significant” means that the outcome was likely (95% chance) a result of the treatment whether it was 100% effective or less than 0.1% effective. That is, if you treat 1,000 people to save one life (0.1%) it may be statistically significant but it is not clinically significant. Clinical significance is 20% to 30% or more. The best studies on statins by the drug companies report statistical significance, mostly 1% or less, and none at all have so far found any clinical significance. Obviously, they should not be used.

 

Unfortunately, busy medical professionals don’t have time to review the statistics and few of them are actually aware of the different ways the statistics can be manipulated.

 

 

Read more →

Statin drugs do not work

Statin drugs do not work

The statin drugs are effective at around 1%. That is you have to treat 100 people to prevent one heart attack. This is not very effective, in fact it is ridiculously ineffective. Other than what I have been writing over the last year to verify this all need to do is go to the Pfizer (who make Lipitor) website and look for a table in a document titled “Product Information Lipitor” which presented the following table.

PRODUCT INFORMATION

LIPITOR®(atorvastatin)

Endpoint

LIPITOR 10mg N(%)

Placebo N(%)

Absolute Risk Reductiona %(95%CI)

Number Needed to Treat Per Year

Relative Risk Reduction %(95%CI)

P value

Primary

Fatal CHD and Non-fatal MI

100 (1.9)

154 (3.0)

1.07

(0.47 to 1.67)

310.5

36 (17 to 50)

0.0005

Secondary

Total Cardiovascular Events Including Revascularisation Procedures

Total Coronary Events

Fatal and Non-fatal Stroke

Non-fatal MI (excludes Silent MI) and Fatal CHD

 

387 (7.6)

 

 

178 (3.5)

89 (1.7)

86 (1.7)

 

483 (9.5)

 

 

247 (4.8)

119 (2.3)

137 (2.7)

 

1.9 (0.08 to 2.96)

 

 

1.4 (0.06 to 2.14)

0.06 (0.05 to 1.14)

1.0 (0.42 to 1.56)

 

176.0

 

 

241.9

555.2

329.1

 

20 (9 to 30)

 

 

29 (14 to 41)

26 (2 to 44)

38 (19 to 53)

 

0.0008

 

 

0.0006

0.0332

0.0005

aBased on difference in crude events rate occurring over a medium follow-up of 3.3years.

Version : pfplipit10708                                                                        Commercial/Non-Commercial

 

The table is duplicated here exactly as it appears on the Pfizer website. It is the research on taking 10 mg of Lipitor. It shows in the fourth column the “Absolute Risk Reduction” of between 0.06% and 1.9%, that is, very low real risk reduction. In the sixth column it shows the relative risk reduction of between 20% and 38%, which looks so much better but is really misleading. This is where the doctors get confused. They think it is the absolute risk reduction. The fifth column, “Number Needed to Treat Per Year,” is the most telling as it shows to have a single effect you need to treat between 176 and 555.2 people, depending on the outcome desired. That is a lot of people have to be taking this drug to stop one heart attack or possibly save a single life. Levels like this are not clinically significant and do not warrant taking this drug. To be clinically significant it needs to be an absolute risk of 25-30%, not 1 or 2%. I know it sounds a bit repetitive but you can get a much greater effect with only a small change in your diet.

Read more →