http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=580&e=8&u=/nm/20040308/bs_nm/health_heart_cholesterol_dc BOSTON (Reuters) - Using higher doses of drugs that reduce cholesterol reduces the risk of heart attack, bypass surgery and chest pains more than gentler doses, U.S. researchers reported on Monday. The finding could put new pressure on doctors to use more aggressive -- and more expensive -- doses of statin drugs to reduce cholesterol levels in people with heart disease. The finding "is a major surprise," said statin expert Dr. Eric Topol of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. The New England Journal of Medicine (news - web sites) published the study early to coincide with a major heart meeting in New Orleans. Abstract: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/NEJMoa040583 The study itself: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/NEJMoa040583v1.pdf L.
Here is the press release... (not that I agree with it, however) Aggressive Statin Therapy Boosts Heart-Attack Survival Associated Press NEW ORLEANS -- Lowering heart-attack victims' cholesterol to levels dramatically below current standards appears to be an important strategy for saving lives and preventing new heart problems, a major new study shows. Drugs called statins are already standard medicine for people recovering from heart attacks. But the study suggests newer, more potent varieties work best for these high-risk patients. The latest work reinforces the conclusion of another head-to- head comparison of statin drugs released last November. In that study, doctors found the more intensive treatment resulted in less artery clogging. The new report is considered even more persuasive because it looks for differences in the risk of death and other clearly measurable misfortunes of heart patients. Both studies compared 40 milligrams daily of Pravachol to 80 milligrams of Lipitor, the highest approved doses of both drugs when the research started. Pravachol is an older statin made by Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., while the newer and more potent Lipitor is made by Pfizer Inc. Last fall's study was financed by Pfizer, and this one was paid for by Bristol- Myers. Lipitor came out on top in both comparisons. "The message for these people going home from the hospital is they should be on a high-intensity regimen," said Dr. Christopher Cannon of Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital. "For everyone else, treating cholesterol and getting it down is very important." The much-anticipated study helps answer one of the most discussed questions in cardiology: How low should cholesterol go? For those getting over recent heart attacks, at least, the answer appears to be very low indeed. Those who did best in this study saw their levels of LDL, the bad cholesterol, plunge in half to an average of just 62. The goal in current federal guidelines is to get LDL below 100. The study was to be presented Monday in New Orleans at the annual scientific meeting of the American College of Cardiology. It also will be published in Thursday's issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. In Dr. Cannon's study, 4,162 patients with new heart attacks or severe chest pain were randomly assigned to take one of the two drugs. After two years of follow up, 26% of those who got the weaker Pravachol had died or experienced a variety of other complications, including new heart attacks, bypass surgery, rehospitalization for chest pain or strokes. The same happened to 22% of those who were on Lipitor. LDL levels of those taking Pravachol fell to 95, which is considered successful treatment under the government guidelines drawn up several years ago. Dr. Thomas Pearson, head of preventive medicine at the University of Rochester, helped write those guidelines. "The goal of less than 100 was an approximation using some very early data," he said. "It was the best guess at that moment. It may need some improvement. Now we are getting the science, and that's really exciting." In a journal editorial, Dr. Eric Topol of the Cleveland Clinic called the latest finding "a major surprise," in part because the superiority of the stronger statin became obvious within a month of the start of treatment. Ds. Topol said 36 million Americans should be on statins, although only a third of that many actually are. Nevertheless, statins are the biggest selling category of prescription drugs at $12.5 billion in the U.S. each year. Other studies in the works should help settle whether people with less serious heart disease benefit from the more aggressive cholesterol-lowering regimen possible with the newer statins. The more powerful drugs carry a slightly higher risk of side effects and are more expensive. Dr. Topol noted that the dose of Pravachol used in the study costs about $900 a year, while the dose of Lipitor costs $1,400. Dt. Andrew Bodnar, head of medical affairs at Bristol-Myers Squibb, said that, until more studies are done, "doctors should reserve judgment about the general coronary disease population." He noted abnormal liver enzymes were more common in patients on Lipitor in the latest study and said Pravachol "has an unsurpassed safety record." -- Winning against heart attack and stroke http://www.sonoscore.com
<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=580&e=8&u=/- nm/20040308/bs_nm/health_heart_cholesterol_dc > > > BOSTON (Reuters) - Using higher doses of drugs that reduce > cholesterol reduces the risk of heart attack, bypass > surgery and chest pains more than gentler doses, U.S. > researchers reported on Monday. > > The finding could put new pressure on doctors to use more > aggressive -- and more expensive -- doses of statin drugs > to reduce cholesterol levels in people with heart disease. > > The finding "is a major surprise," said statin expert Dr. > Eric Topol of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. The New > England Journal of Medicine (news - web sites) published > the study early to coincide with a major heart meeting in > New Orleans. > > > Abstract: > http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/NEJMoa040583 > > > The study itself: > http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/NEJMoa040583v1.pdf > > > L. The following is from the article: "Methods We enrolled 4162 patients who had been hospitalized for an acute coronary syndrome within the preceding 10 days and compared 40 mg of pravastatin daily (standard therapy) with 80 mg of atorvastatin daily (intensive therapy). " Does anybody understand why they choose to compare pravastatin to atorvastatin (Lipitor)? Why not Lipitor to itself? They concluded that since the 80 mg of Lipitor lowered LDL much more and the patient outcomes were superior, that we should perhaps be looking toward more agressive lowering of LDL. Why could this not simply be due to some other difference between the two drugs? Bill
"Sonos" <[email protected]> wrote in part: >Here is the press release... (not that I agree with >it, however) > >Aggressive Statin Therapy Boosts Heart-Attack Survival What (main) aspects do you disagree with? -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 21:57:26 GMT, "Sonos" <[email protected]> wrote: >Here is the press release... (not that I agree with >it, however) > >Aggressive Statin Therapy Boosts Heart-Attack Survival > >Associated Press > > >NEW ORLEANS -- Lowering heart-attack victims' cholesterol >to levels dramatically below current standards appears to >be an important strategy for saving lives and preventing >new heart problems, a major new study shows. > >Drugs called statins are already standard medicine for >people recovering from heart attacks. But the study >suggests newer, more potent varieties work best for these >high-risk patients. > >The latest work reinforces the conclusion of another head-to- >head comparison of statin drugs released last November. In >that study, doctors found the more intensive treatment >resulted in less artery clogging. The new report is >considered even more persuasive because it looks for >differences in the risk of death and other clearly >measurable misfortunes of heart patients. > >Both studies compared 40 milligrams daily of Pravachol to >80 milligrams of Lipitor, the highest approved doses of >both drugs when the research started. Pravachol is an older >statin made by Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., while the newer >and more potent Lipitor is made by Pfizer Inc. Last fall's >study was financed by Pfizer, and this one was paid for by >Bristol-Myers. Lipitor came out on top in both comparisons. > >"The message for these people going home from the hospital >is they should be on a high-intensity regimen," said Dr. >Christopher Cannon of Boston's Brigham and Women's >Hospital. "For everyone else, treating cholesterol and >getting it down is very important." > >The much-anticipated study helps answer one of the >most discussed questions in cardiology: How low >should cholesterol go? For those getting over recent >heart attacks, at least, the answer appears to be >very low indeed. > >Those who did best in this study saw their levels of LDL, >the bad cholesterol, plunge in half to an average of just >62. The goal in current federal guidelines is to get LDL >below 100. > >The study was to be presented Monday in New Orleans at the >annual scientific meeting of the American College of >Cardiology. It also will be published in Thursday's issue >of the New England Journal of Medicine. > >In Dr. Cannon's study, 4,162 patients with new heart >attacks or severe chest pain were randomly assigned to >take one of the two drugs. After two years of follow up, >26% of those who got the weaker Pravachol had died or >experienced a variety of other complications, including >new heart attacks, bypass surgery, rehospitalization for >chest pain or strokes. The same happened to 22% of those >who were on Lipitor. > >LDL levels of those taking Pravachol fell to 95, which is >considered successful treatment under the government >guidelines drawn up several years ago. > >Dr. Thomas Pearson, head of preventive medicine at the > University of Rochester, helped write those guidelines. > "The goal of less than 100 was an approximation using > some very early data," he said. "It was the best guess > at that moment. It may need some improvement. Now we > are getting the science, and that's really exciting." > >In a journal editorial, Dr. Eric Topol of the Cleveland >Clinic called the latest finding "a major surprise," in >part because the superiority of the stronger statin became >obvious within a month of the start of treatment. > >Dr. Topol said 36 million Americans should be on statins, > although only a third of that many actually are. > Nevertheless, statins are the biggest selling category > of prescription drugs at $12.5 billion in the U.S. each > year. > >Other studies in the works should help settle whether >people with less serious heart disease benefit from the >more aggressive cholesterol-lowering regimen possible with >the newer statins. The more powerful drugs carry a >slightly higher risk of side effects and are more >expensive. Dr. Topol noted that the dose of Pravachol used >in the study costs about $900 a year, while the dose of >Lipitor costs $1,400. > >Dr. Andrew Bodnar, head of medical affairs at Bristol-Myers > Squibb, said that, until more studies are done, > "doctors should reserve judgment about the general > coronary disease population." He noted abnormal liver > enzymes were more common in patients on Lipitor in the > latest study and said Pravachol "has an unsurpassed > safety record." In the Yahoo link I supplied there is the statement: "Worldwide, 25 million people get the drugs, known as statins..." Yet in another earlier thread, Sharon Hope said: "Fortune Magazine a year ago put the total number of statin patients at that time at 106 million." Hmmm.....remarkable difference. L.
news:[email protected]... > > <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=580&e=8&u=/- nm/20040308/bs_nm/health_heart_cholesterol_dc > > > > > > BOSTON (Reuters) - Using higher doses of drugs that > > reduce cholesterol reduces the risk of heart attack, > > bypass surgery and chest pains more than gentler doses, > > U.S. researchers reported on Monday. > > > > The finding could put new pressure on doctors to use > > more aggressive -- and more expensive -- doses of statin > > drugs to reduce cholesterol levels in people with heart > > disease. > > > > The finding "is a major surprise," said statin expert > > Dr. Eric Topol of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. The > > New England Journal of Medicine (news - web sites) > > published the study early to coincide with a major heart > > meeting in New Orleans. > > > > > > Abstract: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/- > > NEJMoa040583 > > > > > > The study itself: > > http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/NEJMoa040583v1.pdf > > > > > > L. > > The following is from the article: > > "Methods We enrolled 4162 patients who had been > hospitalized for an acute coronary syndrome within the > preceding 10 days and compared 40 mg of pravastatin daily > (standard therapy) with 80 mg of atorvastatin daily > (intensive therapy). " > > Does anybody understand why they choose to compare > pravastatin to atorvastatin > (Lipitor)? Why not Lipitor to itself? They concluded that > since the 80 mg of Lipitor lowered LDL much more and the > patient outcomes were superior, that we > should perhaps be looking toward more agressive lowering > of LDL. Why could this not simply be due to some other > difference between the two drugs? > > Bill > > Replying to my own post, I think I understand why this study was done - the maker of pravastatin (Bristol-Myers Squibb) sponsored the study, hoped the outcome would be different, and had an agreement with the authors that the results would be published no matter what. However, still the question remains how do we know the difference is due to lower LDL as opposed to Lipitor being better in some other way. In fact, could the sponsorship have affected the "spin" that was put on the outcome? Bill
On 8-Mar-2004, Jim Chinnis <[email protected]> wrote: > What (main) aspects do you disagree with? I want to address this issue in depth later, but would like to do some footwork first. Give me some time to sort out the funding, and the disclaimers of the investigators. I know this gives you a hint as to the orientation of my argument, but don't worry, I'll try my best to stay in both camps. I've got a full schedule, so this may take some time... stay tuned. -- Winning against heart attack and stroke http://www.sonoscore.com
On 8-Mar-2004, [email protected] wrote: > In the Yahoo link I supplied there is the statement: > > "Worldwide, 25 million people get the drugs, known as > statins..." > > Yet in another earlier thread, Sharon Hope said: > > "Fortune Magazine a year ago put the total number of > statin patients at that time at 106 million." > > Hmmm.....remarkable difference. yes, a significant difference, and an important one at that. who is correct? -- Winning against heart attack and stroke http://www.sonoscore.com
Bill wrote: > <snip> > > The following is from the article: > > > > "Methods We enrolled 4162 patients who had been > > hospitalized for an acute coronary syndrome within the > > preceding 10 days and compared 40 mg of pravastatin > > daily (standard therapy) with 80 mg of atorvastatin > > daily (intensive therapy). " > > > > Does anybody understand why they choose to compare > > pravastatin to > atorvastatin > > (Lipitor)? Why not Lipitor to itself? They concluded > > that since the 80 mg of Lipitor lowered LDL much more > > and the patient outcomes were superior, that > we > > should perhaps be looking toward more agressive lowering > > of LDL. Why could this not simply be due to some other > > difference between the two drugs? > > > > Bill > > > > > > Replying to my own post, I think I understand why this > study was done - the maker of pravastatin (Bristol-Myers > Squibb) sponsored the study, hoped the outcome would be > different, and had an agreement with the authors that the > results would be published no matter what. And, it is clear that Bristol-Myers Squibb honored that agreement. So much for pharma being an evil empire > However, still the question remains how do we know the > difference is due to lower LDL as opposed to Lipitor being > better in some other way. By doing this experiment: All groups are treated to the same LDL level. The only difference is the statin/medication/treatment used. Here would be the groups: (1) Lipitor 10-20 mg (2) Pravastatin 40 mg (3) Zocor 40 mg (4) Niacin +/- Zetia (5) Cholestyramine +/- Zetia (6) "alternatives" (7) Intensive lifestyle changes (including achieving ideal body weight with a BMI of 20 . Now, pray to God, in Christ's name, that someone will come up with the money to fund such a study and allow publication of the results regardless of the outcomes. For I sense that without Him, this will never happen. > In fact, could the sponsorship have affected the "spin" > that was put on the outcome? > Yes. But I do not discern that it did, Bill Servant to the humblest person in the universe, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ ** Who is the humblest person in the universe? http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557 What is all this about? http://makeashorterlink.com/?J2DB148A7 Is this spam? http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
>Replying to my own post, I think I understand why this >study was done - the maker of pravastatin (Bristol-Myers >Squibb) sponsored the study, hoped the outcome would be >different, and had an agreement with the authors that the >results would be published no matter what. That alone will give the CAUSers reason to dismiss the study out of hand, and the doctors involved as "pharma-whores". The director of the study, btw, was Dr. Christoher Cannon. I found this information about him: Dr. Christopher P. Cannon is an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and a member of the Cardiovascular Division at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. He earned his medical degree from Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York and, after completing his residency in internal medicine there, was a cardiovascular fellow in medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. In addition to being a frequent lecturer, Dr. Cannon has published more than 300 original articles, reviews, editorials, book chapters and electronic publications in his areas of expertise. His research is published in numerous journals including Circulation, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, American Journal of Cardiology, American Heart Journal, Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine. Ds. Cannon has received numerous awards including the Alfred Steiner Research Award, Upjohn Achievement in Research Award, and Robert F. Loeb Award for Excellence in Clinical Medicine. He is a member of a number of professional organizations and committees and serves as Chairman of the Acute Cardiac Care Committee of the Council of Clinical Cardiology of the American Heart Association and a fellow of the American College of Cardiology and the American College of Chest Physicians. He is a principal investigator of several ongoing trials, including PROVE IT – TIMI 22 and CLARITY-TIMI 28, conducted by the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Group. E.
"Sonos" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > On 8-Mar-2004, [email protected] wrote: > > > In the Yahoo link I supplied there is the statement: > > > > "Worldwide, 25 million people get the drugs, known as > > statins..." > > > > Yet in another earlier thread, Sharon Hope said: > > > > "Fortune Magazine a year ago put the total number of > > statin patients at that time at 106 million." > > > > Hmmm.....remarkable difference. > > yes, a significant difference, and an important one at > that. who is correct? > > -- > Winning against heart attack and stroke > http://www.sonoscore.com For what it is worth, on ABC tonight they said 11 million people in the US get statins. This, to me, makes the 25 million more likely. Bill
> Here would be the groups: > > (1) Lipitor 10-20 mg > (2) Pravastatin 40 mg > (3) Zocor 40 mg > (4) Niacin +/- Zetia > (5) Cholestyramine +/- Zetia > (6) "alternatives" > (7) Intensive lifestyle changes (including achieving ideal > body weight with a BMI of 20 . > > Now, pray to God, in Christ's name, that someone will come > up with the money to fund such a study and allow > publication of the results regardless of the outcomes. > For I sense that without Him, this will never happen. For the first time I like your "christianized" post Mirek
Mirek Fidler wrote: > > Here would be the groups: > > > > (1) Lipitor 10-20 mg > > (2) Pravastatin 40 mg > > (3) Zocor 40 mg > > (4) Niacin +/- Zetia > > (5) Cholestyramine +/- Zetia > > (6) "alternatives" > > (7) Intensive lifestyle changes (including achieving > > ideal body weight > with a BMI of 20 . > > > > Now, pray to God, in Christ's name, that someone will > > come up with the > money to fund such a study and allow > > publication of the results regardless of the outcomes. > > For I sense > that without Him, this will never happen. > > For the first time I like your "christianized" post > > Mirek May all praises belong to God, now and forever, in Christ's name Servant to the humblest person in the universe, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ ** Who is the humblest person in the universe? http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557 What is all this about? http://makeashorterlink.com/?J2DB148A7 Is this spam? http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
I do not want to start another flame war against Dr. Chung. In fact this thread is one of the more interesting and non- spam/flaming threads in a long time. HOWEVER Why Dr. Chung do you make an intelligent observation about what a good study would be, including interesting details in response to some earlier questions, and then ruin it with all of this religious garbage? If I wanted to be proselytized there are plenty of places I could go to get my fix, why does it have to be here? You abuse your medical knowledge in the name of your God and I personally find it offensive.
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Bill wrote: > > > <snip> > > > The following is from the article: > > > > > > "Methods We enrolled 4162 patients who had been > > > hospitalized for an acute > > > coronary syndrome within the preceding 10 days and > > > compared 40 mg of pravastatin daily (standard > > > therapy) with 80 mg of atorvastatin daily (intensive > > > therapy). " > > > > > > Does anybody understand why they choose to compare > > > pravastatin to > > atorvastatin > > > (Lipitor)? Why not Lipitor to itself? They concluded > > > that since the 80 mg of > > > Lipitor lowered LDL much more and the patient outcomes > > > were superior, that > > we > > > should perhaps be looking toward more agressive > > > lowering of LDL. Why could > > > this not simply be due to some other difference > > > between the two drugs? > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > Replying to my own post, I think I understand why this > > study was done - the > > maker of pravastatin (Bristol-Myers Squibb) sponsored > > the study, hoped the outcome would be different, and had > > an agreement with the authors that the results would be > > published no matter what. > > And, it is clear that Bristol-Myers Squibb honored that > agreement. > > So much for pharma being an evil empire > > > However, still the question remains how do we know the > > difference is due to lower LDL as opposed to Lipitor being > > better in some other way. > > By doing this experiment: > > All groups are treated to the same LDL level. > > The only difference is the > statin/medication/treatment used. > > Here would be the groups: > > (1) Lipitor 10-20 mg > (2) Pravastatin 40 mg > (3) Zocor 40 mg > (4) Niacin +/- Zetia > (5) Cholestyramine +/- Zetia > (6) "alternatives" > (7) Intensive lifestyle changes (including achieving ideal > body weight with a BMI of 20 . > > Now, pray to God, in Christ's name, that someone will come > up with the money to fund such a study and allow > publication of the results regardless of the outcomes. For > I sense that without Him, this will never happen. > > I suspect you are right. The govt. should fund such a study. Not "only" will it benefit its citizens, but it would lower health care costs by showing the right approach. Maybe a Bill Gates type person will come along to fund it. Bill - but not Gates > > > In fact, could the sponsorship have affected the "spin" > > that was put on the outcome? > > > > Yes. But I do not discern that it did, Bill > > > Servant to the humblest person in the universe, > > Andrew > > -- > Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist > http://www.heartmdphd.com/ > > ** Who is the humblest person in the universe? > http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557 > > What is all this about? > http://makeashorterlink.com/?J2DB148A7 > > Is this spam? http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 20:27:33 GMT, George <[email protected]> wrote: >I do not want to start another flame war against Dr. Chung. >In fact this thread is one of the more interesting and non- >spam/flaming threads in a long time. > >HOWEVER > >Why Dr. Chung do you make an intelligent observation about >what a good study would be, including interesting details >in response to some earlier questions, and then ruin it >with all of this religious garbage? > >If I wanted to be proselytized there are plenty of places I >could go to get my fix, why does it have to be here? You >abuse your medical knowledge in the name of your God and I >personally find it offensive. George, I understand. I've been there too. I've learned to ignore it. You can too. Please try. Your post will only goad Dr. Chung on and then others will join in or come to his defense and POOF! there goes the thread. Thanks for understanding. L.
George wrote: > I do not want to start another flame war against Dr. > Chung. In fact this thread is one of the more interesting > and non-spam/flaming threads in a long time. > > HOWEVER > > Why Dr. Chung do you make an intelligent observation about > what a good study would be, including interesting details > in response to some earlier questions, and then ruin it > with all of this religious garbage? > > If I wanted to be proselytized there are plenty of places > I could go to get my fix, why does it have to be here? You > abuse your medical knowledge in the name of your God and I > personally find it offensive. My medical knowledge comes from God. The same God that made you and gave you free will which you can exercise at any time, George. Servant to the humblest person in the universe, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ ** Who is the humblest person in the universe? http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557 What is all this about? http://makeashorterlink.com/?J2DB148A7 Is this spam? http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
You are right and I really appreciate all the stuff you have been posting here. I had given up on the group and didn't follow it for 6 months.
On 8-Mar-2004, Jim Chinnis <[email protected]> wrote: > "Sonos" <[email protected]> wrote in part: > > >Here is the press release... (not that I agree with it, > >however) > > > >Aggressive Statin Therapy Boosts Heart-Attack Survival > > What (main) aspects do you disagree with? > -- > Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA I read some of the later posts about the authorship of the study, and although informative, did not yet identify the funding source (or if it was listed, I missed it). It is important to know who has what at stake in this study. Not that funding source invalidates a study, but funding sources are strongly associated with motive (although not equivalent by any means). Getting to the true motive of any study requires conversation and deliberation, and in my experience will never fully be found in print. I worry about agressive statin therapy for many reasons, and not all of them can be found in the physician's desk reference. Long term agressive statin therapy, especially with the more potent versions that are in part distinct from the fungal derivatives introduce a whole new set of drug effects that are poorly understood. It is easier to say 'statin' than it is 'HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor'. Unfortunately the definitions are synonymous in medicine now, just like 'aspirin' and 'salicylic acid', but are incorrect. As another example, consider the question "When does a Dell Computer stop becoming a Dell?". If I purchase a Dell to run program HMG-CoA, and remove or add components, so that eventually, over time the only thing left from the original Dell is the outer case. Is it still a Dell? If not, when did it stop being a 'Dell'? Yet the computer runs the program HMG-CoA like it did when I first purchased it. So we see a similar trend in 'statins'. When does a statin stop being a stain? If you factor these gradual trends of changing the molecular structure for the gain of lowering cholesterol, it's a dead end road - going nowhere. Why? Because not one single study ever completed has proved that elevated cholesterol causes atherosclerosis. Yet here we are in 2004 with a firmly imbedded notion now so that it is almost instinctual, that cholesterol is no longer associated with atherosclerosis, but actually is the cause. A grave mistake. -- Winning against heart attack and stroke http://www.sonoscore.com
There were two studies, one funded by Bristol Myers- Squib the other by Pfizer. The statins studied were produced by these two companies. It makes me a bit suspicious of the results. -- hnm "Sonos" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > On 8-Mar-2004, Jim Chinnis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > "Sonos" <[email protected]> wrote in part: > > > > >Here is the press release... (not that I agree with it, however) > > > > > >Aggressive Statin Therapy > > >Boosts Heart-Attack Survival > > > > What (main) aspects do you disagree with? > > -- > > Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA > > I read some of the later posts about the authorship of the study, and > although informative, did not yet identify the funding source (or if it was > listed, I missed it). It is important to know who has what at stake in this > study. Not that funding source invalidates a study, but funding sources are > strongly associated with motive (although not equivalent by any means). > Getting to the true motive of any study requires conversation and > deliberation, and in my experience will never fully be found in print. > > I worry about agressive statin therapy for many reasons, and not all of them > can be found in the physician's desk reference. Long term agressive statin > therapy, especially with the more potent versions that are in part distinct > from the fungal derivatives introduce a whole new set of drug effects that > are poorly understood. It is easier to say 'statin' than it is 'HMG-CoA > reductase inhibitor'. Unfortunately the definitions are synonymous in > medicine now, just like 'aspirin' and 'salicylic acid', but are incorrect. > > As another example, consider the question "When does a Dell Computer stop > becoming a Dell?". If I purchase a Dell to run program HMG-CoA, and remove > or add components, so that eventually, over time the only thing left from > the original Dell is the outer case. Is it still a Dell? If not, when did it > stop being a 'Dell'? Yet the computer runs the program HMG-CoA like it did > when I first purchased it. > > So we see a similar trend in 'statins'. When does a statin stop being a > stain? > > If you factor these gradual trends of changing the molecular structure for > the gain of lowering cholesterol, it's a dead end road - going nowhere. Why? > Because not one single study ever completed has proved that elevated > cholesterol causes atherosclerosis. Yet here we are in 2004 with a firmly > imbedded notion now so that it is almost instinctual, that cholesterol is no > longer associated with atherosclerosis, but actually is the cause. > > A grave mistake. > > -- > Winning against heart attack and stroke > http://www.sonoscore.com
