I had a script for atorvastatin, but read that while it does a god job lowering cholesterol, the long term studies show it has negligible impact on longevity. So I quit. Apparently cholesterol levels naturally correlates with cardio health, but there isn't much connection between them. Or else low cholesterol apparently has negative impact in other ways.
The others on this list that I take are blood pressure meds, #8 and #12.
Twenty two scrips pretty much guarantees a few severe interactions.
And some drugs are 'nice to have' but not necessarily prescribed for the right reason. Example: statins. Docs will write for a statin if your total cholesterol is over 200. The AVERAGE total cholesterol in adults in the 1950s was around 225; it's probably higher now. Do you need to drop your cholesterol from 220 to 190? Probably not; the docs are treating populations (not individuals) when statins are prescribed like this. OTOH, statins are also anti-inflammatory, and THAT effect may well be worthwhile in individuals, as inflammation is the root cause of atherosclerosis. And less atherosclerosis clearly does affect longevity on an individual basis. But inflammation is very hard to measure; cholesterol is easy. Should statins be as widely prescribed as they are? Good question. Call me back in about 75 years, we'll know more after we have a couple lifetimes of data.
On the flip side, insulin or bp lowering drugs clearly affect individual survival. No question those are useful.
And then there are the psychoactives- SSRIs etc. Run away.
A major confounding issue is that recent (since around 1990, maybe 80) physician graduates have been taught to treat lab numbers, not patients. If your glucose is over 100, you're diabetic; if your cholesterol is over 200, you need a statin. Etc. The result is too many drugs, not enough thinking. And almost no effort pushing changes in lifestyle (more exercise, diet changes).
Pathetic numbers compared to the amount of doses of BS handed out by the left every-single-day.
ReplyDeleteI had a script for atorvastatin, but read that while it does a god job lowering cholesterol, the long term studies show it has negligible impact on longevity. So I quit. Apparently cholesterol levels naturally correlates with cardio health, but there isn't much connection between them. Or else low cholesterol apparently has negative impact in other ways.
ReplyDeleteThe others on this list that I take are blood pressure meds, #8 and #12.
Doctors get a cut from every prescription they push.
ReplyDeleteNo, they do not. Urban myth.
DeleteTwenty two scrips pretty much guarantees a few severe interactions.
ReplyDeleteAnd some drugs are 'nice to have' but not necessarily prescribed for the right reason. Example: statins. Docs will write for a statin if your total cholesterol is over 200. The AVERAGE total cholesterol in adults in the 1950s was around 225; it's probably higher now. Do you need to drop your cholesterol from 220 to 190? Probably not; the docs are treating populations (not individuals) when statins are prescribed like this. OTOH, statins are also anti-inflammatory, and THAT effect may well be worthwhile in individuals, as inflammation is the root cause of atherosclerosis. And less atherosclerosis clearly does affect longevity on an individual basis. But inflammation is very hard to measure; cholesterol is easy. Should statins be as widely prescribed as they are? Good question. Call me back in about 75 years, we'll know more after we have a couple lifetimes of data.
On the flip side, insulin or bp lowering drugs clearly affect individual survival. No question those are useful.
And then there are the psychoactives- SSRIs etc. Run away.
A major confounding issue is that recent (since around 1990, maybe 80) physician graduates have been taught to treat lab numbers, not patients. If your glucose is over 100, you're diabetic; if your cholesterol is over 200, you need a statin. Etc. The result is too many drugs, not enough thinking. And almost no effort pushing changes in lifestyle (more exercise, diet changes).