Statins Have 'No Consistent Evidence' Of Improving Heart Attack Patients' Survival

Statins have 'no consistent evidence' of improving heart attack patients' survival: Taking a pill every day for five years adds just FOUR DAYS to your life

• Statins have been promoted by pharma companies on 'cherry-picked science'
• heart attack survivors should improve their health through diet and exercise
• Commonly reported side effects include headache, muscle pain and nausea
• The researchers from around the world analysed dozens of studies over decades

Statins have 'no consistent evidence' of improving heart attack patients' survival, researchers from around the world conclude.

Taking a daily statin for five years after a heart attack extends your life by just four days, new research reveals.

The researchers add that statins' supposed benefits are based on 'cherry-picked science' and are unjustly promoted by pharmaceutical giants.

heart attack survivors should instead aim to improve their health through diet and exercise, according to the researchers.

Statins are the most prescribed drug in the UK. Commonly reported side effects include headache, muscle pain and nausea. They can also increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.




Taking a daily statin for five years after a heart attack extends your life by just four days

STATINS PROVIDE 'NO BENEFIT' FOR PENSIONERS AT LOW-RISK OF heart disease

Statins provide no benefit for pensioners who are at low-risk of heart disease, research suggested back in May.

The cholesterol-lowering medication was also found to have no impact on reducing deaths of any kind in the study conducted at the New York University School of Medicine.

Adults over the age of 65 who are prescribed the pills, which cost less than 6p a day, are more likely to die than those who were helped into changing their diet, the research adds.

Rates of cancer were also found to be unaffected, despite recent trials showing a slight benefit of taking statins in various forms of the disease.

It comes as a growing body of evidence collated over the past few years shows the science behind the pills to be 'fundamentally flawed'.

'No clear reduction in mortality'

Researchers from around the world, including the Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust, analysed dozens of studies over two decades.

Study author Dr Aseem Malhotra from the Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust, said: 'There appears to be no clear reduction in coronary heart disease mortality in western European countries from statins for primary [low-risk patients] and secondary prevention [high-risk patients],' The Express reported.

The findings were published in the Pharmaceutical Journal.

Pharmaceutical giants 'pulling the wool over our eyes'

The researchers state that statins' perceived benefits are based on 'cherry-picked science' and heart attack patients should instead improve their health through diet and exercise.

Senior researcher Dr Esther van Zuuren from Leiden University, said: 'It's time we look at the evidence and stop letting the pharmaceutical companies and food industry pull the wool over our eyes.'

The researchers wrote in their paper: 'Given that statins give the illusion of cardiovascular protection in obese individuals, predispose to the development of Type 2 diabetes in up to one in 50 patients and cause reversible side-effects in up to 29 per cent of users, stopping statins may paradoxically save more lives and improve quality if life in those taking them.'

What are statins?

Statins are a group of medicines that lower 'bad' cholesterol by reducing its production in the liver.

They may be offered to patients with, or at-risk of developing, heart disease. A daily dose is usually required for the rest of the patient's life.

One in 10 people taking statins will experience side effects such as nosebleeds, sore throat, headache, nausea and muscle or joint pain.

Insomnia, memory problems, blurred vision and inflammation of the liver or pancreas affects one in 100. Jaundice and easily bleeding or bruising affects just one in 1,000.

Source