Oops, they got it wrong about cholesterol

[claig]

"We've all spent time worrying about our cholesterol levels, but what if it was all... a conspiracy! What if the truth was that eating lots of fat doesn't clog your arteries and kill you, and that there's been a deliberate effort to ignore that evidence in order to secure the financial fortunes of Big Pharma's major anti-cholesterol drugs?"

www.cbsnews.com/news/dawn-of-the-cholesterol-skeptics-big-pharma-conspiracy-theorists-get-a-turn-in-the-spotlight/

"Flawed science triggers U-turn on cholesterol fears"
...
Its Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee plans to no longer warn people to avoid eggs, shellfish and other cholesterol-laden foods.

The U-turn, based on a report by the committee, will undo almost 40 years of public health warnings about eating food laden with cholesterol. US cardiologist Dr Steven Nissen, of the Cleveland Clinic, said: 'It's the right decision. We got the dietary guidelines wrong. They've been wrong for decades.'

Doctors are now shifting away from warnings about cholesterol and saturated fat and focusing concern on sugar as the biggest dietary threat.

The Daily Mail's GP Martin Scurr predicts that advice will change here in the UK too.
...
He added that the food industry had effectively contributed to heart disease by lowering saturated fat levels in food and replacing it with sugar.

Matt Ridley, a Tory peer and science author, yesterday said there should be an inquiry 'into how the medical and scientific profession made such an epic blunder'.

He described the change of advice in the US as a 'mighty U-turn' and said studies linking high cholesterol and saturated fat in food to heart disease were 'tinged with scandal'."

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3096634/Why-butter-eggs-won-t-kill-Flawed-science-triggers-U-turn-cholesterol-fears.html

I wonder if a similar thing will happen in about 40 years to the "save the planet" climate change warnings.

Oops!

I have no idea. I just know the biochemistry.

I guess it's a personal decision. Family history, risk factors etc. I can't comment on the drug and the efficacy. It must be like anything - where you weigh up the pros and cons.

Lots of patients at my unit on statins have terrible problems with legs/walking

Cocosnapper why so defensive, Statins have such serious side effects I would have thought anyone connected with selling them of prescribing them has a responsibility to be aware of the side effects and the serious problems they can create

I find the idea of a pharma company 'chasing' a type of patient totally and utterly repellent so don't expect someone like me who's life was nearly destroyed by the side effects to remain silent and not challenge anyone connected in any way shape or form to the drug

So you go ahead and report my posts and call me silly, but my silliness has enabled me to help at least 6 people with severe mobility problems who were on Statins to educate themselves on the drugs they are taking and to go back to their GP, report their problems and then make their own minds up whether or not to continue taking them once they are armed with all the facts, rather then being the victims of NICE guidelines.

My DH is never ever going back on them, I will never ever in a million years take them.

I bet you would be hard pushed to find a doctor on them

I'm defensive because your posts are written in a way that casts personal aspersions on me, rather than a dig at big Pharma as a whole.

Statins is a massive issue. Probably rarely right for women ever to take them and if I were a man I'd steer well clear although I accept science is sitting rather on the fence on them due to the side affects but also the supposed benefits. In general in life if you can eat only unprocessed foods and avoid all medicine (I've not even taken the pill ) you tend to do fine. I am never ill obviously........ So it certainly works for me. Although I have had a bit too much duck over 2 days as my 3 sons roasted 2 of them (no they didn't kill them themselves) and left me 4 legs and the other remains so that was two meals. I think I need to lay off duck for a few days now but certainly things like duck fat, beef fat can be very good for your health and those who eat as I do actually find it really hard in super markets to find a piece of steak with loads of fat on it these days. It's quite a task to find that which is amusing at times.

Oldsu

"I find the idea of a pharma company 'chasing' a type of patient totally and utterly repellent so don't expect someone like me who's life was nearly destroyed by the side effects to remain silent and not challenge anyone connected in any way shape or form to the drug "

Let me tell you a secret about marketing. The very very first thing we are taught when presented with a product is to define your customer. What they look like, where they live,how old they are etc. Define your post profitable customer and focus on them. That applies to drugs, chocolate bars and brass widgets. For statins the patients we chased were the ones who would use the most drug for the longest time. And any other product manager would do the same. So really, step past your outrage.

As for side effects, all UK licensed drugs are very strictly regulated and we absolutely had to report side effects and adverse events. Agajn that's ALL drugs, not just statins. So you had a poor experience of statins? Not everyone does. There is no perfect drug. I suggest you channel your misplaced anger in a more productive way and stop foolish personal attacks.

I honestly think we have ceased to be human the day we stop being outraged at the marketing strategies of pharmaceutical companies.

Or on Valium.

People have strong feelings about pharmaceutical companies. On a personal level many of us are a lot healthier if we eat well and avoid all drugs. I take about one headache pill every 10 years on the other hand if I got very sick and drugs were something that would help I would not reject them.

I have no problems with drug companies making money and consumers having rights of free speech.

it is when the cost of our obesity and diabetes gets too much for the NHS to bear that it begins to try to ensure people eat better and the advantage of keeping in with big business is then out weighed. It's always interesting to watch.

Get annoyed all you like about Big Pharma. Fwiw I'm Ben Goldacre's greatest fan and sometime contributor. But it's not the marketing that's at fault - marketing is marketing, sales is sales. It's about as futile as getting pissed off with the supply chain - their methods are not peculiar to the pharma industry.

The real power is high high up, somewhere between product development and finance, and probably in an office near my old one in Switzerland. That's where the big decisions are made, research is posted or disappears, trials are funded or pulled. By the time you get to the sales and marketing departments the deal has already been done.

Lotuslight I coukd (and maybe somewhere) should wax lyrical about the relationship between manufacturers and the nhs. That, to use a technical term, is fucking shameful.

Cocosnapper

So you had a poor experience of statins? ** Not everyone does

Now that shrug really sums up your attitude doesn't it.
nuff said I think

What would you like me to do? Seriously?

Cocosnapper

Getting rid of your 'so what' attitude when someone like me report serious side effects would be a good start.

I would never in a million years tell someone to stop taking any medication just because my DH suffered so badly, but I will continue to encourage people who I know have serious mobility problems who are taking statins to go back to their GP and report their problems and not to be fobbed of like my DH was at first.

I think in debates like this - it's hard to get information that is not biased - or is difficult to critically interpret if you do not understand the science and the evidence.

Is there a "cover up" or are the benefits real? Do the benefits outweigh any side effects and are the side effects common?

Medicines go through a lot of testing - they have to be proven safe and effective. Some people are cynical and look at Big Pharma in ways that they suggest other things are going on.

Who do you believe? Someone quoted Malcom Kendrick earlier - author of the great Cholesterol con. But you can find scientists elsewhere who have panned his theories. Someone can be very persuasive and eloquent though and convince you - have they got an agenda?

Do you trust heart charities? Are they in league with "the devil" of Big Pharma?

heartuk.org.uk/statins-and-treatments/statin-side-effects/the-statin-conundrum

The danger with all this is ill informed debate. The Internet is great for providing information - but is is accurate? Is it trustworthy? Cutting and pasting stuff when you don't even realise that HDL / LDL is the same as the cholesterol you are describing is not helpful. Quoting articles from the Daily Mail or a couple of lines from Wiki is not debate.

My "so what attitude"? What on earth are you on about? You didn't report serious side effects to me, for all I know it maybe wasn't my drug you had a poor experience with. I don't know you personally, and MILLIONS of people take statins with a good result.

Are you pissed off with all bus drivers if your particular bus is late? Your posts are increasingly odd.

oldsu

From that link:

Statins can occasionally cause swelling and tenderness in the muscles and in a very few cases lead to muscle damage. If significant muscle damage occurs the main symptom is usually a generalised flu like ache rather than a localised muscle pain. If you have unexplained muscle pain it is best to speak to your doctor. They can carry out a simple blood test to look for a muscle enzyme (creatine kinase or CK) which is found in higher amounts when your muscles are damaged or inflammed.

If you have appropriate symptoms and your level of CK is higher than normal (and cannot otherwise be explained) your doctor is likely to stop your statin. Once you are back to normal, your doctor may suggest you restart the statin but at a lower dose or even that you take one tablet every other day. Your doctor may decide to change your statin to a different one or occasionally consider other cholesterol-lowering medications or referral to a lipid clinic.

The side effects of statins are also explained on the NHS website

www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Cholesterol-lowering-medicines-statins/Pages/Side-effects.aspx

Does the GP explain these side effects? Do they tell the patient to report anything unusual? Do they check with the patient regularly to see how well they are tolerating them?

I would hope so. A patient should not be fobbed off.

My "so what attitude"? What on earth are you on about?

this

So you had a poor experience of statins? Not everyone does

That dismissive shrug

Ah, so I, a housewife from Staffordshire, who once managed a drug that thousands and thousands of people used, mainly successfully, should care personally about your husband's experience of a drug of the same class? Really?

Please answer my question about bus drivers.

Yes, I honestly think you should care.

Why don't you care?

"Do you trust heart charities?"

You would need to look at where they get their funding and who is on the board.

'The danger with all this is ill informed debate.'

You are assuming that scientific debate is informed debate, that there is an objective truth given by the scientists and that scientists, their employers and pharma companies have no agenda.

oldsu is giving you information that is informed because of what happened. It may not agree with Big Pharma's marketing line, but it is informed.

'Someone can be very persuasive and eloquent though and convince you - have they got an agenda?'

If they stand to make money based on what they say then they are likely to have an agenda. If they want to win an election, then they will have an agenda. If they are ordinary people saying what happened or asking questions then they don't stand to gain money, influence or power and therefore are less likely to have an agenda.

'The Internet is great for providing information - but is is accurate?'

Was the Chief Medical Officer's view on the likely bird flu pandemic accurate? Was the government advice on taking Tamiflu accurate? Was the dodgy dossier on Iraq accurate? People make decisions based on whether they believe what they are being told is real or part of an agenda that is contradicted by other sources which they find more trustworthy. Thank God for the internet because it allows ordinary people access to information that was not before readily available to them and helps them come to decisions that do not necessarily agree with those of pharma corporations.

'Cutting and pasting stuff when you don't even realise that HDL / LDL is the same as the cholesterol you are describing is not helpful. '

Not helpful for whom? Big Pharma?

Is it unhelpful to quote

"The U-turn, based on a report by the committee, will undo almost 40 years of public health warnings about eating food laden with cholesterol. US cardiologist Dr Steven Nissen, of the Cleveland Clinic, said: 'It's the right decision. We got the dietary guidelines wrong. They've been wrong for decades.' "

'Quoting articles from the Daily Mail or a couple of lines from Wiki is not debate.'

No, it is information to prompt debate.

I should imagine that cocosnapper is more than aware of the side effects of statins. All part and parcel of research and side effects are recognised.

But the bigger picture is that many many people seem to take them without the side effects becoming an issue. If someone talks about the side effects, there is nothing that someone like cocosnapper can do. They know the effects. It's up to the GP and healthcare provider to do something about them and offer the patient alternatives and take their concerns seriously.

oldsu experience is hers. It's got nothing to do with cocosnapper. If she has an issue, it is with the doctor who fobbed her DH off.

Drugs have side effects. That does not mean they should stop using them as many many people don't get them. But you don't hear that. You hear the negative stories.

I am sure that cocosnapper understands the concerns oldsu has. It's just not her problem.

OrlandoWoolf

that's all very well, to report to the GP, but in our case even though within the space of a couple of months my 61 yo DH went from someone who walked everywhere to having to use 2 sticks and crying in pain when he got out of bed, the GP just said it was his age even though he knew he was taking statins, so he either didn't know or just dismissed statins side effects. When DH came of statins within 3 weeks he could walk again with no problems all pain gone

And that's the problem, statins are historically given to older patients and its too easy for patients and their families to assume that joint pains and mobility issues are indeed due to old age and therefore wont even bother to report this to their GP, TBH if it was my 84 year Dad who had the same problems as DH we wouldn't have even thought about any medication he was on.

A bus being late is in no way comparable to damage to a person's health causing serious pain.

Is it?

But if you asked a bus driver, they would tell you why it happened and what they personally were doing about it, even if it were only to complain to management and speak to their union.