Re: Cholesterol Levels Are Falling, But Red Flags Are Rising


MEM, MD wrote:
> On 12 Oct 2005 15:55:49 -0700, James216440@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> >While on the topic I have been waiting a long time for you to respond
> >with more then a wise ass comment about my statement re life expectancy
> >gains from statins Jim. You are usually a great deal more thoughtful
> >and interested in finding the truth then you seemed to be on this
> >topic. Ok, I will tell you where my 26 days of life expectancy came
> >from. It was from the 4S five year data plus reasonable extrapolation
> >based on Helsinki. In 4S people who were basically healthy, except
> >they had high TC and diagnosed coronary disease, were placed on a
> >statin. The five year data showed the treated population gained
> >roughly 26 days of life expectancy. It is hard to give an exact number
> >because the authors have not released the raw data so you have to do
> >some attempts at integrating the lumped data that they have released.
> >But probably anything from 20 days to 35 days would be a reasonable
> >conclusion to draw for life expectancy gains of the treated population
> >vs the untreated control for the total five years of the study.
> >
>
>
> Hi James,
> Just had to add my 2 cents about calculating a "mean life expectency
> gain" from a clinical trial of anything but perhaps terminal cancer:
> it is interesting and kind of sobering, but it's clinically
> meaningless.
>
> If 1 of every 400 babies died of a terrible disease at birth, should
> we bother finding a cure? If each baby could expect a life span of 80
> years, curing the disease would only add an "average" of 9 weeks of
> life to each person. Not a very impressive benefit when stated that
> way. Sure, it's an extreme example, but I think it makes my point.
>
> Something bothers me about the general theme of most of these
> discussion, or maybe simply confuses me: why the focused attacks on
> statins, and seemingly only statins? Yes, they make drug companies
> obscene amounts of money. Yes they can lead to life-altering side
> effects, and often health care providers refuse to accept these side
> effects. But at the least they have shown clear cut benefits to a
> wide range of patients. But what about coronary stenting? Way less
> survival benefit (only in very specific senarios), at least as much
> potential for harm, and making device companies obscene amounts of
> money. How about the Chickenpox vaccine? My kids were forced to get
> it to be allowed to start school, and yet not only is there no
> survival data to justify this practice, we have no idea how long the
> vaccine will last, potentially putting my kids at risk of getting
> chicken pox as adults (a very serious situation).
>
> Hopefully someone can answer this- perhaps statin dislikers are just
> simply more vocal.


" But at the least they have shown clear cut benefits to a
wide range of patients."

No. They don't. Whether they have benefit for women without
cardiovascular disease, women with cardiovascular disease, the elderly,
men without cardiovascular disease, is not proven. Topol and Ridker
lead the researchers (primarily working out of or for Cleveland Clinic)
who say they do; just as big names say no they don't.

That is what the pharma shill would have us believe. They have huge
pockets and buy massive amounts of media in various guises touting the
benefits of these drugs; but that is disputed by names just as big, not
owned by any pharma.

Statins have benefit for middle aged men with cardiovascular disease,
for a limited time; perhaps, as James says, following the MI, and in
far smaller doses than pharma is pushing. Doesn't it seem a bit odd
that everyone in the world has this substance, which their body
produces naturally, but apparently, they don't need it? Everyone has
too much. What a godsend to the shareholder.

Stents, angioplasty and bypasses are another hotly debated topic here
where there are many who've had one or all. If you want some really hot
debate, google Colin Rose M.D. cardiologist, (McGill) and Andrew Chung
cardiologist on that. Surgical interventions, cardio devices, their
efficacy and lack of, are definitely a topic of interest here.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cholesterol Levels Are Falling, But Red Flags Are Rising
    ... >>>gains from statins Jim. ... I will tell you where my 26 days of life expectancy came ... >> wide range of patients. ... If the cost is going to be $1,000,000 per ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: Statin reduction: Worthwhile approach?
    ... The difficulty is that the studies have shown that statins reduce heart ... Here is one for those with diabetes Type 2, where in only 3.9 years the rate ... of major cardiovascular events was reduced by a whopping 37%: ... Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with atorvastatin in type 2 ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: Cholesterol Levels Are Falling, But Red Flags Are Rising
    ... >>gains from statins Jim. ... I will tell you where my 26 days of life expectancy came ... > obscene amounts of money. ... It all depends on the cost of saving that one baby in 400 who will die ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: Cholesterol Levels Are Falling, But Red Flags Are Rising
    ... >>>gains from statins Jim. ... I will tell you where my 26 days of life expectancy came ... >> If 1 of every 400 babies died of a terrible disease at birth, ... >Statins are the most profitable drug ever. ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: Cholesterol Levels Are Falling, But Red Flags Are Rising
    ... >>gains from statins Jim. ... I will tell you where my 26 days of life expectancy came ... The five year data showed the treated population gained ... I have brought up stents a few times when new research comes out and I ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)