More Potent Cholesterol Drugs Recommended (!)

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by listener, Mar 8, 2004.

  1. listener

    listener Guest

    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.
     
    Tags:


  2. Sonos

    Sonos Guest

    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
     
  3. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    <[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
     
  4. Jim Chinnis

    Jim Chinnis Guest

    "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
     
  5. listener

    listener Guest

    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.
     
  6. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    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
     
  7. Sonos

    Sonos Guest

    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
     
  8. Sonos

    Sonos Guest

    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
     
  9. 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
     
  10. listener

    listener Guest

    >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.
     
  11. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    "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
     
  12. Mirek Fidler

    Mirek Fidler Guest

    > 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
     
  13. 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
     
  14. George

    George Guest

    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.
     
  15. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    "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
     
  16. listener

    listener Guest

    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.
     
  17. 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
     
  18. George

    George Guest

    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.
     
  19. Sonos

    Sonos Guest

    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
     
  20. Herb

    Herb Guest

    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
     
Loading...