This is a fairly long article in the Guardian about the disagreement between those who believe the cholesterol hypothesis and those who do not.
Not one single word about thyroid in any guise - so far as I could see.
We have had a lot of discussion about cholesterol here over the years. Please try to keep responses relevant to the actual article - otherwise the thread will end up just being a re-hash of previous posts.
Butter nonsense: the rise of the cholesterol deniers
A group of scientists has been challenging everything we know about cholesterol, saying we should eat fat and stop taking statins. This is not just bad science – it will cost lives, say experts
Well. Public Health England have zero credibility in my books. I'm fairly sure my 89 year old relative has ongoing 'polymyalgia'/muscle problems from taking statins - still taking them at 89 (for decades of course) as a woman at low risk and has never had a heart attack is ridiculous. We asked her rheumatologist should she stop taking them - his answer - 'I can't say that - but stop taking them'.
It's hard not to believe the sceptics when we have been lied to and misrepresented relative risk as actual risk for years. And when we have someone as thoughtful as Dr Kendrick providing skeptical blogs I know which camp I'm in. (Although I am getting a bit sick of the 'how wonderful and clever Malhotra is' message - I've seen enough publicity for the Pioppi Diet thank you). I don't know about 'sclerotic' both sides can be 'zealotic' but to try to suppress the message by calling them 'like religious fundamentalists' - pot calling kettle black?
And expecting to read the word 'thyroid' in the article! helvella our revolution is very young - but thanks for making me smile so early in the morning. Eat and let eat. It's a controversial topic.
Even the supporters of statins admit (in the article):
Most side-effects can be reversed by stopping the statin, he pointed out – but heart attacks cause permanent damage.
The intended implication is that this is wonderful. My inference is that there are some side-effects that cannot be reversed. Further, with prevalent a gung-ho "what side-effects?" attitude, those who suffer any side-effects are likely to feel ignored and dismissed. Probably told to carry on taking statins or, at best, switch active ingredient.
I give you possible liver injury, haemorrhagic stroke, myalgia, myositis, myopathy that may progress to rhabdomyolysis, myoglobinaemia,myoglobinuria and immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy from the Summary of Product Characteristics of just one statin - atorvastatin.
Liver effects
Liver function tests should be performed before the initiation of treatment and periodically thereafter. Patients who develop any signs or symptoms suggestive of liver injury should have liver function tests performed. Patients who develop increased transaminase levels should be monitored until the abnormality(ies) resolve. Should an increase in transaminases of greater than 3 times the upper limit of normal (ULN) persist, reduction of dose or withdrawal of Atorvastatin is recommended (see section 4.8).
Atorvastatin should be used with caution in patients who consume substantial quantities of alcohol and/or have a history of liver disease.
Stroke Prevention by Aggressive Reduction in Cholesterol Levels (SPARCL)
In a post-hoc analysis of stroke subtypes in patients without coronary heart disease (CHD) who had a recent stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) there was a higher incidence of haemorrhagic stroke in patients initiated on atorvastatin 80 mg compared to placebo. The increased risk was particularly noted in patients with prior haemorrhagic stroke or lacunar infarct at study entry. For patients with prior haemorrhagic stroke or lacunar infarct, the balance of risks and benefits of atorvastatin 80 mg is uncertain, and the potential risk of haemorrhagic stroke should be carefully considered before initiating treatment (see section 5.1).
Skeletal muscle effects
Atorvastatin, like other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, may in rare occasions affect the skeletal muscle and cause myalgia, myositis, and myopathy that may progress to rhabdomyolysis, a potentially life-threatening condition characterised by markedly elevated creatine kinase (CK) levels (> 10 times ULN), myoglobinaemia and myoglobinuria which may lead to renal failure.
There have been very rare reports of an immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM) during or after treatment with some statins. IMNM is clinically characterised by persistent proximal muscle weakness and elevated serum creatine kinase, which persist despite discontinuation of statin treatment.
Even if the current documentation relates that liver function and creatine kinase need to be considered, and other factors used in deciding whether or not to prescribe statins, this was not so well indicated in the early days.
Have we finally got past the ignorant elite who suggested that statins should be added to the water supply - even if not intended to be taken literally it was a wholly irresponsible statement and message.
Issues like this have me mis-appropriating a few lines from Universal Solider:
I stopped the ‘low fat’ mindset years ago. I think it’s sugar and other bad carbs that are causing worsening health in western society. I eat avocados, coconut oil and butter.
The only thing I think makes a difference to me is staying off gluten. I’m not even 100% of that though. I do believe when I stop eating grains altogether I feel better. But fresh sourdough bread.... Otherwise I eat a variety of good food and limit the junk.
It was my birthday recently - there was this fantastic bakers.... and some sourdough bread..... We're not perfect and I didn't suffer much. However on another day I ate an ice cream and have to accept that the depression two days later was a direct result. Weird stuff sugar.
I know which i’d Rather consume - baked 🥔spuds🥔 from my allotment and a double dollop of butter 😋 If it gives me a heart attack so be it, but the old man made 87 regularly including such things in his diet...I might get away with it too 😂🤣😂
are often confused by many who expound their views on the subject
As with thyroid treatment a "one cure for all" may not be achievable.
Statins may be the answer for some, but not all, of those with high cholesterol.
Diet may be key for others...but how the word "diet" is interpreted is also key.
Hidden fats (hugely significant but not mentioned) are, I guess, the greatest problem, their source and quality are not immediately obvious
Moderation is (possibly) the key - consider war time rationing when only the basics were available - being overweight was not a problem and I guess neither was high cholesterol levels. Food was fuel back then...I'm old enough to remember the end of rationing. The joy of the odd chocolate bar!
For those about to find fault! Yes, we do all deserve a treat....or three!
However, the market today is flooded with "food" so that over-indulgence and poor nutrition appears to be the norm....the consequences are now reaching epidemic proportion with the use of statins a result
Instead of jockeying for position and squabbling like children to air solutions, a reversal is needed and a grown up approach adopted.. altruism in research needs to replace (the occasional) personal ambition!
On a personal level -
I eat butter, cheese, Greek yoghurt etc. as part of a reasonably healthy diet...nobody is perfect!!
These are good fats, but we know thhat not all fats are good.
My cholesterol was 7.5 a year ago
I was offered statins
I refused
I knew I was about to start taking T3!
I told my GP to expect my cholesterol level to drop
Latest cholesterol 4.5
My heart rate and blood pressure have reduced as has my weight
That says it all as far as I am concerned.
T3 and cholesterol levels can be related....
But, T3 is unlikely to be the solution for all with high cholesterol!
The doctors who say we should take statins to lower our cholesterol rarely mention the things that are important to me personally.
Regarding statins, they either work (i.e. the propaganda that says by reducing my cholesterol I will reduce my risk of death by heart attack), or they don't work (in which case they aren't worth taking).
I've known a lot of detail about quite a few deaths or the lead up to death in my extended family and my circle of friends and acquaintances. The cause of death varied enormously - there have been heart attacks, strokes, dementia, cancer, and quite a variety of other things.
The two things that scare me rigid are the prospect of dying from cancer or dementia. Three people I can think of who died of cancer in recent years were treated abominably - none was diagnosed in good time and there was never enough pain relief for any of them. Another person died of dementia and was essentially a prisoner in an NHS dementia ward for most of the last two or three years of his life, tied to a chair all day, and treated with vicious psychiatric drugs to keep him quiet, while parts of his body rotted.
I don't want to die that way.
I would much rather die the reasonably quick way, from a heart attack. I realise this argument has holes in it - I could, for example, have a heart attack, survive, and live for quite a long time in a severely enfeebled state, but heart attacks that occur outside hospitals probably don't have that good a survival rate.
And frankly, I wouldn't trust any organisation, or group of organisations, that hide data, don't publish null results, and don't publish negative results. They also don't really make it terribly clear that when they gave statins to people in their research they had a "running-in period" before they started, so that anyone who had serious side effects could be dropped from the research before the "real" research began.
Another problem with modern research into all sorts of things is that harms aren't very often recorded by the powers-that-be - the only thing that is recorded is the "benefits". And in the case of statins the "benefits" that are recorded are cholesterol related. And I don't think anyone denies that statins lower cholesterol in most people. What many people, including me, have problems with is the idea that a substance that the body insists on making for itself is dangerous to life.
Research trials are usually carefully designed to give the result that is wanted at the start. For example, in a trial of thyroid treatment and T3 + T4, it is common to keep the trial going for a very short time - just a few weeks - and we all know that it can take months to start feeling better on thyroid treatment. It is common to vastly under-medicate the cohort on T3 + T4, while keeping the T4 group adequately medicated. The majority of the people included in thyroid trials are usually happy on their T4 before the trial starts (because, let's face it, most people are) - so why would they ever report an improvement when they felt well to start off with?
Another factor in all this - statins and the reduction in heart disease deaths - is that heart disease deaths had been dropping since the 1950s in the US and elsewhere - long before statins became widely prescribed. See this graph :
And a final point - I cannot see the justification for changing diet to low fat and high carb when the human race evolved on a completely different diet. Before the introduction of agriculture, hunter/gatherer societies were healthier, taller, less prone to disease, and had a longer life span than the people who came after them. My diet is very erratic - I eat far too much sugar, for a start, but I do have episodes of "getting it right", with more protein and fat and less carbs in my diet. And I feel a lot better for it when that happens.
I cannot see the point of taking any drugs which reduce my quality of life, and I would never take a statin.
Has the medical profession not caught up with the link between hormones & heart health, or is it more pharmaceutical influence & greed?
Several elderly relatives regularly ate dripping & bread, & all the more recently accepted “wrong foods”. They considered a piece of butter dipped in sugar was a nice childrens’ treat in the 60’s. Quantity seemed to matter rather than quality, though they consumed minimal processed foods. I’m not aware of any taking statins in later life.
I’m very strongly in the real food & moderate carb consumption camp. It seems much easier for doctors to hand our pills than convince people to eat properly. I’m sure with enough advertising effort, the public could be swayed towards eating more healthily, just as the past 50 years have influenced eating toxic trash as a healthy option.I wonder if big pharma is involved with junk food promotion & subsidies, so they make more profit?
Cholesterol is needed by the adrenal glands to make cortisol. Cholesterol is not the baddy - it is calcium - which is said to be good for us in bucket loads - it stiffens the arteries and can be the cause of strokes etc.
also forgot to mention that years ago 1940's era before the thyroid blood test was introduced - high cholesterol was used a diagnostic that the thyroid was not working at optimum.
I know a lot of factors play into the whole cholesterol issue, but I have pretty much ideal cholesterol, and I have always eaten butter and full fat products...
Last test I had, my doctor was amazed at how low it was. In fact, when I looked at cholesterol advice, it was borderline too low. Yes, I eat butter, cheese, meat, etc.
If you go to his website and search you will find a lot of videos based on peer reviewed, independent, scientific studies relating to sugar, carbs and fats.
Really frustrating this kind of article, setting it all up as 'he said, she said'. I'm rather shocked that any scientist would say they another, doing reasonable investigative work, shouldn't have any platform to disseminate. Double shocking if they themselves are doing entirely privately funded work!
I've been reading the Guardian for around 40 years, but my frustration with their avoidance and/or conventional view of certain subjects has almost got me to the stage of cancelling the weekend subscription.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
T3 liothyronine - for anyone already prescribed or trying to be prescribed - drug firm fined at last
