Statins Do Not Protect Against Cancer: Quite the Opposite

[Stewie]

...Not surprising.

**broken link removed**

 

[EURO FREAK]

good read
would be interested in full text

 

[Stewie]

good read
would be interested in full text

This was posted by a Cancer researcher I'm friends with on Facebook...

Ironic, huh?

 

[gotgame]

...Not surprising.

**broken link removed**

I only clicked on a few references but the ones I looked at and what they stated in the editorial only corrected for age and sex. I didnt see any correct for lipid levels. They could have but the ones I checked out in the methods didnt so that leaves them wide open for a bias if that did. For instance, saying statins increase cancer risk and the longer you have been on statins increases your risk more. Well if they didnt correct for lipids then who is more likely to be on statins at a higher dose and for longer...people with really high cholesterol levels. So maybe its not the statins but instead the cholesterol which is increasing the risk which has been shown before to increase overall cancer risks.


Not saying thats what happend but i hope some of the studies matched for that.

Not gonna jump all over or against statins when it comes to cancer however if forced to make a prediction based on MOA id say it has the potential to prevent different types. Will it...i have no idea but if it does then i could understand the mechanism of how it would do that.

Stewie, take a look at the full articles for refs 1, 3 and 7. 1 and 3 are very well done in big time journals. 7 was in a much smaller journal and it doesnt looked like they matched for cholesterol which would be a huge error if thats true.

 

[mexikaz]

i hate to say but "cancer research" is scam. i have personally met people who have beat cancer naturally. that's right no chemo/no suffering. a doctor of natural medicine right here in my home town has successfully treated these people. He will tell you its one of the easiest aliments to treat

 

[LK3]

I only clicked on a few references but the ones I looked at and what they stated in the editorial only corrected for age and sex. I didnt see any correct for lipid levels. They could have but the ones I checked out in the methods didnt so that leaves them wide open for a bias if that did. For instance, saying statins increase cancer risk and the longer you have been on statins increases your risk more. Well if they didnt correct for lipids then who is more likely to be on statins at a higher dose and for longer...people with really high cholesterol levels. So maybe its not the statins but instead the cholesterol which is increasing the risk which has been shown before to increase overall cancer risks.


Not saying thats what happend but i hope some of the studies matched for that.

Not gonna jump all over or against statins when it comes to cancer however if forced to make a prediction based on MOA id say it has the potential to prevent different types. Will it...i have no idea but if it does then i could understand the mechanism of how it would do that.

Stewie, take a look at the full articles for refs 1, 3 and 7. 1 and 3 are very well done in big time journals. 7 was in a much smaller journal and it doesnt looked like they matched for cholesterol which would be a huge error if thats true.

I cant see the article for some reason but how would this not make sense?

cancer stems from systemic inflammation, cellular mutation, metabolic issues and oxidation, like at the base and beginning... cholesterol issues are all associated with that too.

so seems very probable...

cholesterol bad
take a drug to fix it
drug is a bandaid and moves along towards a greater issue...

rather then doing that if there person addresses the cause of the poor cholesterol rather then treating the symptom they could probably avoid the entire ordeal...

 

[gotgame]

I cant see the article for some reason but how would this not make sense?

cancer stems from systemic inflammation, cellular mutation, metabolic issues and oxidation, like at the base and beginning... cholesterol issues are all associated with that too.

so seems very probable...

cholesterol bad
take a drug to fix it
drug is a bandaid and moves along towards a greater issue...

rather then doing that if there person addresses the cause of the poor cholesterol rather then treating the symptom they could probably avoid the entire ordeal...

Sure if they addressed the issue for the cholesterol that would be best but thats not what happens 999/1000. Not sure what your saying about how it would make sense? Also remember you cant just lump "inflammation" all together. Thats a very broad term as specific types are good and others arent. I think that was shown clearly with vioxx and ASA. And statins have been shown to reduce specific types of inflammation (isoprenoids i think?).

If you look at the refs and MOA of statins from the published data they show many ways which it could potentially reduce risk of cancer. Not sure how it would increase someones risk. Thats like saying sunblock increases your risk for skin cancer because you think your protected outside and dont wear a shirt and stay out longer and get more sun then you would have so therefore sunblock increase cancer...doesnt quite work that way. Direct cause and effect is what matters.


But more importantly who is more likely to have screwed up lipids. Fat people and people who are overall more unhealthy. Known association between fat and breast cancer. If they didnt correct for cholesterol levels, BMI and other stuff then its a very poorly done study and doesnt hold much weight with me.

And cancer as a whole isnt preventable. We all have cancer right this very moment. Its just how contained it is and how much more it mutates. I think the statin discussion is interesting but at least from the info shown id need more to tilt me in that direction as saying it increases a risk.

 

[LK3]

Sure if they addressed the issue for the cholesterol that would be best but thats not what happens 999/1000. Not sure what your saying about how it would make sense? Also remember you cant just lump "inflammation" all together. Thats a very broad term as specific types are good and others arent. I think that was shown clearly with vioxx and ASA. And statins have been shown to reduce specific types of inflammation (isoprenoids i think?).

If you look at the refs and MOA of statins from the published data they show many ways which it could potentially reduce risk of cancer. Not sure how it would increase someones risk. Thats like saying sunblock increases your risk for skin cancer because you think your protected outside and dont wear a shirt and stay out longer and get more sun then you would have so therefore sunblock increase cancer...doesnt quite work that way. Direct cause and effect is what matters.


But more importantly who is more likely to have screwed up lipids. Fat people and people who are overall more unhealthy. Known association between fat and breast cancer. If they didnt correct for cholesterol levels, BMI and other stuff then its a very poorly done study and doesnt hold much weight with me.

And cancer as a whole isnt preventable. We all have cancer right this very moment. Its just how contained it is and how much more it mutates. I think the statin discussion is interesting but at least from the info shown id need more to tilt me in that direction as saying it increases a risk.

this whole different types of inflammation thing is sort of bs, sure way down the line they manifest as different things, inflammation is just that, even on the smallest scale. it grows, gets out of hand, becomes systemic, which then manifests into a location or series or symptoms, the beginning cause is the same.

sunblock is also a scam.
plenty of research into that one...


I would never take statins regardless of this study... lol

diet, exercise and sups if implemented correctly and early enough fixes 90+% of this shit...

we already know you and I approach this from entirely different point of view, I haven't even taken an antibiotic in in almost 15 years, so I wont worry too much about the splitting heirs response to follow my inflammation comments, but for real...

lol

 

[gotgame]

this whole different types of inflammation thing is sort of bs, sure way down the line they manifest as different things, inflammation is just that, even on the smallest scale. it grows, gets out of hand, becomes systemic, which then manifests into a location or series or symptoms, the beginning cause is the same.

sunblock is also a scam.
plenty of research into that one...


I would never take statins regardless of this study... lol

diet, exercise and sups if implemented correctly and early enough fixes 90+% of this shit...

we already know you and I approach this from entirely different point of view, I haven't even taken an antibiotic in in almost 15 years, so I wont worry too much about the splitting heirs response to follow my inflammation comments, but for real...

lol

lol. Well First ill agree that many issues can be improved if patients were actually willing to put forth the effort. Unfortunately most dont and it paints physicians into a corner.

And yes I wear sunblock, lots of it. Im that pastey white guy on the beach with way too much on lol History of melanoma so not playing games with that too much.

As for the convo on statins. Simple but not so simple question... What IS inflammation? Thats a very broad term that is used to describe way too many things. Thats sorta like describing "radiation" and for some reason people just assume its bad not realizing that the specrum is huge and means completely different things but for some reason people just lump Alpha with a high LET to things that dont even remotely work the same but im getting off topic here.

As for statins I think it would be good to discuss both sides as we both approach things differently. All we have to work with is the research that has been conducted. Some of its good and some of it isnt. I dont think it should be a discussion on the usefullness of statins as that comes down to benefits v risks but lets keep it on the cancer issue. If you think it could increase the risk for cancer then it would be beneficial for all to discuss how that might occur. Simple stating "inflammation" is a lot of hand waving type stuff so lets try to get down to the data that we have on it.

 

[LK3]

lol. Well First ill agree that many issues can be improved if patients were actually willing to put forth the effort. Unfortunately most dont and it paints physicians into a corner.

And yes I wear sunblock, lots of it. Im that pastey white guy on the beach with way too much on lol History of melanoma so not playing games with that too much.

As for the convo on statins. Simple but not so simple question... What IS inflammation? Thats a very broad term that is used to describe way too many things. Thats sorta like describing "radiation" and for some reason people just assume its bad not realizing that the specrum is huge and means completely different things but for some reason people just lump Alpha with a high LET to things that dont even remotely work the same but im getting off topic here.

As for statins I think it would be good to discuss both sides as we both approach things differently. All we have to work with is the research that has been conducted. Some of its good and some of it isnt. I dont think it should be a discussion on the usefullness of statins as that comes down to benefits v risks but lets keep it on the cancer issue. If you think it could increase the risk for cancer then it would be beneficial for all to discuss how that might occur. Simple stating "inflammation" is a lot of hand waving type stuff so lets try to get down to the data that we have on it.

lol

yes 100% patients are LAZY so it is not all dr's fault, in reality they need a slap in the face not an rx. lol

but both sides do cater to that...

we have very few dr's that try to ge t people to be responsible, we have many more that are simply pill pushers.

inflammation is about as broad a term as you can get, 100% right! lol

yes there are all kinds of inflammation, some are sort of helpful like what we see going on after training, and the response associated with healing...

I think when we are talking about it ina health sence though we are talking negative, and I think that type stems from oxidation, and simply living.

I think knight9 posted a video a while back where a guy was talking about navey seals using rebreathers and them having trouble at depth. in short it is from the body not being able to handle the oxygen correctly, in simple terms this results in inflammation that results in cognative decline and performance and thinking issues.

this is an example of small scale inflammation having effects that get out of control....

seeing as ihave yet to read this study I cant really comment on how stantins come into play but again I do agree in that treatment should be based on benefit vs risks. I think plenty of people are best served by this type of treatment as they simply will not take the responsibility for themselves.

in this case the inflammation is associated with the cholesterol, poor cholesterol profile is the symptom, the cause is years of poor living, which I know is a very general statement.

regarding the sun block thing..if I have time I will try and dig up some shit on that.

again I am not suggesting not to take precautions but the precautions we are giving are more propaganda then reality, sure you maynot get a sunburn but at what cost.

I don't like to say inaccurate things but I feel like im thinking of a study doen in Australia on skin cancer rates and the effectiveness of sunblock, I think the end result was that sunblock did not actually help when talking about skin cancer, sure, you didn't get a sunburn but you did get skin cancer! lol

ill take the sunburn over skin cancer any day!

in our "research" we found that high levels of antioxidants eliminated sunburns about 90% of the time, lotions with antioxidants also prevent sun burn, even when out in direct sun all day.

I am pasty white too and the last years living in south florida I never used sunblock, just my lotions. also I currently live in a location with extremely strong sun, like you go out in the sun in the summer for 2hrs and you are not tan you are bright red burned! again, no sunblock just antiox lotion and no burns!

I hope you know I like to have a little fun with you, since we have such different perspectives, but its allin fun and for sake of discussion.