Re: Statins: benefit confined to high risk
From: beachhouse (sendnomail_at_please.com)
Date: 10/05/04
- Next message: Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD: "Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01"
- Previous message: REM92804_at_aol.com: "NATURAL ANTI-CANCER REMEDIES"
- In reply to: George Conklin: "Re: Statins: benefit confined to high risk"
- Next in thread: Ruben Safir: "Re: Statins: benefit confined to high risk"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 17:06:53 -0400
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vix8d.3233$UP1.2592@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> It once again shows how political medical advice is. Science? As the
> article states, there are NO scientific studies to back widespread use of
> statins in most populations. And early studies also showed that for the
> elderly low cholesterol correlates with increased risk of cancer. Too
much
> medical care = bad life expectancy.
>
as usual, it's not as simple/black/white as the mass media would have you
believe.
as an example, "high risk" patients include those with diabetes or those who
have peripheral vascular disease -- claudication.
the public doesn't realize this. no drug is going to cure coronary artery
disease or prevent 100% of heart attacks -- there are obvious genetic,
dietary, and lifestyle factors. in the united states, our society (which is
multi-ethnic) in the midst of an epidemic of obesity with sedentary children
and an abundance of high fat, high calorie foods to choose from. Diet alone
will only lower cholesterol levels by about 10%. Statins prevent stroke and
have other beneficial antiinflammatory and plaque stabilizing properties
besides just "loweirng cholesterol." Your conclusion is ironically
incorrect -- it takes close medical follow-up to determine whether statin
therapy for any individual is a reasonable choice -- and then close
follow-up to make sure the risks don't begin to outweigh the benefits. for
physicians, the biggest controversy isn't whether statins are for "most
populations" (whatever *that* meaningless phrase means...) the controversy
is whether newer, more drastic target levels for lipid lowering *among the
highest risk patients for coronary events* (i.e., diabetics, those with
established histories of myocardial infarction or peripheral vascular
disease) are justifiable...
- Next message: Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD: "Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01"
- Previous message: REM92804_at_aol.com: "NATURAL ANTI-CANCER REMEDIES"
- In reply to: George Conklin: "Re: Statins: benefit confined to high risk"
- Next in thread: Ruben Safir: "Re: Statins: benefit confined to high risk"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|