|
|
|
|
johnnydajogger
New Member
USA
3 Posts |
 Posted - 03/29/2006 : 11:00:13
|
|
The latest issue of Skeptic has some really interesting info about cholesterol. After reading it, I stopped taking the meds. I find the internet to be just about useless in terms of getting the real scoop on medications; the websites just parrot what the drug companies say. There doesnt seem to be any unbiased source of medical information. Does anyone know of any?
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2006 : 11:11:07 [Permalink]
|
| Can you summarize what the Skeptic article said? The last thing I heard on cholesterol drugs that I thought was reliable was a report on NPR news maybe a year or two ago where they were talking about studies of drugs like (I'm probably gonna spell this wrong:)lippitor. I remember they covered some shady marketing stuff, but the final say was that the drugs do help some, so the best thing for someone with high cholesterol to do is both take the drugs in moderation and start eating less and exercising more. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
Rubicon95
Skeptic Friend
USA
220 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2006 : 11:14:26 [Permalink]
|
Well if you go to drug company site, yep they will. Also the gov't lowers the acceptable choloesterol levels.
What meds did you take? How high was your cholesterol level?
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2006 : 14:57:16 [Permalink]
|
I don't have time to give you all a list of citations but this one has a summary of what those citations would show and with a little work, you could verify this by finding more recent research yourself. But let me make a few points here, and I may write a more in depth post later to send to Skeptical Inquirer.
First, McCormick and Skrabanek have some impressive publications. In fact when I looked at Peter Skrabanek; James McCormick; Follies and Fallacies of Medicine; third edition, 12/98, I thought I'd try to buy a copy.
But their work on CAD, (coronary artery disease), risk factors is 20 years old!!!!! Even in their 12/98 edition of the book I cited, the chapter on CAD relies on the 1988 investigations.
Second, it's nonsense to believe all medical research on CAD is either done by or controlled by pharmaceutical companies, and even worse, to believe those of us in the medical profession are either all drug company whores or too stupid to recognize conflict of interest issues in medical research.
So with that said, I take a statin. Side effects are managed by having a few blood tests every 6 months. Most people don't have side effects and if one does then you simply stop the drug. I expect the drug to not only decrease the chance I will have coronary artery disease (like Kil and JR) but also to have the same effect of decreasing the arterial plaques in the arteries in my brain. And those of you who know me should guess, I looked at lots of research on optimum lipid blood levels, outcome, risks and side effects of taking a statin before I started one. Also, I take the only generic statin currently on the market which costs 1/6th of the brand name versions. ($50/month covered by insurance with a $5 copay, vs $300/month for a brand name statin)
Side note: IIRC, one of the biggest/longest studies of CAD was the Framingham study. While heart disease killed fewer men in the intervention group, more homicides and suicides in the control group made the balance of deaths between the two groups equal. One might conclude that with better heart function you men get more violent.  Just kidding, but one has to consider that the cardiac deaths did decline even if overall deaths didn't. That has important implications for public health expenditures but not as important for the individual with heart disease risk that doesn't have an increased risk of suicide or being murdered. At least for women not at risk of an abusive relationship, the homicide/suicide risk which showed up in the male only studies may not be applicable.
So you can take my word for it that more recent research which I reviewed does indeed provide evidence blood lipid levels are a risk factor which can be lowered and which does lower one's risk of CAD, or you can look for more research yourself, or you can believe we haven't found out anything new in 20 years and are still clinging to past medical myths, evidence based medicine is just a saying not a real trend, or you can continue believing evil drug companies control all medical providers and the information that gets out about their bad drugs. (Note, I'm not denying drug company execs haven't done very unethical things just as execs in other businesses have.) |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2006 : 08:05:48 [Permalink]
|
I saw Marshall E. Deutsch, who wrote the Skeptic article, speak at TAM4 on his view that cholesterol is not a risk factor in heart disease. When his talk was opened to audience questions, a physician in the audience immediately challenged him on the spot. She was Harriet Hall, MD, who strongly objected to his being a speaker at TAM4.
I refer you to this, and This
There is no consensus among skeptics on the subject of statins.
I would strongly suggest talking to your own physician before taking yourself off the meds prescribed to you simply because some skeptics are not convinced of the efficacy. Remember, we are talking about risk factors, which is a complicated subject…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2006 : 12:24:26 [Permalink]
|
Thank you Kil for making my ethical obligation to fight bad medicine easier.
Dr Hall said, "Science has not established that trying to reduce cholesterol in the diet of the general population does much good. On the other hand, science has established beyond any reasonable doubt that lowering blood lipids can reduce heart attacks, especially in patients who already have cardiovascular disease, although the effect on mortality is not as clear-cut." which is what the research shows. Again, I wouldn't be taking a statin without having personally reviewed the research. And I'm certainly intelligent enough to not ignore the contradictory evidence, especially when it comes to a personal health decision.
Dr Hall also noted the similarities between this 'cause du jour' and the anti vaccine campaign. In both groups people only look at evidence that agrees with their preconceived convictions and they have an unrealistic view of the influence of the pharmaceutical companies. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 03/30/2006 12:27:33 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2006 : 15:21:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by johnnydajogger
The latest issue of Skeptic has some really interesting info about cholesterol. After reading it, I stopped taking the meds. I find the internet to be just about useless in terms of getting the real scoop on medications; the websites just parrot what the drug companies say. There doesnt seem to be any unbiased source of medical information. Does anyone know of any?
Which websites parrot what drug companies' say and how do you know? |
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
