Vitamin C Forum

godsilove wrote:
We know through several large clinical trials that statins reduce all-cause mortality. A meta-analysis conducted by the Cholesterol Treatment Trialist's (CTT) group in 2005 demonstrates that statins reduce the risk of all-cause mortality and mortality from coronary heart disease, proportional to the reduction in LDL-cholesterol. A 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL, for instance, reduced both mortality as well as the incidence of major vascular events in the treatment arm.

ofonorow wrote:The meta analysis that caught my attention more than 10 years ago at Oxford found that Lp(a) (a form of LDL) increases the risk of heart attack/CVD by 70% The Framingham study was also reevaluated and came to a similar result. Lp(a) and not LDL is the primary risk factor, and if a particular study doesn't consider the Lp(a) fraction, then the finding could very well be associated with Lp(a) - as Pauling/Rath assert.

This doesn't seem to be the same reference, but it is similar
http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/content/abstract/44/11/2301
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1534 ... d_RVDocSum
Lipoprotein(a) Is Associated Differentially With Carotid Stenosis, Occlusion, and Total Plaque Area
http://atvb.ahajournals.org.proxy.cc.ui ... 28/10/1851
Lipoprotein(a) Levels and Risk of Future Coronary Heart Disease
http://archinte.ama-assn.org.proxy.cc.u ... /168/6/598

Conclusions There are independent, continuous associations between Lp(a) levels and risk of future CHD in a broad range of individuals. Levels of Lp(a) are highly stable within individuals across many years and are only weakly correlated with known risk factors. Further assessment of their possible role in CHD prevention is warranted.

But to your point, it would be a highly surprising result if statin drugs really reduce all-cause mortality, especially given the large number of studies where no such effect has been seen. If you can give me a better pointer to the study you are citing, I will take the time to read it.

A prospective meta-analysis of data from 90,056 individuals in 14 randomised trials of statins was done. Weighted estimates were obtained of effects on different clinical outcomes per 1.0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol. FINDINGS: During a mean of 5 years, there were 8186 deaths, 14,348 individuals had major vascular events, and 5103 developed cancer. Mean LDL cholesterol differences at 1 year ranged from 0.35 mmol/L to 1.77 mmol/L (mean 1.09) in these trials. There was a 12% proportional reduction in all-cause mortality per mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol (rate ratio [RR] 0.88, 95% CI 0.84-0.91; p<0.0001). This reflected a 19% reduction in coronary mortality (0.81, 0.76-0.85; p<0.0001), and non-significant reductions in non-coronary vascular mortality (0.93, 0.83-1.03; p=0.2) and non-vascular mortality (0.95, 0.90-1.01; p=0.1). There were corresponding reductions in myocardial infarction or coronary death (0.77, 0.74-0.80; p<0.0001), in the need for coronary revascularisation (0.76, 0.73-0.80; p<0.0001), in fatal or non-fatal stroke (0.83, 0.78-0.88; p<0.0001), and, combining these, of 21% in any such major vascular event (0.79, 0.77-0.81; p<0.0001).

ofonorow wrote:Thank you for that link, I only read the abstract, but I wonder about the raw numbers and your claim that statins reduce overall mortality from these numbers, something like 7% of the study population died, 13% had major vascular events and 4.5% contracted cancer.

Obviously these were very ill patients.

And I happen to know that generally cardiovascular patients are advised against taking vitamin C.

So on the basis of these numbers they cite a 12% reduction in mortality for the group on statins. (On the surface this sounds impressive, but from my personal observations over the past decade, I would predict that medicine could have achieved about a 90% decrease in overall mortality, all they had to do was provide the study group with the Linus Pauling specified levels of vitamin C ( 5-6 g).)

One of my first questions is why they limited their study to these 14 trials, when there have been hundreds and hundreds of trials.

By the way, what are "weighted estimate of outcomes?"[/color]

90,056 individuals in 14 randomised trials of statins was done. Weighted estimates were obtained of effects on different clinical outcomes per 1.0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol. FINDINGS: During a mean of 5 years, there were 8186 deaths

ofonorow wrote:

90,056 individuals in 14 randomised trials of statins was done. Weighted estimates were obtained of effects on different clinical outcomes per 1.0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol. FINDINGS: During a mean of 5 years, there were 8186 deaths

8186 deaths out of 90056 individuals in five years implies to me that these patients were very ill. (I remember the Harvard Rimm study had something like 657 events (not deaths, just cardiovascular episodes) in something like 60,000 nurses).

I still do not understand "with all that work" you describe, how it could require on average five years to get these results analyzed, especially if these results were so good for the drugs companies. A year, maybe, two years on the outside. Something else is going on, and I suspect the results didn't come out the way they had hoped, and I know from reading the Brown studies, that after reevaluating, they admitted dropping various subjects from the study.

malcolan wrote:Here's a link, if anyone cares to read it.

http://www.naturalnews.com/024001.html

That's my 2 cents...keep the change.