15 Responses to “Heart disease – the facts”

Would you like to make a comment?

Then please do so openly and politely and no hiding behind some pseudonym. As for spam, well that's just another word for junk and it will end up in the bin, where it belongs.

Read below or add a comment...

  1. avatar William Aspden says:

    Apart from family I only know 1 person that died (well) after a heart attack. He never smoked or drank and told me his doctor said it would have been much worse if he did.
    My mother died from a brain bleed at age 90, with no previous events. My father had a series of heart attacks at 90 and died at 95 of other things, mostly I think it was that my mother was no longer here. I am off to have a hearty breakfast of bacon and (home grown, free yard) eggs.

  2. avatar Robin Dowswell says:

    Hi Catherine, Strangely enough I’ve just had a heart attack. Arteries completely clear, cause unknown. As I’m a high standard endurance athlete it’s been pointed out to me that there is evidence that endurance athletes are far more prone to ventral fibrillation than the general population. I’ve had a defibrillator device inserted into my chest and no drugs other than a very low dose of beta blocker which I will be questionning with the specialists when I have a check up.
    The point I was making was that the fact that 1/3rd of people are affected by heart disease at some stage in their life whether related to the arteries or the heart organ is surely significant. Not only that, but when you start speaking to people after you’ve had a major incident like myself, you find there are many people affected, even by rare cases of “athletic heart irregularities” like my own.
    I felt that Zoe was in parts of the article implying that heart/vascular disease was no big deal given the numbers. She then used the timeframe of 1 year and age under 65 and restricted the definition to heart rather than vascular disease. All these factors reduce the apparent incidence of the disease, whereas in fact it is a major factor in the lives of a number of people.
    I agree strongly that we don’t want to provide drugs to people who don’t need them, but there is no doubt that many people need to make alterations in their lives that reduce the risk of heart related problems. For most people this begins with diet and exercise. For me maybe not that simple!

  3. avatar Tom says:

    Sorry to hear about your husband Catherine. Suggesting that people with normal cholesterol are not at risk of heart disease is like saying people driving at 30mph are not at risk of crashing their car. I’m sorry that your husband had side-effects, it was still the right thing to prescribe a statin and the right thing to stop it when he got side-effects. It is something people forget to say about statin side-effects, if you get them you can stop the drug and they go away, deaths from currently available statins are extremely rare.

    In terms of information I think high quality medical journals are a much better source of information than books and blogs by people with an intransigent view. For the record my view is completely changeable. For now I think the evidence is strongly in favour of a trial of statins for most patients who have had a heart attack. Prescribing them for primary prevention is another matter, there probably is a tiny benefit but in the grand scheme of things it is a marginal benefit. I will be happy to change my view as more data comes in.


  4. avatar Catherine says:

    Partly in answer to Tom – my husband suffered a heart attack in 2011. Just prior to this, he’d had a blood test, and this included his cholesterol level being taken. It was under 4.0, so not at what the “experts” consider a high level. Yet he still suffered a heart attack. Thankfully, he’s OK, and still doing well. He was automatically prescribed a statin, though, on his discharge from hospital, and I couldn’t help wondering why, when his cholesterol had not been “high” to start with. He became far more ill from taking that Simvastatin than I’d ever seen him before, barely able to climb our stairs because his legs ached so much, barely able to stay awake when he was relaxing in the evenings, and convinced he had dementia because his memory had suddenly become so bad. I surreptitiously checked exactly what drugs he’d been prescribed after his heart attack, and checked them all out regarding side effects, and Simvastatin seemed to me to be the culprit. The list of potential side effects could have been written for him. I showed him what I’d found, and he decided to stop taking the statin immediately. Within a couple of days, he was transformed, and no longer worried that he was headed for the old folks’ home prematurely. His cholesterol level, obviously, is still checked regularly because of his cardiac history, but it remains at around 4.0. I am unsure why Tom and Robin think that Zoe has missed the point regarding deaths from heart disease – I think she pointed out very clearly that the figures that are relentlessly published in the media are skewed, and how this happens. Scaremongering creates big business, and even before I discovered Zoe’s blog and her book, I was convinced that we were all being misled in many different ways. Read Dr Kendrick’s blog and book, too, Tom and Robin – very informative and eye-opening.

  5. avatar Tom says:

    Zoe- it is really hard to take anyone seriously who says ‘cholesterol has got nothing to do with heart disease’ and cherry-picks figures the way you do. Do over 65’s somehow not count? The vast majority of us will live to that age and we will all die of something, that fact that 1/3 of us will die from CVD is at least worthy of note. Personally I suspect that cholesterol is not toxic to arteries at levels below about 8mmol/l (although it probably is toxic in very high levels), and that it is a bystander in the effect of statins (which is real, but incredibly weak with very high NNT’s). Cholesterol is however a risk marker for CVD whether implicated in pathogenesis or not. Whilst some of what you say is undoubtably true you stand so far to one end of the argument that it comes across as conspiracy theory, unable to accept some of the facts that are not in your favour. A shame really as the cause you are fighting for is an extremely important one.

    • avatar Zoë Harcombe says:

      Hi Tom
      Here’s the relationship between cholesterol and heart deaths and all deaths for men and women for the WHO’s 192 countries.
      Best wishes – Zoe

      • avatar MJHopeC says:

        This is why, when looking at the results of a drug trial I reduce the results to a probability of whether one individual will benefit per annum; or conversely the probability of not benefiting.

        For example Collins in a recent statement claimed that if 3 million individuals were treated with statins 10,000 would be “saved” per year. Simple arithmetic (10,000/3,000,000) gives a probability of 0.003 (rounded to 2 decimal places, p = 0.00) or conversely the probability of no benefit p = 0.997 (rounded to 2 decimal places, p = 1.00).

        Frankly these odds do not impress me but to some the “10,000 would be “saved” per year” sounds wonderful. It certainly demonstrates how figures can be used to obfuscate reality

  6. avatar Robin Dowswell says:

    Zoe, I’m rather surprised by your attitude to heart disease.
    The fact remains it is set to kill roughly 1 in 3 people in the UK. Most of those will either lose their life or have it degraded by heart disease before they should have done. The statistics you quote for 1 year I would suggest mislead. I’m not particularly worried about about losing my friends this year, but over the next 2-4 decades I certainly would appreciate their company. The stats mount up and the figure of 33% becomes a lot closer when looked at over a realistic time frame.
    While sex, genetics and age are inevitable why should we feel restricted by them? Surely, the important point is to eat and exercise in a way that reduces the risk of such a serious disease.

  7. avatar Paul Travis says:

    Now there you go again Zoe: what have facts got to do with it? Politicians, Big Pharma and Agribusiness are not going to like you playing with their numbers. Their purpose is to instil fear and dread into each and everyone one of us so that they can ‘save our lives’, although it will not come cheap but hey, we are going to live forever by following government health guidelines, eating vitamin-fortified, low-fat, high carb processed foods and taking life-saving drugs (statins)…aren’t we?? Surely these people know what’s best for us…don’t they?? They can prevent us from dying…can’t they??
    I just might carry on risking death by continuing to eat Real Food, enjoying the small pleasures of life with a daily appreciation of good things (red wine and dark chocolate in particular!), keep active and avoid prescribed medication if I can (although I confess to taking an antihistamine this morning).
    Appreciate your hard work Zoe. We’re right behind you!

  8. avatar Ash Simmonds says:

    “red wine and red steak”–

    Hey that’s my diet!

  9. avatar Mark John says:

    Just a thought, has anyone bothered asking the French WTF they’re doing living so long in the absence of heart disease? Don’t the French have the highest cholesterol levels in Europe? I think big pharma should start telling the French to start dropping like flies of anything heart related!

  10. avatar Michael B says:

    There you go, bothering us with the facts again. How can we be scared into taking statins if we know things like this?

    • avatar Zoë Harcombe says:

      Ha ha Michael – I didn’t think of that! WTF is anyone doing on statins? Not least because cholesterol has nothing to do with heart disease and because statins have nothing to do with genetics/age and sex and because the patient leaflets say not suitable for over 70 year olds and there’s nothing to worry about before then anyway… and…and

      Await Malcolm Kendrick’s next book! More fun with numbers
      Best wishes – Zoe

  11. avatar Tom Welsh says:

    Thanks, Zoe. I reached 65 eight months ago! 8-)

    • avatar Zoë Harcombe says:

      Hi Tom – so here’s the UK age data (top link) http://www.bhf.org.uk/research/heart-statistics/mortality/time-trends.aspx

      So it goes from 165/100,000 for UK men aged 55-64 to 396 for 65-74 year olds. You’re only just into the 65 stats and you can have 252 male friends aged 65-74 to have expected to lose 1 in 2010. I still can’t get troubled by those numbers. I’d even take a 1 in 22 chance over 85. Rather go with a bang at 90 than have cancer any time!

      Best wishes – Zoe

If you'd like to leave a comment, please do so openly and politely and no hiding behind some pseudonym. As for spam, well that's just another word for junk and it will end up in the bin, where it belongs.

4 + 7 =