Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Cholesterol Con -- Where Were the Doctors?

By Maggie Mahar -- BAD, DON'T USE, Health Beat. Posted February 29, 2008.


For years, medical studies have challenged the efficacy of cholesterol-lowering drugs. Why are we just hearing about this now?

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

After the stock market bubble burst, the New York Times asked: "Where were the analysts? Why didn't they warn us?"

To be perfectly honest, this was a somewhat disingenuous question. As experienced financial journalists understood all too well, the analysts plugging the high-flying issues of the 1990s were employed by Wall Street firms raking in billions as investors bet their nest eggs on one hot stock after another. It really wasn't in their employers' interest for analysts to tell us that their products were wildly overpriced. When a small investor wades into the financial world, there are two words he needs to keep in mind: caveat emptor.

But physicians, I firmly believe, are different from the folks employed by Merrill Lynch. (I don't mean to knock people who work at ML. I am simply saying that they have a very different job description.) When consulting with your doctor, you should not have to be wary. You are not a customer; you are a patient. And your physician is a professional who has pledged to put your interests ahead of his or her own.

This brings me to the question I ask in my headline: During the many years of the Cholesterol Con, where were the doctors? When everyone from the makers of Mazola Corn Oil to the Popes of Cardiology assured us that virtually anyone could ward off heart disease by lowering their cholesterol, why didn't more of our doctors raise an eyebrow and warn us: "Actually, that's not what the research shows"?

No doubt, you've heard about the recent Business Week cover story, "Do Cholesterol Drugs Do Any Good?", which blew the lid off the theory that "statins" -- drugs like Lipitor, Crestor, Mevacor, Zocor and Pravachol -- can cut the odds that you will die of a heart attack by slowing the production of cholesterol in your body and increasing the liver's ability to remove LDL, or "bad cholesterol," from your blood.

It's true that these drugs can help some people -- but not nearly as many as we have been told. Moreover, and this is the kicker, we don't have any clear evidence that they work by lowering cholesterol.

Although medical research suggests that statins can definitely benefit one group -- men under 70 who already have had a heart attack -- researchers are no longer convinced that the drugs stave off a second attack by lowering the patient's cholesterol. The drugs do lower cholesterol, but that is not what helps the patient.

In other words, researchers are questioning the bedrock assumption that high levels of "bad cholesterol" cause heart disease. "Higher LDL levels do help set the stage for heart disease by contributing to the buildup of plaque in arteries. But something else has to happen before people get heart disease," Dr. Ronald M. Krauss, director of atherosclerosis research at the Oakland Research Institute, told Business Week. "When you look at patients with heart disease, their cholesterol levels are not that [much] higher than those without heart disease," he added. "Compare countries, for example. Spaniards have LDL levels similar to Americans', but less than half the rate of heart disease. The Swiss have even higher cholesterol levels, but their rates of heart disease are also lower. Australian aborigines have low cholesterol but high rates of heart disease."

"Current evidence supports ignoring LDL cholesterol altogether," Dr. Rodney A. Hayward, professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan, told Business Week's reporter.

In recent years, researchers have begun to suspect that statins help patients, not by lowering cholesterol levels, but by reducing inflammation. If this theory is right, "this seems likely to shunt cholesterol reduction into a small corner of the overall picture of heart disease," the Guardian reported four years ago.

And if the key to statins is that they reduce inflammation, it's worth keeping in mind that this is what other effective heart treatments like aspirin and the omega-3 fatty acids found in fish oils, garlic and vitamin E do -- at a much lower cost and with far fewer side effects.

But hold onto your hats, I still haven't gotten to what is most shocking about the cholesterol story. What raises my blood pressure is the knowledge that Business Week's scoop isn't really "new" news." With all due respect to Business Week, which showed real courage in putting the story on its cover, and to its author, John Carey, who did a superb job of explaining the medical research, the truth is that medical researchers have been questioning for many years the theory that widespread use of statins to lower cholesterol will save lives.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: drug companies, heart disease, cholesterol, american heart associatio, statins

Maggie Mahar is a fellow at the Century Foundation and the author of Money-Driven Medicine: The Real Reason Health Care Costs So Much (Harper/Collins 2006).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Don't trust anything until you run your own randomised, double blind trial
Posted by: drjasonmd on Feb 29, 2008 2:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I got a sneaking suspicion, sometime halfway through internship, that you really can't trust anything approved after the FDA let the drug manufacturers do their own clinical trials. I'm skeptical of anything that isn't available as a generic. I've never prescribed a statin, or a COX-2 inhibitor for that matter, because I knew deep down that they were crap. So much of medicine really is based on faith (i.e. "theory" with very little to back it up). Scientific method is supposed to come along eventually and confirm or deny your suspicion.

Unfortunately, the scientific method is dead. The 21st century is about FAITH BASED MEDICINE. The awful reality is that medical school is no longer now than it was 100 years ago. 4 years to squeeze it all in. You're doctor can't possibly keep up. Not if s/he is going to see 20 patients per day to pay off that McMansion. Who's got time to read? Besides, that cute chick from Merck just brought me a copy of all the latest research on Viox and how it's so much better than naproxen. I'll just skip to the last page and see how it ends.

The FDA long ago abdicated its oversight responsibility to the private sector. The web of financial interdependency between the manufacturers, insurance companies, HMOs, universities, researchers, lawmakers, Donald Rumsfeld, and most of all THE PEER REVIEW PUBLICATIONS, ensures that you'll never get a straight answer out of anybody. The truth will be delayed until we've milked this new molecule for all it's worth!

Why not just scrap all the medical journals and just publish all research on a wiki? Then everyone can poke holes in it in an open forum. No subscriptions, no exclusion of obscure or controversial research. It certainly would do more for the scientific method than the current farce of a system could.

In the meantime, get 8 hours of sleep everyday, eat mostly plants, and find someone you can hug at night. These things will do more for your health than anything in the PDR.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I'm not a priest.....(!) Posted by: mjabele
» Himalayan salt Posted by: 2dogarage
A system rotten through and through.
Posted by: SpiderWoman on Feb 29, 2008 4:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the bottom line is the bottom line in healthcare, then you have a problem. As should be clear from this article, the doctors have abdicated their responsibility to the patients. What legitimate reason could there be other than the bottom line? As DrJasonMD points out, there's a McMansion waiting.

The information is out there, but it's hidden. The scam that's currently being documented by the press is the statin drugs and cholesterol myth, but it's one of many. Consider the vaccination myth. If you have a knee jerk reaction to the idea that vaccinations might do more harm than good, take a look at the cholesterol myth and ask how you "know" vaccinations are good for you. Then, do some research. Take a look at an article that does some of it for you. It uses the Journal of the American Medical Association's own documentation on death rates for infectious diseases during the 20th century and compares it to when childhood vaccinations were introduced: Childhood Vaccinations Hoax - Not Effective and at Worst, Harmful The result is revealing: Deaths from childhood illnesses have not decreased as a result of vaccinations.

The truth is not what "everyone knows". When it comes to anything the medical system wants to do to you, think twice. Ask who stands to benefit. Does the doctor make money by doing the procedure? Does a drug company - which almost certainly provided the trials by which the drug was approved - profit? Does a hospital profit? Does a medical device manufacturer profit? Even routine things, like mammograms and vaccinations, things that we're ingrained to think are for our benefit, actually do more harm than good and are done primarily because of their enormous profits. Think about these things. There's money to be made in your body.

Certainly, there are wonderful things accomplished by our medical system. Care for critical situations is amazing. But the good does not justify the bad it does, and certainly doesn't justify the sacred cow status of so much of its routine treatment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Immunizations Posted by: fluffmuffinmom
» No evidence Posted by: fluffmuffinmom
» No evidence Posted by: fluffmuffinmom
Follow-up
Posted by: viza37 on Feb 29, 2008 4:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excellent article. I suggest a follow-up, for I don't think this case is singular in the industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Consequences
Posted by: Urstrly on Feb 29, 2008 4:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is what happens when you let industries "self-regulate," as the Republicans like to say. If the FDA had any teeth and the will to monitor the drug industry, we'd be in a better place. Across the board, the Bush administration has signaled that anything goes as long as you can make a profit, but if you'll notice, Bush rides that bike compulsively and Cheney is followed around by an ambulance. Think they're on statins?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just another example of extreme capitalism
Posted by: Moonray on Feb 29, 2008 4:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America's dog-eat-dog approach to making money tends to poison every aspect of our society. Medicine is just one example, but this attitude also takes a heavy toll on education, government, art, even sports. We have to change the constant drumbeat of extreme capitalism that hits our children from the time they wake up in the morning. (Turn on CNN and you likely will see a smiling anchor lauding Wal-Mart or some money-lender for gouging out a few more percentage points of profit.)

P.S. I have long suspected that statins are oversold -- and that the main source of heart disease, and CANCER, is bacteria and/or viruses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ROFL!!!!
Posted by: Gravitas on Feb 29, 2008 5:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't know why the author of the article was SO surprised he can't completely trust his doctor. Pharma corrupts every single aspect of medicine these days. It has NOT been about health for decades As a sociologist who has researched the stigma of obesity for years I have been BEATING MY BRAINS out trying to tell people how flawed the research is. All I can do is laugh as paradigm afer paradigm crumbles.

If economic interests were not enough, there is also a mindset in medicine that tells doctors they can't be wrong. So they will never admit their mistakes. (There is actually a study that found doctors piloting their own planes have a higher crash rate, because they fly with the false sense of security they are infalible.)

But it is not all doctors. For decades we have been looking for a talisman to ward off our destiny - MORTALITY. Some people want the easy magic pill, others are willing to work (and moralize) with lifestyle. Guess what folks! There is no such thing as PREVENTABLE death! Only postponable death!!!! Here is undeniable stat 100% of life + death! And in the meantime, how much quality of life has been sacrificed by our self-delusions. ROFL!!!!!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: OFL!!!! Posted by: donl51
» RE: OFL!!!! Posted by: 1gma
» RE: OFL!!!! Posted by: brunowe
» RE: ROFL!!!! Posted by: hagwind
not exactly secret
Posted by: lawstudent08 on Feb 29, 2008 5:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read the book Selling Sickness; in it, the author spends an entire chapter on the pharmaceutical industry's scam on statins by citing studies on effectiveness of the drugs. He also covers hormone replacement therapy, Ritalin, antidepressants, and lots more. Great book.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What a scam
Posted by: snowhound on Feb 29, 2008 5:39 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They just keep coming don't they. This is what you get with government subsidized health care. More drugs and more vaccines for a naive public and billions for drug companies. The only reason they have so much money to create all this crap is because the government shoves billions of our tax dollars into their pockets (Medicaid) . If you believe that we should have universal health care, for a second think what this government managed universal health care will bring us. It will bring more sickness and disease paid for by you. What a system!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What a scam Posted by: bonzi
» RE: What a scam Posted by: Cooltruth
» RE: What a scam Posted by: donl51
» RE: What a scam Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: What a scam Posted by: snowhound
» RE: What a scam Posted by: CatDad
» RE: What a scam/adendum Posted by: donl51
» HUH??? Posted by: fearn
» RE: HUH??? Posted by: snowhound
» RE: What a scam Posted by: 1gma
So, do we ignore LDL or not?
Posted by: bonzi on Feb 29, 2008 5:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good article. However, it did not stop you from running another article that perpetuates old "Food of animal origin = cholesterol = clogged arteries" myth:

"While its décor has been overhauled to inspire good health, McDonald's menu is still larded with the same old artery-clogging animal products."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

alt med practitioner
Posted by: lm on Feb 29, 2008 5:51 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I feel vindicated.....
I have been telling people for the last 6-7 years ...the problem is inflammation...the research that is available even points to this....they skew the results to fit the drug not vice versa..if you want a fascinating read that set me on this path to show you how corrupt the industry is look up the Cholesterol Myths by a Danish PHD. M.D. named Uffe Ravnscov...he tears apart almost every well known study since the 60"s...you can only come to 1 conclusion.....
Merck also knows their statin product actually caused problems to by stripping anti-oxidant Ubiquinone from the body...(leaked memo's)
Many patients on statins also complain of musculoskeletal problems (including sciatica) for some strange reason. I am a ghost writer for online publications on the subject as well and have developed 3 all natural anti inflam based nutriceuticals.I have a thriving pvt. practice....
One more thing...
if you know anything about the break down of fats, inflammation, and free radical production....you would or should only take fish oil for 1-3 weeks ! Nolonger !...It actually produces more free radicals than your body can handle (when it hits the blood stream...it oxidizes faster than you can say free radical destruction).Do yourself a favor- omit all veggie oil except olive oil, and perhaps Sesame oil from your diet..Use coconut oil for cooking and some butter for lower temp cooking...and look up the word glycation or Glycated end products if you want to live a longer healthier and more productive life.I am writing an online book on this subject at this very moment...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: alt med practitioner Posted by: 2dogarage
It goes even deeper than statins
Posted by: e40 on Feb 29, 2008 5:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Great Cholesterol Con by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick goes into great detail using publicly available data to show that cholesterol does not cause coronary heart disease.

He's not alone. There's a growing movement to discredit the link that has been supported by the medical community for more than 40 years. See The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics or Second Opinions, as well as Kendrick's own website.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

alt med again...
Posted by: lm on Feb 29, 2008 6:02 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One more thing the "so called experts do not tell you..." that if you have cholesterol in the 150 range you double your risk for cancer and if you are in the 140's you basically quadruple it..why? Because cholesterol is used in the manufacture of protective hormones and health cell walls...with lower levels...I' will let you do the math....many studies show men over 43 and women over 63 are cardio protected by high chol levels....and in Finland the higher the cholesterol level the lower mortality rate ...even though the country overall was high mortality...I could go on ...and on... and on.....by the way you dont want high LDL cho levels but moderately high would not worry. These are your bases for protective male and female hormones....get a good anti- oxidant...with carnitine, S.O.D., co-q-10 and glutathione. Also tocotrianols are muy protective.. especially for the heart!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: alt med again... Posted by: NeoLotus
» RE: alt med again... Posted by: 2dogarage
Side effects
Posted by: donl51 on Feb 29, 2008 7:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Listen to a drug comm.at the end they'll go through the list of side effects,if the effects are worse than what you're fighting,don't even mention it to your Doc,if death is mentioned change the channel,Lipitor is listed as one of the most harmless,told to me by my Doc.who I Do like and trust and still do,turns out one of its very few side affects I get,figured it out myself,proc.of ellim.,went to a herb I'd looked into,thing is their are a hell of a lot of herbs out there that do better what pharma.man-mades do w/o all those bad side effects,Marijuana being one,but I won't bring you into that arguement!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WHERE WERE THE DOCTORS????? ANSWER BELOW
Posted by: drricklippin on Feb 29, 2008 7:12 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maggie

WHERE WERE THE DOCTORS?????

Where they have always been because they are trained to do so- pushing pills! And "treating" lab results -NOT PATIENTS

The "pus" is at long last coming out!

Thanks!

Dr Rick Lippin
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Quit....
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Feb 29, 2008 7:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...eating


...at


...McDonalds.

And don't spend money foolishly on "cholesterol lowering drugs". Lower your cholesterol by lowering your intake.

Have you had a V8 today? :)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Quit.... Posted by: 2dogarage
» It's a little salty. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: It's a little salty. Posted by: 2dogarage
» I'll drink my V8 in the morning... Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: It's a little salty. Posted by: NeoLotus
» Oh, jeez... Posted by: ABetterFuture
skeptic
Posted by: karyse on Feb 29, 2008 7:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Skeptic Has been covering this issue for quite a while and it's even worse than this article states -- people with high LDL (so called "bad" cholesterol) actually outlive by five years people with low cholesterol. See issue Vol 12, No.2 (2006)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: skeptic Posted by: Kitty Lady Oregon
The courts
Posted by: warrior woman on Feb 29, 2008 7:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Recently, the Supreme Court held that medical device manufacturers are exempt from law suits as long as the product was approved by the FDA. Many, many manufacturers submit their testing to the FDA and the FDA accepts it cart blanche without their own testing. THe article that I read said that it is ponying up pharmaceuticals next. As such, lipitor, vioxin, etc, would be exempt from lawsuits as long as the product was put out under the terms that FDA approved for manufacture. Essentially, the burden of proof goes to the plaintiff to prove that the device was not manufactured according to the FDA approval. Please read the following:

High court rulings favor business
Decisions shield medical device companies, delivery firms from lawsuits and state regulations.
By David G. Savage
LOS ANGELES TIMES
Thursday, February 21, 2008 http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/
stories/nation/02/21/0221scotushealth.html

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court gave business two big wins Wednesday by shielding companies from lawsuits and state regulations.

Tort reform? THis is loss of tort action. Couple it with the agenda set for pharmaceuticals, it's seemingly unconstitutional to me, but it's going to happen. THey're taking all recourse out of our courts.

On a different note. I have written about transfats and cholesterol lowering drugs and would like to share an example that I gave:

"According to the National Academies of Science, “Trans fatty acids are not essential and provide no known benefit to human health. As with saturated fatty acids, there is a positive linear trend between trans fatty acid intake and LDL [bad] cholesterol concentration, and therefore increased risk of CHD [Coronary Heart Disease].” The Nurse’s Health Study confirms that trans-fats double the risk of heart disease in women.

While increasing our bad cholesterol, trans-fats lower the HDL or good cholesterol. In doing so, the ratio of bad to good cholesterol increases, further raising our risk for CHD. Butter or saturated fats raise both LDL and HDL levels.

Doctors pay particular attention to the ratio of good to bad cholesterol in addition to the numbers individually. Picture a bar graph of the 2 examples: one of trans-fats pushing LDL up and the HDL down, the other displays LDL and HDL rising simultaneously. The first example shows the cholesterol ratio widening or getting larger while the second example shows them rising in tandem, the gap not necessarily widening. If this is the case and the ratio doesn’t grow with saturated fats, should we be eating saturated fats like butter instead of margarine?

What about Lipitor, a cholesterol lowering medicine? This drug not only lowers the bad or LDL cholesterol but can have an affect of lowering the good, affecting the ratio."

I've known about these problems for years, articles are out there but having read them, when I spoke about them people looked at me as though I was chicken little. Guess the issue itself isn't so little.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Follow Pollan's advice
Posted by: ebishirl on Feb 29, 2008 7:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree completely with ABetterFuture ("Quit ... Eating ... At ... McDonalds.")

Also, we'd all be much healthier if we'd follow two pieces of advice from Michael Pollan (author of "The Omnivore's Dilemma."):

"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

and

"Don't eat anything your great-great-grandmother wouldn't recognize as food."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Follow Pollan's advice
Posted by: ebishirl on Feb 29, 2008 7:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree completely with ABetterFuture ("Quit ... Eating ... At ... McDonalds.")

Also, we'd all be much healthier if we'd follow two pieces of advice from Michael Pollan (author of "The Omnivore's Dilemma."):

"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

and

"Don't eat anything your great-great-grandmother wouldn't recognize as food."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» My grandmother... Posted by: fluffmuffinmom
Now you tell me...
Posted by: catmandoo on Feb 29, 2008 8:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As one who still suffers the effects of having trusted my doctor and taken lipitor at the age of 60, I want to wring some necks. At 64, now off of drugs for 2 years, I still have weakened and painful wrists. When I refused to take lipitor any longer because I had lost use of my hands and could not hold a cup steady, my doctor says then you have to do 4,000 units of fish oil a day and a cup of oatmeal. I'm dropping the fish oil as I write.

I read the fine print on lipitor and saw Dr. Jarvik on t.v. peddling lipitor. He called what happened to me "rare." Not so. My sister-in-law and one of my friends report the same symptoms and loss of use of legs or arms. If it were rare, I should not know two people with the same symptoms I have.

I still have days when my wrists hurt like hell and I can't pick up a thing and hold on to it, but it's no longer every day.

I never went to doctors until I was in my fifties. I appear to be right in my thinking that doctors may know more than they knew in 1900, but they still don't know squat. In the main, you're better off listening to your body and going to doctors only when you're bleeding or have broken bones.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Now you tell me... Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: Now you tell me... Posted by: Kitty Lady Oregon
I quit this poison
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Feb 29, 2008 8:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had been prescribed zocor for my "hgih" cholesterol.
By high, I mean 10 points.
I used to do alcohol and other "drugs".

I NEVER experienced anything like I did while taking that shit.
I would sometimes feel as if I was losing my balance.
I felt as though I was deve3loping Alzheimer's.
I ached.
Ad infinitum.
I threw the garbage away a couple of months ago and still have no totally recovered as far as musculature.

That stuff needs to be OUTLAWED.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I quit this poison Posted by: mitchg
The answer to heart disease reversal is already out there!
Posted by: satyagirl on Feb 29, 2008 8:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn conducted one of the most extensive studies on heart disease patients over a period of 20+ years while at the Cleveland Clinic. The diet he put his patients on completely arrested and reversed even the most advanced stages of heart disease.

Details of his study are in his book titled "Prevent & Reverse Heart Disease" and his website is heartattackproof.com The information contained in his book is truly life-saving and a must-read!

By the way, after this study was completed, the Clinic refused to allow Esselstyn to counsel patients at the hospital about how to treat their heart disease with the methods used in his study. He was and still is allowed to counsel the hospital board members and staff doctors however. This should tell us all we need to know about who is looking out for our health - it's not the medical industry. Profits come first for them and it's not in their best interest for people to learn how to get healthy and not require drugs and surgeries. The sad thing is, most people still trust everything a physician tells them and assume they are looking out for their best interest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tee up!!!
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Feb 29, 2008 8:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Doctor were on the golf course,with their investment consultants,or hiding behind their malpractice insurance. In short they were everywhere that kept them from being what they should be...PREVENTITIVE MEDICINE PRACTICES.
That's how they keep you comming in. You are a paycheck to them,nothing more and a whole lot less.
I'm not a Doctor,I've never played one on TV,but if you want lower cholesterol you should be in the health food store NOT the Doctor's office, and, load up well in you diet with fish oils,garlic,and onions.
The garlic and onions lower LDL cholesterol,the bad stuff. The fish oil also lowers the LDL's but improves the HDL's, the good cholesterol and lowers the triglyserides,which are a link to heart disease. Keep these in your daily regimine along with 10,000 units of vitamin D,drink 8 eight ounce glasses of water daily and you won't ever need to see a Doctor.
Take care of yourselves,because no one else will.
Jeffrey7

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Tee up!!! Posted by: westomoon
» RE: Tee up!!! Posted by: jeffrey7
Too many doctors are poor scientists
Posted by: CJC on Feb 29, 2008 8:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As drjasonmd said at the top, "the scientific method is dead." Although a lot of doctors are smart and know a lot of scientific information, medical training (the operative word) does not include critical and skeptical thinking and how to evaluate evidence. Most physicians cannot read a scientific paper and evaluate statistical information.

Then there's the pervasive and poisonous influence of drug company money - to doctors, to researchers, to medical schools etc. These are bribes in essence, even if there's not an explicit quid pro quo.

Along this line I just read the editorial in the most recent issue (Feb 22) of Science, the weekly journal of the Am Assoc for the Advancement of Science. It reports that Pfizer, which is being sued for damages over injuries from Celebrex and Bextra, has filed a motion to require that New England Journal of Medicine, probably the premier medical journal, to reveal the confidential reviews of published papers. First rate scientific journals all depend on unpaid reviewers who evaluate submissions blinded to who the authors are. It's an imperfect system to be sure, but no one has come up with anything better. If Pfizer is successful, the loss of scientific objectivity will make the statin controversy a mere drop in a bucket of corporate interests completely trumping any possibility of scientific evaluation of medical treatments.

The health of the public will suffer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More likely a Statin-con than a Cholesterol-con
Posted by: mitchg on Feb 29, 2008 9:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In sales, generally, the truth about a subject is often shaped, enhanced and selectively withheld to indoctrinate consumers.

No better example exists than big-pharma's "education" of consumers and physicians about cholesterol's role in heart disease. Potential dangers of niacin were trumpeted by Pfizer, and the dangers of statin drugs minimized so that expensive, less effective, more dangerous statin drugs would produce historic profits.

Two articles go to the heart of this fraud. FACTS AND FACTOIDS: An Information Sheet for Patients
Niacin: Myths and Facts by Dr. William Davis

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Drugs
Posted by: RobNLA on Feb 29, 2008 11:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I try to limit what drugs I take, no matter what the medical industry says. Everything has side effects and most of the new stuff is very foreign and unexpected to your body.

Of course, if I'm really sick I want proper treatment. But I research stuff myself just to be sure. That way I know more about the risks and side effects and the actual benefits than most patients.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I lost grandparent and parent to "safe" drugs
Posted by: Jasonix on Feb 29, 2008 11:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My grandfather died unexpectedly in a scenario that suggested a reaction to his medication. Both of his parents lived to be 95 without any medicine whatsoever. My mom had a stroke that is believed to have been caused by her hormone replacement therapy. Her mom has lived to be 91 so far, and her dad lived to be 93 - before dying from his medication.

At this point, I'm afraid to go to the doctor, because it seems like they shove drugs on you that, in my family's experience, are more likely to kill you than cure you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We WISH....
Posted by: carcinoid112 on Feb 29, 2008 11:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This statement "When consulting with your doctor, you should not have to be wary. You are not a customer; you are a patient. And your physician is a professional who has pledged to put your interests ahead of his or her own." bothers me.

It may have been true in the past, it isn't now. As a chronically, but terminally, ill cancer patient, the "put your interests ahead of his or her own" DOES NOT FLY.

Medical professionals, please note my sign-in name. Carcinoid. ONE drug that treats the horrible syndrome. ONE. And 75% of the oncologists that are SUPPOSED to be able to READ the info and properly prescribe it?? screw it up, because THEY know SO MUCH MORE that the scientists that spent year and billions of dollars producing it.

It's not knowledge, it's EGO. And the more informed a patient tries to be, the WORSE the doctor's ego gets. Patients have brains, too. That some of us have figured out how to file Joint Commission complaints proves that. And if a major nationally award winning cancer center has to be pushed (via JCAHO--at that time--complaint) into properly administering a medication, how much MORE arrogance-inspired patient abusing ego-tripping goes on?

I owe my life to good doctors. I owe my less than optimal health (and my partial paralysis) to bad ones.

Patients ARE consumers. Doctors are, by their choice, and at the machination of the insurance/medical industry, mere 'providers' of a product. I have chosen to buy a better health care product that what was first presented. My FIRST clue is "How does this Doc respond to MY input based on MY