quote:

The widespread belief that "bad Cholesterol" ( LDL cholesterol) is a major factor driving heart disease -- and that cholesterol-lowering drugs like Lipitor and Crestor can protect us against fatal heart attacks -- is turning out to be a theory filled with holes. These drugs, which are called "statins," are the most widely-prescribed pills in the history of human medicine. In 2007 world-wide sales totaled $33 billion. They are particularly popular in the U.S., where 18 million Americans take them.

We thought we knew how they worked. But last month, when Merck/Schering Plough finally released the dismal results of a clinical trial of Zetia, a cholesterol-lowering drug prescribed to about 1 million people, the medical world was stunned. Dr. Steven E. Nissen, chairman of cardiology at the Cleveland Clinic called the findings "shocking." It turns out that while Zetia does lower cholesterol levels, the study failed to show any measurable medical benefit. This announcement caused both doctors and the mainstream media to take a second look at the received wisdom that "bad cholesterol" plays a major role in causing cardiac disease. A Business Week cover story asked the forbidden question, "Do Cholesterol Drugs Do Any Good?"

The answer, says Dr. Jon Abramson, a clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School, and the author of Overdosed America, is that "statins show a clear benefit for one group -- people under 65 who have already had a heart attack or who have diabetes. But," says Abramson, "there are no studies to show that these drugs will protect older patients over 65 -- or younger patients who are not already suffering from diabetes or established heart disease from having a fatal heart attack. Nevertheless, 8 or 9 million patients who fall into this category continue to take the drugs, which means that they are exposed to the risks that come with taking statins -- which can include severe muscle pain, memory loss, and sexual dysfunction."

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Level:
When has the efficacy of a drug ever been important to the drug pushers?  It is all about the "benjamens"
thompson

Far too much truth there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"or younger patients who are not already suffering from diabetes or established heart disease from having a fatal heart attack"

If they have had a fatal heart attack ? That's what I meant.

T

Ah-ha! See, my reading did suck  They indeed should have worded that differently.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SinergyNstrumpet

I worry because three people very close to me are on those drugs... and my mother had very bad side effects from them.


The AMA also keeps attempting to lower the amount of what is considered a healthful amount of cholesterol in the blood. The fact of the matter is that we need some cholesterol for higher brain function, it is actually unhealthy to have extraordinarily low levels of cholesterol, yet the medical establishment keeps pushing lower and lower levels... Without any real idea of what the overall effect will be on the vast majority of people over the course of their lives.

I prefer eating right and exercise to pills... if I am wrong I may have a heart attack one day. I do not think I am though

julia

quote:

Gary Taubes, a staff writer for Science wrote an article called "The Soft Science of Dietary Fat" for the 30 March 2001 issue of Science. He had reviewed all the available information on the demonization of dietary fat and the cholesterol issues and listened to the tapes of the 1984 Cholesterol Consensus Conference. He presented the graph which showed quite clearly that serum cholesterol levels of 200 mg/dl to 240 mg/dl were definitely in the normal cholesterol range for which there was no increased risk of heart mortality in males and even above 240 mg/dl there was a decrease in risk for women.

But what Gary Taubes didn't know was that there was a political decision being made on the floor of the NIH (Building 10) Mazur Auditorium that day in December 1984. The decision would allow the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) to have yet another even more extensive long-term "trial" to work on. The NHLBI could not get more money from Congress for more large trials such as the MRFIT or LRC and they were developing the National Cholesterol Education Program. With the cutoff number at the lower end of the normal range (200 mg/dl), they could include all of the healthy normal citizens in the range that would need treatment with diet, and since the diet would never work to permanently lower those normal levels (eg, 200 mg/dl to 240 or 260 mg/dl) to below 200 mg/dl, they could recommend that all these people should go onto cholesterol-lowering medications.

The three men who were heading the NHLBI (Cleeman, Lenfant, and Rifkin) were standing together in the Mazur Auditorium just before the Cholesterol Consensus Conference began. They were discussing the cutoff level of serum cholesterol to put into the consensus report. One said to the other two, "but we can't have the cutoff at 240 [mg/dl]; it has to be at 200 [mg/dl] or we won't have enough people to test." Several of us from the University of Maryland Department of Chemistry Lipids Research Group were standing directly behind them and within clear earshot. We looked at each other and of course were not surprised when the final numbers came out. This small chat did not get onto the tapes that Taubes reviewed.

quote:

pahunk wrote:

...those pills are bull shit.  throw them out-   they fry the liver.  blood work  can  determine it

You are correct.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Level:
When has the efficacy of a drug ever been important to the drug pushers?  It is all about the "benjamens"
thompson

Far too much truth there.