After the instantiation of new reporting rules in 2004 [requiring disclosure of conflicts of interest], all clinical trials demonstrating that statins reduce LDL have shown no significant benefit for prevention of CHD.
This chart of research results is through 2015, so are there more recent studies pro or con, or did they miss any?
Sorry, I don’t give much credence to articles like this. There are many peer-reviewed studies that refute his opinion.
If you’ve never had a heart attack, and you have no other risk factors, no smoking, hypertension, diabetes, or a strong family history, then your heart attack risk is very low . Intervening with a statin to go from low risk to low risk is just putting yourself at risk for myopathy, diabetes, and heart failure, with little to no gain.
Is there a peer reviewed study that refutes this statement with strong evidence that was reproducible?
Just saw this new paper…
It’s starting to look like everything is related to the gut microbiome. That’s something that we’ve really been neglecting.
Well, first produce your own large-scale peer-reviewed study that supports Remnantl MD’s supposition.
He presented quite a few studies on his charts. Are you thinking that none of them were peer reviewed?
These studies each have thousands of participants:
Statin Use Over 65 Years of Age and All-Cause Mortality: A 10-Year Follow-Up of 19 518 People
“The benefit of statin use did not diminish among beyond age 75 and was evident for both women and mAll-cause mortality rates were 34% lower among those who had adhered to statin treatment, compared with those who had not”
https://agsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jgs.16060
Statins for Secondary Prevention in Elderly Patients: A Hierarchical Bayesian Meta-Analysis
“Statins reduce all-cause mortality in elderly patients and the magnitude of this effect is substantially larger than had been previously estimated.”
European studies suggest the same:
“statins reduce the risk of mortality irrespective of cholesterol level.”
Hypocholesterolaemia and mortality in patients with coronary artery disease
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/eci.13194
The preponderance of studies highly favors statins for reducing all-cause mortality.
I for one don’t plan on quitting my low dose statins any time soon.
Statins reduce all-cause mortality regardless of lipid levels.
European studies suggest the same:
“statins reduce the risk of mortality irrespective of cholesterol level.”
Hypocholesterolaemia and mortality in patients with coronary artery disease
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/eci.13194
Hypocholesterolaemia and mortality in patients with coronary artery disease:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/eci.13194
This 2019 paper seems to be saying that CAD is reduced by statins even in patients with hypocholesterolaemia. This makes the above paper from Remnant MD much weaker and probably incorrect.
So statins may reduce mortality rates independent and irrespective of their effects on lipid levels. So with that logic we should be countering the increase in lipids from rapamycin because rapamycin may be predisposing us to heart attacks by raising lipids. So maybe we should also be on chronic prophylactic antibiotics just in case of bacterial infection and hypoglycemic agents in case the modest blood sugar elevations leads to diabetes.
Also, don’t forget about anemia and lymphopenia. There are drugs that oncologists can give to counteract those also.
That nasty rapamycin stuff.
The preponderance of the evidence is pro statin. I am not suggesting you or anyone else take it.
Nor I, you. We’ll call a peace treaty.
I can’t say I tracked it or tested to check this - sorry. I was more testing higher doses to see if I had any noticeable side effects (I did not). I will at some point try it again and will do lab tests to check on changes. I also would like, in the future, to do a test where I take a higher dose of sirolimus (or everolimus) and then do a blood test for blood sirolimus levels 2 hours after taking the dose, then 1 day later, 2 days later, 5 days later and 7 days later - to try to get a good idea of what my dose/blood level curve looks like.
One thing I’m unclear on right now is if the blood sirolimus level test is the same for both sirolimus and everolimus… so I need to do research on that also.
If anyone knows - please post.
“I also would like, in the future, to do a test where I take a higher dose of sirolimus (or everolimus) and then do a blood test for blood sirolimus levels 2 hours after taking the dose, then 1 day later, 2 days later, 5 days later and 7 days later - to try to get a good idea of what my dose/blood level curve looks like.”
I really hope you can do that. It would be very interesting and informative.
What are your thoughts on 5mg/week vs 10mg every two weeks?
Interesting. I am 64 in menopause for 7? Years the Rapamycin seems to be reversing menopause, I have been having hot flashes mood swings and spotting!
Would love to know if anyone is testing their hormones before and during Rapamycin.
Females have lower TOR levels and are also more sensitive to TOR inhibition.
Do you have any references to support that? It does make sense given that females are smaller than males, but I don’t recall seeing any study that compared mTOR levels and sensitivity between males and females.
I’m curious. How much/often were you taking?
I’m menopausal and the levels I checked seem to have shifted slightly with no change in my estradiol patch dosage. I did add 25mg dhea QD in addition to rapamycin in the past year.
I was in the pearl clinical trial so I was either taking nothing, 5 mg or 10! Once a week. I weigh approximately 135. They were using a compounded sirolimous. After about 6 months everything settled back down. So no more spotting or mood swings. I was quite sure I was on some form of Rapa because of the mouth sores and spotting.
