Dangers Associated With Cholesterol Drugs

[ruffers]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > It's textbook stuff.

Indeed, and although I agree with you I hope you're wrong.

[????]

I'm gonna boo hiss along with Hugenot on this..........a highly suspicious and almost certainly commercially motivated thread whatever the sincerity of the OP's beliefs

[JustinSmith]

'Huguenot', 'ruffers' and '???'

Do you have any comments on the science that I have presented? the article I have attached, or the mp3 interview that I provided a link to? No, you merely seek to attempt to discredit and personally insult me. I hope that readers on this forum can see through your attempts to distract from the scientific facts that I am putting forward.

Even the most casual look at the research that I have put together will make it obvious that I have spent many years researching cholesterol, heart disease and statins. How can you possibly suggest that I am not interested in cholesterol?

Anyone who has attempted to write a book knows that it is extremely unlikely to generate profit, especially if the subject is of a technical nature.

You have made several wild, fictitious accusations about my character that are completely unsubstantiated. I am now very deeply concerned about your motives to continuously divert this discussion away from the science. What is it that you are afraid of? What do you not want people to learn about?

I have absolutely nothing to hide. People will be able to judge my sincerity for themselves when I do the seminar.

[????]

...to NO commercial benefit?

My beef is with your motivation not your science

[buggie]

Hmm, short on time so just tried to find research on one of Justin's specialties - found some research on hair analysis http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11150111 (sorry, need to cut and paste as can't hyperlink on apple :'()

Maybe before attacking big pharma's bad science you should check what you're peddling yourself Mr Smith. Surely practicing complimentary therapies makes you a complimentary practitioner rather than health practitioner which would suggest a more medical/nursing/physiological training.

[brum]

daizie Wrote:

>

> brum, legal's already said it .

I know its been done done before Daizie, but why do you think the government is involved in a cover-up to do with statins? I'm not sure if even the OP has blamed them. His gripe is with the pharmaceutical industry.

[lindylou]

Hi, totally agree with you. Mum was diagnosed with high cholesterol years ago. Was not givern statins but put on a low fat diet nontheless.. I was told i had high cholesterol. I have low blood pressure, a history of anorexia, no heart attacks in our family, yet I was told (at 6.5 stone) to go opn a low fat diet or else i would have to take pills for the rest of my life. Also i have osteoporosis, so a low fat diet is not good. I nsuspect the drug company is getting megga bugs. PS. ignored doctors advice, listened to 84 year old father (who is still working) and have since gained half a stone.

[daizie]

Sorry brum,I'd gone off on a tangent re MMR. The fact that single jabs aren't even an option is an abhorrent act of arrogance by the government. There is no logical, sane reason why parents shouldn't be allowed to opt for singles.. Another thread

[brum]

Lindylou - it saddens me to hear your story. Although I do place my trust with doctors in general, sometimes they do get it very wrong. Without wishing to presume too much, I suspect the bad advice came out of a lack of understanding of your condition rather than anything else. This was certainly my experience back in the 80's, when my first wife suffered from the same illness.

[JustinSmith]

'buggie',

Again, I'll not be diverted from my goal of bringing the facts about cholesterol and statins to the general public.

I am not saying that anyone should stop taking statins and use my techniques instead. Not at all!! I never mentioned these techniques and they would NOT feature in any seminar on cholesterol. They have only been mentioned by members of this forum who, for some reason known only to themselves, are making unsubstantiated accusations about me.

You are incorrect, since I am also a fully qualified Personal Trainer and Sports Massage Therapist, that makes me a Health Practitioner. I was based at the BBC for 4 years and I have worked with Olympic athletes.

But splitting hairs over a title is another desperate attempt to try and discredit me personally and again to prevent people from learning the facts about cholesterol.

Even if you believe that hair analysis is not scientifically based, there is a significant difference here. The use of statins is based upon a heavy marketing campaign. As I said earlier 10.000 pounds is spent each year (per doctor!) on the marketing of drugs directly to doctors.

At least 6 million people in the UK are currently taking statins. Most of these people do not have cardiovascular disease. Does it really make sense that so many people need these medications?

If hair analysis is not scientifically based, in the worst case scenario it will just be a waste of time. But toxic medications can and do kill people! And lowering cholesterol levels reduces life expectancy! Hair analysis is simply not in the same 'ball game'.

[brum]

daizie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry brum, gone off on a tangent re MMR. The fact

> that single jabs aren't even an option is an

> abhorrent act of arrogance by the government.

> There is no logical, sane reason why parents

> shouldn't be allowed to opt for singles.. Another

> thread

Not really daizie - I referred to the MMR vaccine debacle simply as an example to show how 'headline' statistics can seriously mislead people and that the advice of my GP turned out to be correct. I agree that the discussion over the rights and wrongs of MMR should be on another thread.

[brum]

Justin - I can see your point more clearly now, and forgive me for being slow. However your title for this thread is quite misleading. Dangers Associated With... suggests something very sinister could happen to the many people prescribed these drugs by their doctor. Alarmist headline, IMO. In reality, there clearly is a risk of side-effects, however this could be said for many drugs we are prescribed. Your gripe is really with the pharmaceutical industry and I do agree with you that it doesn't make sense to precribe a drug which has little beneficial effect, however this is different to saying they're dangerous.

If you are really concerned with preventing unnecessary loss of life, I suggest your next campaign should be 'Dangers Associated with Speeding'. Speeding motorists are responsible for far more deaths and serious injury to innocent people than any cholesterol drug.

[Ladymuck]

brum Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you are really concerned with preventing

> unnecessary loss of life, I suggest your next

> campaign should be 'Dangers Associated with

> Speeding'. Speeding motorists are responsible for

> far more deaths and serious injury to innocent

> people than any cholesterol drug.

Brum! Unusually for you, that's a little antagonistic! If his interest lay with speeding motorists, then I'm sure he would have started a thread on such...but his interest at present is with statins etc.

[JustinSmith]

Hi brum,

Thank you for your comment ? i do appreciate it!

Although, I do actually mean ?dangerous?. Based on the research that I have done, I sincerely believe that people are exposing themselves to unnecessary risks. Statin drugs are dangerous for some people and I know of many people who's lives have literally been ruined by statins!

This is what I aim to bring to peoples' attention.

It is questionable if statins have any net benefit. And we as tax payers are paying hundreds of millions of pounds each year for these drugs. Not to mention the costs associated with testing cholesterol and GP visits etc.

[brum]

LM - I was not expecting JustinSmith to actually take up my suggestion....and I don't think I was being antagonistic, I was making a serious point about the title of the thread and the perception that we are faced with a really dangerous drug here. Everything is relative. Perception of risk is a topic in itself, but I know that whilst people gets seriously moved to campaign against a drug which is potentially dangerous(and I have nothing against them doing so), the very real and present danger of speeding vehicles on our roads is greeted with almost total apathy!

Justin - I do not doubt your sincerity, but the thrust of your campaign seems really more about countering the pharmaceutical industry's research and facts, rather than the dangers of statins themselves. Your book title reflects this point, though your thread title doesn't.

[lindylou]

thank you brum. Sory to hear that somone else has had my condition.

[BellendenBear]

Justin, you are right to highlight the attempts of the pharmaceutical industry to influence the medical profession. They are a profit-making industry, and they spend massive amounts of money trying to influence usually inexperienced doctors and nurses in their prescribing habits.

However, you totally disregard the fact that experienced clinicians will be well trained in the critical appraisal of evidence. They will be well aware of how to interpret clinical research and the validity of various ways of presenting data, as you so patronisingly point out to my learned colleague JollyBaby. Furthermore, many clinicians will actively disassociate themselves from the pharmaceutical industry (see the group 'No Free Lunch'). My own practice has a policy of not allowing visits from Pharmaceutical representatives.

It is (or should be) standard practice for GPs to interpret all lipid results in the context of overall cardiovascular risk and to encourage lifestyle changes, particularly smoking cessation and exercise, before medication is initiated for primary prevention. This is in accordance with NICE guidance and Joint British Societies recommendations neither of which are sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. And we all know that NICE aren't in the habit of promoting expensive treatments.

Your notion that we should be suspicious of Big Pharma but listen to someone who is trying to plug a book is laughable.

['bout now]

Justin, I have read your blog with interest and I have questions on your research

1.You wrote

The reporting of relative percentages is a very common trick used by drug companies to exaggerate any slight benefits associated with their products. In reality, 2.8 percent of people in the placebo group suffered cardiovascular events compared with 1.6 percent in the statin group. So the risk for cardiovascular events was reduced by 1.2 percent, and not 44 percent!

I am no mathmetician, but as I see it and to use simple figures lets say group A (placebo) is 280 cases and b. is 160 cases. They are two totally different groups and if the reduction in CV events was 1.2 % then the total cases in group b. would be 276.64 would it not. Apologies if I have got this wrong.

2. You also state further in that raised cholesterol can be affected by several other factors (position, stress, smoking etc.) then instantly recommend visiting an holistic or Naturopath practitioner, which is what you are, isn't it.

I may be wrong on the statistics but you seem to me to pick holes in established science whilst offering no facts to back up the treatments you offer.

Sure your treatments may, after research, prove to be harmless but they won't be without effect on peoples wallets and good nature.

[JustinSmith]

BellendenBear,

I am already well aware of the organisation called ?No free Lunch?. I wish more GPs would adopt the principles this organisation stands for! And I aplaud you for not accepting visits from pharmaceutical representatives. I value your comments and contribution to this discussion.

No where have I said that all doctors are bad. I work with several medical doctors myself.

However, there are some isssues that I would like to raise with you.

Do you not agree that too much ephasis is currently placed on risk factors for disease rather than the disease itself?

One obvious example relates to the introduction of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). A significant proportion of the performance indicators in QOF are related to risk factors - cholesterol being one of them. This creates a strong financial incentive for doctors to lower the cholesterol levels of certain patients.

Most people are not aware that doctors get paid more money from the NHS if they lower the cholesterol levels of certain patients.

Some doctors have highlighted the potential problems associated with performance measures being based solely on risk factors for disease and there are a number of examples where focus on the suggested risk factor has actually caused more harm.

Take for instance the ILLUMINATE trial, which found that the drug torcetrapib was associated with a 40% increase in deaths from cardiovascular causes despite reducing ?bad? cholesterol by 25% and increasing ?good? cholesterol by 72%.

We are now in a situation where drugs are approved based solely on their ability to reduce a supposed risk factor, even if there is no evidence that this reduction in the risk factor actually saved any lives.

As you know, recommendations issued by NICE are based on an assessment of the benefits, risks, and financial costs associated with a drug.

When NICE did this assessment for statins, the costs associated with drug adverse effects were not included in the calculation. More worryingly, the calculation has been done on the basis of cardiovascular benefits alone, without addressing the issue of deaths from all causes (NICE Technology Appraisal 94).

When judging the effectiveness of a drug, would you not say that it is important to look at deaths from all causes? My personal view is that there is not much point in taking an expensive medication if the risk for one disease is reduced at the cost of increasing the risk for another disease within the same time period.

For example, in the Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study (AFCAPS), the statin reduced the number of cardiovascular related deaths but increased deaths from other causes to the extent that overall, there was no statistical difference in all cause mortality. This is by no means an isolated example.

As you will be well aware, but others may not, most people who are prescribed statins are being given the drugs for primary prevention (for the benefit of other readers in this forum, this means that they are asymptomatic, do not have any signs of cardiovascular disease, but are taking the drugs in the hope of preventing future disease).

Perhaps not surprisingly, clinical trials where statins have been used to 'treat' people who do not yet have cardiovascular disease, have been disappointing ? they have often struggled to show any benefit in terms of deaths from all causes. Along with AFCAPS, the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial (ASCOT) and the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS) failed to show any significant reduction in deaths from all causes.

For several years, patients continued to be prescribed statins for primary prevention despite continuing concerns over the data for all cause mortality.

The West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study (WOSCOPS) has been described as a ?watershed? trial - being the first primary prevention trial to show a reduction in deaths from all causes. The actual risk reduction in all cause mortality was less than one percent. In order to prevent one death, around 110 patients would have to be treated for five years.

This issue concerning deaths from all causes provides the background for any risk / benefit / cost assessment of statins. But as stated above, it was not the basis used by NICE. The relevant document (NICE Technology Appraisal 94) is available from the NICE website.

Yes, NICE recommends the use of statins on the proviso that patients are informed about the risks as well as the benefits; it could be argued that it makes sense for NICE to focus on the cardiovascular benefits and leave it up to doctors to explain the risks to patients. However, this approach leaves plenty of scope for the perceived risk / benefit balance to be influenced by an over-enthusiastic pharmaceutical industry.

Yes, officially doctors are supposed to address lifestyle issues before prescribing statins but if this was really taking place would we have more than 6 million people in the UK taking statins? And do doctors spend enough time with patients to address lifestyle issues? The last time I checked average GP consultation times in the UK were around 8 minutes.

Justin Smith

[HAL9000]

Justin - thanks for posting your research on statins. After decades of being told that my cholesterol levels were normal my GP suddenly decided that I should be taking statins - just in case. I did my own research and concluded that the benefits did not justify the risks and that the clinical trials were too short to have properly quantified the long-term risks.

I'm neither a lawyer nor a doctor but have worked with wrongfully convicted prisoners from the mid-80s till the early noughties. During that period I became increasingly alarmed at the co-ordinated dishonesty of the legal, medical and pharmaceutical professions when dealing with iatrogenic crimes: crimes committed by people while under the influence of psychotropic prescription medications such as benzodiazepines, Ativan and Halcion, MAOIs, SSRIs and many others that have unintended psychotropic side-effects, and also deaths caused by adverse drug reactions or misprescription or accidental overdose, which are now running at epidemic proportions throughout the western world (see Google: prescription drug deaths).

Big Pharma, aided and abetted by doctors, lawyers and the Committee on Safety of Medicines (or its current equivalent) is ruthless and entirely unprincipled when it comes to covering up defective drugs, fraudulent or unfavourable clinical trials or adverse reaction reports and will go to any lengths to avoid responsibility, in my experience.

Anyone who highlights the risks and dangers inherent in modern medicines is to be applauded, in my view.

[BellendenBear]

JustinSmith Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Most people are not aware that doctors get paid

> more money from the NHS if they lower the

> cholesterol levels of certain patients.

Another totally misleading comment. Practice income is affected by QOF scores among many other factors that do not receive the same amount of media hype, but the salary of the individual doctor is not necessarily influenced by this.

As for GPs only having short consultations, I fail to see the relevance of this. An awful lot is often achieved during those minutes and usually over several consultations. Lifestyle advice is also given by other professionals particularly Practice Nurses who have more time to spend with each patient. There is also access to dieticians, exercise on prescription and many other community-based support and education programs.

There is a popular misconception among alternative and complimentary practitioners that doctors, under the influence of the pharmaceutical industry, spend their time trying to push harmful drugs onto the unwilling. The reality is quite the opposite. A great deal of time is spent trying to convince people that they do not need medication. Stopping smoking will have a far greater influence on cholesterol levels and overall cardiovascular risk than any statin will, but many people would much rather take a pill than make the effort modify their own risk factors.

[????]

Of course people should bev allowed to highlight these issues but they should be clear about their commercial interest in this themselves and I'd argue that Justin has not...at all. And, threads by individuals aimed at personal commercial gain, however heartfelt their opinions, shouldn't be in the Lounge or Drawing room.

[Ladymuck]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

but they should be clear about their

> commercial interest in this themselves and I'd

> argue that Justin has not...at all.

But to be fair, JustinSmith did declare at the outset: "I am the author of the book $29 Billion Reasons to Lie About Cholesterol"...doesn't that count?

[HAL9000]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ... they should be clear about their

> commercial interest in this themselves and I'd

> argue that Justin has not...at all.

I think Justin has been sufficiently open about himself and his alternative views to have allowed readers to form their own opinions in that respect.

> And, threads by individuals aimed at personal commercial gain,

> however heartfelt their opinions, shouldn't be in

> the Lounge or Drawing room.

Fair point - but since it is here, we might as well make the most of it.

[????]

This was his first post, he'd just registered, he's trying to organise a seminar...my cynical nature suggests that even if this is done at cost they'll be some sales pressure re his practice/book, etc....if he comes out and quite categorically says that will not be the case I'll leave him alone...he hasn't yet.

A reasonably practiced 'longtail' approach to selling anything (books included)on the internet is to have a standardish intro that is C&Pd into numerous forums with a link to your own website, don't need that many people to buy...the really cynical bit of me is even a bit suspicious that Justin's lives here , although he has posted on another thread so I'm just about giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Come on - he should be crystal clear. And the Forum has clear sections for commercial offers.