Medication, pharmaceuticals and adverse effects

[DeathStorm]

I'm quite familiar with the ongoing debate regarding the in-efficiency of medications, especially of pharmaceuticals. The first person to tell me something about this was an old lady who was working with alternative holistic medicine.

A phrase I recall her telling me was
"Western medicine tries to cure the symptoms, but these will keep coming back unless you tackle the root of the problems."

I don't know how true that statement was, and I find it a bit hard to believe that an internationally recognized method that has been around for so long time would not at least attempt to address the causes of a disease.

Ever since I met that lady, I have read about other practices as well (osteopathy, acupuncture, etc.) and indeed I notice that each have a different approach.

What do you think about them?
And - if they are really as efficient as they are claimed to be - why aren't they overtaking or at least included in western medicine/national health services?

Do you think that pharmaceuticals are only a "quick fix" and that the body could really "heal itself"?

In the past months I had several minor injuries and was prescribed plenty of pharmaceuticals by the doctor, both oral and injected (especially NSAIDs, many of them!).
I almost have the feeling as if they have weakened me. Now, I caught a cold twice within 7 days and it took longer to cure than when I normally get it during winter (and it's summer here, and I'm in Italy!).

Are all pharmaceuticals accompanied by adverse effects?
Do you think the non-Western medicines are less risky in that sense?

[Angela]

funny that you bring this up. I took a 12-hour sudafed for the first time today and I am w-a-a-a-a-a-s-ted!!! I'm not congested anymore, thank heaven, but this stuff makes me want to tell bad jokes to inappropriate sexual partners!

I wish there was a way to deal with chronic congestion (Danger Man calls it "Compressed Melon Syndrome" or CMS) without the drugs. (you in-the-know folks will recommend a neti pot, which I use morning and night.)

Maybe I should start a bad joke thread. Or an inappropriate sexual partner thread.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Angela

Or an inappropriate sexual partner thread.

That has potential.

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by DeathStorm

Are all pharmaceuticals accompanied by adverse effects?
Do you think the non-Western medicines are less risky in that sense?

In order to be called a medical drug... the substance has to have some poison in it... if it is not poisonous... it is not a medical drug...

Therefore, we should take as little drug a possible... however, sometimes we don't have a choice... you don't have to take some aspirin if you have a small headache... but you might have to take some antibiotic if you have an infection...

As far as alternative medicines are concerned... there is a tendency for exaggeration when both practitioners and some patients testify to its effectiveness...

Sadly, there is no hard and fast rule that can be followed... only common sense... one thing though... if it sounds too good to be true... it's probably not true...

Best of luck to you...
.

[beautyscientist]

Pharmaceuticals are rigourously tested and they definitely do work. Having worked on them I would avoid them unless you really need them. The powerful ones can have side effects. But sometimes that is a risk you have to take. I haven't actually taken an oral medication myself for about 10 years.

[Gene]

Originally Posted by Angela

Or an inappropriate sexual partner thread.

I have some stories about that. They used to be either interesting or profoundly embarrassing depending on the audience. I shall refrain from telling them, but I would certainly be interested in reading the stories others wish to tell! <Grin>

On a slightly more serious note, I have not found a way to get rid of the symptoms you describe without the drugs and their side effects.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by DeathStorm

A phrase I recall her telling me was
"Western medicine tries to cure the symptoms, but these will keep coming back unless you tackle the root of the problems."

I don't know how true that statement was, and I find it a bit hard to believe that an internationally recognized method that has been around for so long time would not at least attempt to address the causes of a disease.

Do you think that pharmaceuticals are only a "quick fix" and that the body could really "heal itself"?

Our bodies are extremely resilient and in most cases can repair themselves. Much of the time the medication we take simply makes it easier for our body to do their job, or even more commonly it seems, makes it easier for us to handle the stress of being sick (e.g., cold and flu medication with paracetamol, codeine, pseudoephedrine, or some combination of the above, doesn't do anything about the virus. It just makes us feel better, eh Angela )

So yes, many pharms are a quick fix, precisely because the body can heal itself.

Originally Posted by DeathStorm

What do you think about them?
And - if they are really as efficient as they are claimed to be - why aren't they overtaking or at least included in western medicine/national health services?

Alternative medicine is subject to very few checks and balances. There's almost nothing to show that a practitioner who proscribes such medication, or any such medication bought off the shelf, is any better than doing nothing. There's a wealth of anecdotal evidence, but there's also a wealth of anecdotal evidence that black cats bring bad luck. There's also some scientific studies of things such as acupuncture, but no firm conclusions either way (at least none I'm aware of).

It seems current medical paradigm is ruled by a combination of science, tradition, politics and finance. That's a powerful combination. Alternative medicine would have to be extremely convincing in order to be included into that paradigm, or the paradigm would have to be overthrown. Efforts at inclusion are getting somewhere, I believe, at least as far as scientist's real interest in things like the healthful effects of meditation and acupuncture are concerned.

Originally Posted by DeathStorm

Are all pharmaceuticals accompanied by adverse effects?
Do you think the non-Western medicines are less risky in that sense?

Frankly, no. Pharmaceuticals are all required to list their possible side effects. Even if they're unlikely. These are determined from large studies. The warnings also include contraindications. No such requirement for alternative medicine as far as I'm aware.

Originally Posted by Angela

funny that you bring this up. I took a 12-hour sudafed for the first time today and I am w-a-a-a-a-a-s-ted!!!

Hehehe, druggy!

Originally Posted by Shamou

In order to be called a medical drug... the substance has to have some poison in it... if it is not poisonous... it is not a medical drug...

Do you mean that the active ingredient in most medications could be poisonous if taken in a high enough dose? At the recommended doses most medications, especially OTC ones, are harmless. The average body is well equipped to deal with any adverse effects, which usually just involves cleaning up any potentially harmful metabolites (by-products of the breakdown of the drug), and this can happen without stressing the bodily systems involved.

But of course sometimes an individual's body can't deal with the drug that well, so there may be side-effects.

[escapee]

When you understand the meaning of L.S.E ( Life science engineering ). Non-essential synthetic drugs ( for the purpose of trauma intervention ) are the last thing you want to have in your body.

Life-Systems Engineering Science

L.S.E.: This new field, founded in 1995 by Professor Brian Peskin, is defined as: The new science of producing desired results by working cooperatively with the natural processes of living systems.

This is in sharp contrast to a drug. Drugs typically artificially alter your biochemical reactions and always have negative (harmful) side effects.


Brian's alma mater, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, (MIT) utilizes the same concepts Professor Peskin originated - bringing engineering into the field of human physiology and biochemistry to make astounding advances in health! They published the following statement on their website on January 19, 1999:

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Do you mean that the active ingredient in most medications could be poisonous if taken in a high enough dose?

Mark, a poison is a poison... it does not matter what the dosage is... however, even if it is a poison... it does not mean that it will kill you... however, if you do take enough of it... it can kill you... Even aspirin... if taken enough dosage will do you in...

Now, I am not against medication... it save people's lives and help us to have a much better quality of life... however, medical drugs should be seen for what it is... a poison...

As an example... water could save a dehydrated person's life... but it cannot be called a medical drug...

That is the only point that I was trying to make...
.

[escapee]

A good example is the use of Aspirin ( BY THE BIG BOYS ).

Instead of eliminating the source of inflammation/blockage to the arteries ( deadly trans fat, ruined hydrogenated oil and etc). The big boys have promoted the use of aspirin to inhibit the production of thromboxane - a natural process to seal wound ( platelets maker ) with potential side effect ranging from internal bleeding to death. The western drug centainly has its place in trauma intervention, but we just don't need it to prevent certain diseases like cancer or heart disease .

ASPIRIN's side-effects include DEATH

The widely used drug aspirin acts by inhibiting the ability of the COX enzyme to synthesize the precursors of thromboxane within platelets.

It inhibits the COX enzyme both non-competitively and irreversibly.

The side effect of this is that people who regularly take aspirin will suffer from excessive bleeding whenever the skin is perforated.

Thromboxane - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by escapee

The big boys have promoted the use of aspirin to inhibit the production of thromboxane - a natural process to seal wound ( platelets maker ) with potential side effect ranging from internal bleeding to death.

But... do you know how many acute myocardial infarction (heart attack) it has prevented...??? And how many lives were saved by taking one aspirin a day by people who were at risk...???
.

[Mark Lapierre]

Sounds like a great step forward escapee, though it seems wrong to exclude synthetic drugs, if they can be engineered in a way which helps the body. In fact the term "non-essential synthetic drug" doesn't necessarily (and shouldn't) exclude a synthetic compound which can compliment and improve the body's natural processes.

Shamou: I understand your point, that medical drugs can do both good and bad. But I don't see how it's helpful to call them poisons. The label "poison" is usually reserved for something which is intended to cause harm. And yes, while some drugs like aspirin, which some people probably think is harmless, can cause harm, there's no guarantee, and certainly no intention.

I want to depict medicine as any better (or worse) than it truly is, but I don't think the term 'poison' is appropriate, particularly given most people's understanding of what the word means.

(Also I'm not sure what you meant by the example of water, particularly since too much water can kill you)

[escapee]

Yes yes Shamou , That's why i said the drug still has its place in TRAUMA INTERVENTION. If these people know what's causing their myocardial infarction in the first place. They wouldnt need the Aspirin in their 30s . I bet you aren't taking Aspirin as a preventive medicine , are you ?

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Shamou: I understand your point, that medical drugs can do both good and bad. But I don't see how it's helpful to call them poisons.

That definition of medical drug is not mine... but the pharmacists'...

Let us say that you have chapped skin... you put a lotion on it which will help... however the lotion cannot be called a medical drug... because it is not poisonous...

I read that definition of medical drugs while I was in school and sadly I cannot give you a link to it...

And, as I said before... medical drugs are good... but they should only be used when needed...
.

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by escapee

I bet you aren't taking Aspirin as a preventive medicine , are you ?

No I am not because I never had angina and there are no history of myocardial infarction in my family... however... it the contrary were true... I would certainly take an aspirin a day... since I am not a hemophiliac and do not suffer from ulcers and such...

Modern medicine is far from being perfect... but it is certainly a huge improvement over folks medicine...
.

[escapee]

Modern medicine is far from being perfect... but it is certainly a huge improvement over folks medicine...

I hope you arent implying that the advancement of nutritional science as some kind of folks medicine. There is a big difference in between the 2


When you introduce what is essential to the body from healthy source ( essential fats, protein, minerals and etc ) . Your body will naturally produce Prostacyclin ( the number one natural blood thinner ).

Prostacyclin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prostacyclin is a member of the family of lipid molecules known as eicosanoids. A synthetic form of prostacyclin, used as a medicine, is referred to as epoprostenol.

Prostacyclin acts chiefly to prevent platelet formation and clumping involved in blood clotting. It is also an effective vasodilator. Prostacyclin's interactions in contrast to thromboxane, another eicosanoid, strongly suggest a mechanism of cardiovascular homeostasis between the two hormones in relation to vascular damage.

and its counter force - Thromboxane as needed in response to injury

Thromboxane - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thromboxane is a vasoconstrictor and a potent hypertensive agent, and it facilitates platelet aggregation.

It is in homeostatic balance in the circulatory system with prostacyclin, a related compound.

What the Aspirin is doing is stopping the production of Thromboxane in response to injury so the blood does not clog all over the place. THe question we want to ask is, Do we want to stop the source of inflammation ( oxidized oil, trans fats and etc ) or the production of inflammatory agent ? If the answer is the latter , then it's like placing the blame on the police for the accident caused by drunk drivers.

IT is in my belief that western nutritional science ( not folks medicine ) should be incorporated into standard medicinal practice. It should not be regarded as ALTERNATIVEs.. THe biggest disadvantage is the doc will make less $$ as less patients return back for another round of "trauma intervention" .




Trans fat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The primary health risk identified for trans fat consumption is an elevated risk of coronary heart disease (CHD).[26] A comprehensive review of studies of trans fats was published in 2006 in the New England Journal of Medicine that concludes that there is a strong and reliable connection between trans fat consumption and CHD.[3]


The major evidence for the effect of trans fat on CHD comes from the Nurses' Health Study (NHS) — a cohort study that has been following 120,000 female nurses since its inception in 1976. In this study, Hu and colleagues analyzed data from 900 coronary events from the NHS population during 14 years of followup. He determined that a nurse's CHD risk roughly doubled (relative risk of 1.94, CI: 1.43 to 2.61) for each 2% increase in trans fat calories consumed (instead of carbohydrate calories). By contrast, it takes more than a 15% increase in saturated fat calories (instead of carbohydrate calories) to produce a similar increase in risk. Eating non-trans unsaturated fats instead of carbohydrates reduces the risk of CHD rather than increasing it.[27] Hu also reports on the benefits of reducing trans fat consumption. Replacing 2% of food energy from trans fat with non-trans unsaturated fats more than halves the risk of CHD (53%). By comparison, replacing a larger 5% of food energy from saturated fat with non-trans unsaturated fats reduces the risk of CHD by 43%.[27]

Another study considered deaths due to CHD, with consumption of trans fats being linked to an increase in mortality, and consumption of polyunsaturated fats ( Essential fatty acids )being linked to a decrease in mortality.[26][28]

[escapee]

The good science

Oxidized LDL levels showed a "strong and graded association (P <0.001) with the presence and extent of coronary artery disease," reported Sotirios Tsimikas, M.D., of the University of San Diego and colleagues in the July 7 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.


Although phospholipids such as LDL are important to the structural integrity of cells, when oxidized they can promote inflammation, which in turn can lead to coronary artery disease, the researchers said.

Investigators from Osaka, Japan report that patients with high blood levels of oxidized LDL cholesterol have a significantly higher risk of heart attacks than patients with unoxidized LDL. If their results are reproduced in larger studies, measuring oxidized LDL levels may help doctors detect high-risk patients for early treatment.

Measurement of oxidized LDL levels is an investigational tool that, so far, is not available for routing clinical testing

"The levels of oxidized LDL circulating in the blood correlate well with the severity of disease," says Tsimikas. "The sicker the patient, the higher the levels of circulating oxidized LDL, indicating that it is a marker of atherosclerotic plaques."

Researchers found that average levels of ox-LDL in patients who had a heart attack were 1.95 nanograms (ng) per 5 micrograms of LDL protein, compared to 1.19 ng/5 micrograms LDL for those with unstable angina, 0.89 ng/5 micrograms LDL for stable angina and 0.58 ng/5 micrograms LDL for controls. The more serious the condition, the higher the oxidized LDL. The researchers say this observation strongly suggests that the amount of oxidized LDL in circulating plasma could serve as a marker for cardiovascular events.

Guess what is the best food source to enhance OXIDIZED LDL ?

ScienceDaily: Form Of Cholesterol Singled Out As Cause Of Chest Pain, Heart Attack
Oxidized LDL cholesterol predicts heart attacks

ScienceDaily: Fast Food Can Speed Up Clogging Of The Arteries

Eating a "Western" diet with lots of processed or fried foods can raise blood levels of "oxidized" cholesterol -- a particularly damaging form of cholesterol -- and could increase heart attack risk, scientists say.

Researchers report in this month's Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology: Journal of the American Heart Association about a study with rabbits that demonstrates blood levels of oxidized cholesterol match up with the quantity of oxidized cholesterol in the diet. The researchers found that in rabbits, the dietary oxidized cholesterol accelerated the process of atherosclerosis, or clogging of the blood vessels.

The scientists examined two sets of rabbits with similar genetic makeup. One set was fed a higher amount of oxidized cholesterol. In studying the rabbits 12 weeks later, scientists found that small quantities of oxidized cholesterol (25 milligrams per day) increased atherosclerotic lesions by 100 percent in comparison to those rabbits not fed the extra oxidized cholesterol

DO you see the limitation of Cholesterol reducing drug ? It just cannot reduce enough of Oxidized LDL (while destroying the brain function at the same time - one of the potential side effects of Statin class drugs - Lipitor).

Amazon.com: Lipitor: Thief of Memory, Statin Drugs and the Misguided War on Cholesterol: Books: Duane Graveline

[munish]

Originally Posted by DeathStorm

Do you think that pharmaceuticals are only a "quick fix" and that the body could really "heal itself"?

?

Read this
Welcome to the town of Allopath
Town of Allopath a Hilarious Video Parody on What is Wrong with Conventional Medicine

Originally Posted by DeathStorm

In the past months I had several minor injuries and was prescribed plenty of
by the doctor, both oral and injected (especially NSAIDs, many of them!).
?

But here you can't avoid pharmaceuticals,in the case of an injury.

[escapee]

More good science on the subject of OXIDIZED LDL Vs CHD that the popular media tend to overlook.

Plasma Oxidized Low-Density Lipoprotein, a Strong Predictor for Acute Coronary Heart Disease Events in Apparently Healthy, Middle-Aged Men From the General Population -- Meisinger et al. 112 (5): 651 -- Circulation

Background— Oxidized LDL (oxLDL) is thought to play a key role in the inflammatory response in the arterial vessel wall.

Methods and Results— In a prospective, nested, case-control study, the association between plasma oxLDL and risk of an acute coronary heart disease (CHD) event was investigated in men without prevalent CHD or diabetes mellitus at baseline. Subjects came from 2 population-based MONICA/KORA Augsburg surveys conducted in the years 1989–1990 and 1994–1995 with follow-up in 1998 (mean±SD follow-up time, 5.6±2.6 years). OxLDL was determined by ELISA in 88 men with incident CHD and in 258 age- and survey-matched controls. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated from conditional logistic-regression models with matching for age and survey. Baseline mean plasma oxLDL concentrations were significantly higher in subjects who subsequently experienced an event compared with controls (mean±SD, 110±32 versus 93±28 U/L; P0.001). After adjustment for smoking, hypertension, obesity, physical activity, education, and alcohol consumption, the HR for a future CHD event in a comparison of the upper tertile of the oxLDL distribution with the lower tertile was 4.25 (95% confidence interval, 2.09 to 8.63; P<0.001). Plasma oxLDL was the strongest predictor of CHD events compared with a conventional lipoprotein profile and other traditional risk factors for CHD. When both oxLDL and C-reactive protein were simultaneously assessed in the same model, they still predicted future CHD events even after multivariable adjustment.

Conclusions— Elevated concentrations of oxLDL are predictive of future CHD events in apparently healthy men. Thus, oxLDL may represent a promising risk marker for clinical CHD complications and should be evaluated in further studies.

When your doc say you have high LDL cholesterol and need the lipitor , tell him to (get lost and ) study the research on OxLDL before making the prescription to another potential victim of cholesterol reducing bad SCIENCE .

[escapee]

more good science on the subject of glycated LDL Vs CVD

UB Reporter: "Bad" cholesterol linked to heart attack risk

A blood component called glycated LDL—a form of low-density lipoprotein, the "bad" cholesterol, with a sugar molecule attached—is known to be higher in diabetics than nondiabetics, and extensive research has shown that diabetics are at increased risk of a heart attack.

"The association of glycated LDL with myocardial infarction could explain why diabetes is a risk factor for MI (heart attack)," said Maurizio Trevisan, dean of the School of Public Health and Health Professions and senior author on the study.

"In fact, glycated LDL is more easily oxidized than normal LDL and more easily metabolized by macrophages, the precursors of foam cells of the atherosclerotic plaque," said Trevisan, a professor of social and preventive medicine. "This is probably because the sugar molecule attached to the apoprotein B of LDL interferes with the link of the apoprotein with its membrane receptor.

"Glycated apoprotein B, like glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), is present also in nondiabetics and its increase could be due to temporary hyperglycemia caused by a high-glycemic-load meal, by stress and by other conditions."

[zeloc]

Originally Posted by escapee

When your doc say you have high LDL cholesterol and need the lipitor , tell him to (get lost and ) study the research on OxLDL before making the prescription to another potential victim of cholesterol reducing bad SCIENCE .

I have not read the New England Journal of Medicine article that you cite and so cannot verify those claims, but let's assume that it is true that oxidized LDL has a higher association with coronary artery disease. It is not a substance that is commonly measured, and so for now, that knowledge is useless. On the other hand, LDL cholesterol has been established to be a major risk factor for coronary artery disease and death. Statins have been proved to decrease the risk by decreasing the LDL cholesterol. The benefits far outweigh the risks because statins reduce mortality, and obviously this is superior to any of the relatively minor side effects of statins.

[escapee]

LDL cholesterol has been established to be a major risk factor for coronary artery disease and death.

I have perused plenty of journals/articles from unpopular sources and from what i understand, LDL cholesterol acts as a poison delivery system when you consume alot of oxidized fats from processed food, fried food and etc. For a modern man consuming processed food and extremely high glycemic load meals, High LDL Cholesterol is a risk factor because you are transporting more "poison" ( Oxidized and Glycated LDL ) to your cell and arteries instead of the undamaged and unoxidized LDL/omega 6.

I believe everyone should be able to derive the benefits of having high LDL cholesterol given the content is "healthy" ( unoxidized )

People with high cholesterol live the longest. This statement seems so incredible that it takes a long time to clear one´s brainwashed mind to fully understand its importance. Yet the fact that people with high cholesterol live the longest emerges clearly from many scientific papers. Consider the finding of Dr. Harlan Krumholz of the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine at Yale University, who reported in 1994 that old people with low cholesterol died twice as often from a heart attack as did old people with a high cholesterol.1 Supporters of the cholesterol campaign consistently ignore his observation, or consider it as a rare exception, produced by chance among a huge number of studies finding the opposite.

High Cholesterol Protects Against Infection
Many studies have found that low cholesterol is in certain respects worse than high cholesterol. For instance, in 19 large studies of more than 68,000 deaths, reviewed by Professor David R. Jacobs and his co-workers from the Division of Epidemiology at the University of Minnesota, low cholesterol predicted an increased risk of dying from gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases.3

The Benefits of High Cholesterol

Statins have been proved to decrease the risk by decreasing the LDL cholesterol. The benefits far outweigh the risks because statins reduce mortality, and obviously this is superior to any of the relatively minor side effects of statins.

If you cant let go the processed food and fast food, Statin drugs will/may help ( on CVD) by reducing the amount of poison carrying LDL cholesterol to the system. As far as mortality is concerned, I have yet to see any convincing data that shows Statin drugs increase the life expectancy of general population .

Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases With Statin Therapy: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Arch Intern Med. 2006 Nov 27;166(21):2307-13. Thavendiranathan P, Bagai A, Brookhart MA, Choudhry NK. Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.
While the role of hydroxymethyl glutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins) in secondary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) events and mortality is established, their value for primary prevention is less clear. To clarify the role of statins for patients without cardiovascular disease, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Collaboration, and American College of Physicians Journal Club databases were searched for RCTs published between 1966 and June 2005. We included RCTs with follow-up of 1 year or longer, more than 100 major CV events, and 80% or more of the population without CV disease. results : Seven trials with 42 848 patients were included. Ninety percent had no history of CV disease. Mean follow-up was 4.3 years. Statin therapy reduced the RR of major coronary events, major cerebrovascular events, and revascularizations by 29%, 14%, and 33%, respectively. Statins produced a nonsignificant 22.6% RR reduction in coronary heart disease mortality. No significant reduction in overall mortality or increases in cancer or levels of liver enzymes or creatine kinase were observed. CONCLUSION: In patients without CV disease, statin therapy decreases the incidence of major coronary and cerebrovascular events and revascularizations but not coronary heart disease or overall mortality.

[escapee]

BTW, I think the side effects of statin are not minor at all. Do a search on google you would find plenty as below .


Statins' Side Effects Under Fire, Some Docs Say Statin Guidelines Should Get Independent Review - CBS News

My muscles were not muscles, they were just tissue you slapped back and forth," says Raiborn.

But Raiborn blames Zocor for severe muscle problems that nearly killed him - a known risk disclosed by statin makers.


The National Institutes of Health recently gave a huge boost to the statin industry when its experts revised cholesterol guidelines saying millions more people could use statins. It wasn't disclosed then, but most of the NIH experts had financial ties to statin drug companies.

Abramson and 30 other doctors and scientists are now asking the NIH for a new, independent review of the cholesterol guidelines promoting statins. They cite one study showing women using statins got slightly more heart disease, not less. Another showed the elderly got no real heart benefits, but did develop more cancer.

"I mean to me, I look like a freak cause to me I'm shriveled up compared to who I was," says Raiborn.

He's now considering a lawsuit and hopes his story will make doctors rethink the rush to statins.

[AtriumGuy]

Hi DeathStorm--
Great post and great question, and I think I can shed provide an interesting perspective for you...
Yes, I believe the development of pharmaceuticals is a wonderful occurrence in our culture, but it has goine WAY too far. Here's why:

1) If you put things in perspective, human beings have been alive and shuffling around this planet for hundreds of thousands of years. Herbal and natural remedies have been around for most of this time and traditional Chinese Medicine techniques have existed for thousands of years. These practices are based on extensive (and timely) trial and error methodology that evolved in natural unison with humanity. For thousands of years all of our primal knowledge regarding health and well-being was the result of experimentation using the tools found in nature. Somehow mass use of synthetic medications and pharmaceuticals has trumped, in an instant, tens of thousands of years of ancient knowledge

2) Pharmaceuticals are mass produced and do not take into account ANY individuality that we each have. Dealing with sickness, disorders and disease must be done so on a person-by-person basis; what may be the right remedy for you may not the right one for me. Furthermore, what might be the best treatments for me today may not be right for me in a year from now. We are constantly evolving and our individuality must be respected when dealing with our health and medical care. Mass produced drugs are a quick fix solution that interact with our bodies in a one-tract, come-one come-all manner.

3) Drugs lead to more drugs because they are synthetic remedies that ALWAYS cause non-intended inflammation in the body. For some reason, people have blind faith that the scientists who create these drugs have the ability to develop a drug that only treats one ailment. The truth is, pharmaceuticals can wreck havoc on systems that were perfectly healthy when you began; they are not smart, but thoughtless agents which affect the whole being. We have to wake up to the fact that the business of drugs is to create more business. By keeping people alive longer, and on additional drugs, the companies can continue to post record profits.

4)) Drug companies are some of the most profitable companies in the world. They stay profitable through increasing sales, which means that over time more and more people are buying more and more drugs. We have to become aware that this industry is not geared towards our personal well-being, but for the financial well-being of the corporations. Ask yourself: when was the last time the medical community announced the cure of a disease? It has not happened in decades as cure does not equal sales of drugs. I recently read that the most profitable business in the medical community is keeping people alive with cancer. What kind of world has this become when our established systems have evolved to the point where people are made to live longer while becoming sicker…only because it leads to higher profits? Respondents to this argument will focus on how drugs have been integral to the increasing longevity of human beings, but what is missing (and needed) is statistic for longevity while “living with vitality, independence and happiness”.

I know I am painting a somewhat negative picture of pharmaceuticals here, but these issues must be considered, and ultimately it is up to each one of us to take responsibility for our own health and not be so easily swayed by effective marketing tactics. Hope this helps!!

[zeloc]

Originally Posted by escapee

The Benefits of High Cholesterol

The information on people with high cholesterol living longer is interesting, and you cite a study by Harlan Krumholz at Yale on high cholesterol, but he has written a recent book (2005) and in it he not only claims that statins are "extremely effective" and "very safe," but also that people taking them "rarely experience" side effects at the recommended dosages. He cites several studies that have found that people on statins have a lowered risk of heart attacks by 40%, a lower risk of needing heart surgery by the same percentage, a lower risk of stroke, and a lower risk of death by up to 30%. So it would appear that even he does not agree with letting LDL cholesterol go unchecked.

I also cite the study you mentioned:

Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases With Statin Therapy: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Arch Intern Med. 2006 Nov 27;166(21):2307-13. Thavendiranathan P, Bagai A, Brookhart MA, Choudhry NK. Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.
While the role of hydroxymethyl glutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins) in secondary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) events and mortality is established, their value for primary prevention is less clear.

It is only the population without coronary artery disease who do not benefit. When you say someone with high LDL cholesterol does not need a statin, I would say that the vast majority of people with high LDL cholesterol have coronary artery disease, and so do need a statin.

Krumholz also mentions, very interestingly, a study that found a lower risk of heart attacks and stroke with patients on a statin with normal LDL cholesterol. Even if there is no benefit in life expectancy, do you really want a higher chance of getting a heart attack or a stroke if you are not on a statin?

I say relatively minor side effects of statins, not minor side effects. I agree that changing lifestyle is most important and should come before statins. But the people with problems with their muscles because of statins are exceedingly rare and if they have severe problems they can stop their statin.

For people who have no risk factors and high LDL cholesterol, the current guidelines are actually only to get LDL less than 160, so they would not need treatment for their high LDL, and I think this is what you are saying. Most people, though, are not in this category.

[escapee]

It has become increasingly clear to me that the absolute number of LDL or total cholesterol level is meaningless if you're taking responsibility of what you consume daily. I recommend that you read what Brian peskin has to say about LDL . http://www.brianpeskin.com/townsend-2007/NewLookLDL.pdf

By Pro Brian peskin

It is primarily the oxidized (altered) parent
omega-6 that clogs the arteries, NOT saturated fat! Renowned interventional cardiologist,
Dr. David Sim, makes a great analogy that anyone can understand:
“It’s like building a wall without having enough bricks. You use another material
and ‘fill the hole,’ but it doesn’t work correctly. The same thing happens when
cholesterol doesn’t have enough parent omega-6 to incorporate.”

In nature, with the consumption of organic, unprocessed EFAs rather than adulterated
oils and transfats, LDL cholesterol should be made up of significant amounts of
properly functioning “parent” omega-6, linoleic acid (LA), and as a result it will not
be harmful. Furthermore, it is the natural transporter of parent omega-6 and parent
omega-3 into the cells. That’s why it is not necessary to lower LDL cholesterol, nor is
the absolute LDL number as important, when the diet contains sufficient unadulterated
EFAs. Also note the body has no natural “cholesterol sensor” in the bloodstream. Unlike
sodium, calcium, and glucose levels, your body does not need to maintain a strict
cholesterol level. For example, glucose levels are maintained to an amazingly tight 0.1%
(just 1 teaspoon of sugar per every thousand teaspoons of blood) in each of us!

For vast majority of population with relatively high cholesterol, I would say what they need to do at the utmost urgency is to get informed by the right media with the right information and change their dietary approach and lifestyle ASAP. Statin, as with any drug, should be reserved for the purpose of trauma intervention or as a last resort ( as said early ).

The below study shows that Elevated lipid and lipoprotein levels were not associated with reduced coronary reactivity. It is what composed of the lipoprotein that matter the most. So after so much of discussion, what are you going to do when the doc says you have high cholesterol ? Still rush to the Statin eventhough you understand that a good diet naturally support healthy cholesterol level without side effects ?

IngentaConnect High oxidized LDL and elevated plasma homocysteine contribute to ...

Impairment of coronary blood flow reserve has been shown to be an early manifestation of atherosclerosis and coronary artery disease (CAD). We studied more closely the contribution of various risk factors on early deterioration of coronary function. Materials and methods

Fifty-one young, apparently healthy adults, with normal or mildly elevated serum cholesterol levels but without other major risk factors for CAD, such as diabetes or hypertension, underwent positron emission tomography (PET) studies. Coronary flow reserve (CFR) was measured using O15-water. In addition to the classical risk factors, the role of several new risk indicators, such as low-density lipoprotein (LDL) oxidation, infection (Chlamydia pneumoniae antibodies), and inflammation parameters (adhesion molecules, ICAM, VCAM, selectin, and C-reactive protein), homocysteine and body iron stores were investigated. Results

Elevated lipid and lipoprotein levels were not associated with reduced coronary reactivity. However, high autoantibody titers against oxidized LDL (oxLDL) were associated with 21% lower CFR than low oxLDL (P < 0·05). Furthermore, high homocysteine levels predicted low CFR (P < 0·05). The other measured parameters, Chlamydia pneumoniae antibody levels, C-reactive protein and adhesion molecule concentrations did not associate with myocardial blood flow. In a stepwise regression model, oxLDL (P = 0·03), homocysteine (P = 0·04) and triglycerides (P = 0·018) were significant predictors of CFR. Conclusions

The present study suggests an important role for oxidized LDL and plasma homocysteine on early impairment of coronary reactivity in young adults.

[escapee]

The muscle problem is just one of the many side effects of statin, addtional SE include but not limited to

Damage to the lining of your stomach, prolonged bleeding time, wheezing, breathlessness, ringing in the ears, hearing loss, chronic catarrh & runny nose, headache, confusion, nausea, vomiting, GI upset, GI bleeding, ulcers, rash, allergic reactions, hives, DEATH

Is 2 million people ( 2% of the total users) with one particular side effect rare ? Personally, I would not rate it as rare . To me the word "rare" is something like 0.0001 % or even lower.

Just how many people with statin side effects?

Just how rare are the people with statin side effects? When a doctor says it can't possibly be the Lipitor because a particular adverse reaction is so rare, what he is saying is he can't imagine that you are one of the 2 MILLION people who have developed that reaction. (a very poor imagination if you ask me)

2%, for example, would be TWO MILLION PEOPLE+

However, that is just for ONE listed ADVERSE EFFECT. My understanding is that the Adverse Effects percentages are each counted individually and expressed in percentages (the percentages, of course, come from studies, not the total population of patients).

From the Adverse Reactions section of the Physician’s Insert (PI) on Lipitor, an FDA-approved document, available at http://www.lipitor.com/pi/default.asp

“Adverse experiences reported in > or =2% of patients in placebo-controlled clinical studies of atorvastatin, regardless of causality assessment, are shown in Table 6.”

NOTE THAT IS EACH.

Among the more serious in italics, i.e., Adverse Effects that Pfizer declares each as affecting TWO MILLION OR MORE PEOPLE are:

Chest pain, rhinitis, dizziness, Arthritis, Peripheral edema. That represents a total of 10 MILLION people, if some do not suffer more than one adverse effect at a time.

What about the other serious Adverse Effects, that Pfizer admits affect just under 2MILLION People? They include:

Some nasty digestive system reactions, including: gastroenteritis, liver function tests abnormal, colitis, rectal hemorrhage, esophagitis, eructation, stomatitis, biliary pain, cheilitis, duodenal ulcer, dysphagia, enteritis, melena, gum hemorrhage, stomach ulcer, tenesmus, ulcerative stomatitis, hepatitis, pancreatitis, cholestatic jaundice.

Some serious nervous system reactions, including: paresthesia, amnesia, libido decreased, emotional lability, incoordination, peripheral neuropathy*, torticollis, facial paralysis, hyperkinesia, depression, hypesthesia, hypertonia.

*NOTE that, while Pfizer includes peripheral neuropathy as under 2% (or just under 2 million people), Dr. Gaist’s study found that POLYNEUROPATHY, more serious than peripheral neuropathy, occurred in Statin users 14.2 times the normal rate of occurrence. However, people on statins for 2 or more years leapt to 26.4 times the normal rate of occurrence.