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!

claig

With all due respect, I honestly think you don't understand anything about cholesterol, heart disease, metabolism, glycolysis, fatty acid synthesis, atherosclerosis, FHC, the role of apoproteins, oxidation, inflammation, cellular damage, epigenetics, the citric acid cycle, gluconeogenesis, cholesterol synthesis, chylomicrons, HDL, LDL, VLDL etc.

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

Umm. You don't think that the medical profession is unaware of the side effects of statins.

What do you expect her to do?

Cocosnapper

Bus drivers mmmmm well since I am on my local bus users committee and since I was part of a group of people who stopped our local bus company getting rid of one bus which is a lifeline to older people its safe to say I don't get pissed off I take action - next question

oldsu

And that's the GPs fault for dismissing it.Information is out there available to all. I didn't know about the side effects but it took 1 minute to Google it and find it out. The GP is at fault.

There are probably lots of people of a similar age who did not get side effects.

What do you expect coco to do?

This is one of the country's leading health experts, an Oxford don, and his doctor didn't tell him to stop taking the statins. One day he thought he would try stoppng and it brought great changes.

"Having reached the age of 72, Professor Klim McPherson was prepared to accept some deterioration in his physical capabilities. But when, earlier this year, he found he was struggling to bend over to tie up his shoelaces, he decided enough was enough.

And so it was that little more than a month ago, the Oxford don stopped taking the little orange tablets his doctor had prescribed him and which he had been swallowing before bedtime every night for the past three years.

To his great surprise, within seven days, the aches and pains that had so restricted his movements had almost entirely disappeared.

'I'd been finding it difficult getting down the stairs and had to negotiate them step by step,' says Professor McPherson, one of the country's most eminent public health experts.

'As for reaching my laces, that was painful and uncomfortable. But now I can once again do all the things I couldn't do before.'

The medication that Professor McPherson has chosen to go without is a statin called Simvastatin"

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2700573/Statin-wars-Doctors-bitterly-divided-calls-half-adults-pills-cut-cholesterol-Heres-need-know.html

claig

Anecdote is not data.

It is known there are side effects. For some people they are severe.

What has your story proved ?

Someone died taking the pill recently.

But many people haven't died taking the pill.

You could copy that story. Have you added anything useful except saying that some drugs have severe side effects including death?

The point is: it is a scandal. Eventually, all the medics will have to admit it, and will wring their hands, and say, oh, someone should have done something. But not us.

It's really very wrong to see human beings as collateral damage.

Wouldn't it be a boring story?

A 70 year old man has been taking statins for years without side effects.

Where's the story?

What is the scandal?

Many people tolerate the drugs fine.

If they don't tolerate them, then something should be done. That's the NHS advice. if GPs aren't following the advice, that's an issue.

Do you know how many GPs dismiss the side effects of people on statins? I don'. I've read some stories on here but anecdote is not data.You'd need to speak to GPs to find out what they do.

Where's the scandal?

'claig

With all due respect, I honestly think you don't understand anything about cholesterol, heart disease, metabolism, glycolysis, fatty acid synthesis, atherosclerosis, FHC, the role of apoproteins, oxidation, inflammation, cellular damage, epigenetics, the citric acid cycle, gluconeogenesis, cholesterol synthesis, chylomicrons, HDL, LDL, VLDL etc.'

But don't you understand what this thread is about? The medical associations who understand it have changed their 40 year advice on what to eat

"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.' "

One of the leading public health experts in the whole country, a 72 year old Oxford don, stopped taking the statin that was recommended by the experts who understand what you mentioned.

They understood all that and they have done a u-turn, they get things wrong, they are not infallible and the Daily Mail, which you imply is unhelpful, regularly prints articles which show where they get it wrong.

You seem to think that having a degree in biochemistry outweighs reports in national newspapers which show where experts get things wrong and outweigh scientists, authors and researchers who disagree with you and even GPs and experts who say they would not take some of the things they are told to prescribe.

It seems to me that it is you who are not up for debate and think that your science background means that you know better than the Daily Mail, people who have taken the meds and authors who write books which disagree with the 40 year medical advice of US authorities who have now done a u-turn on what food to eat.

It's really very wrong to see human beings as collateral damage

You do know all drugs have side effects? Some have severe ones. But the trade off is the health benefits. Only you - and a well informed GP - can discuss that.

I am on medication at the moment. I have increased my chances of breast cancer - but the trade off is far far better for me.

I am aware of the risks.

Well, one aspect which is scandalous is the financial incentive paid to GPs for getting patients onto statins. So there is a clear motive for leaning on patients heavily to start taking them, and then dismissing their reports of side effects. Is that right?

It seems to me that it is you who are not up for debate and think that your science background means that you know better than the Daily Mail, people who have taken the meds and authors who write books which disagree with the 40 year medical advice of US authorities who have now done a u-turn on what food to eat

No - but I don't think you understand the advice and the actual stuff under discussion. FWIW - I think the advice is reasonable. But cholesterol in the diet is not linked to cholesterol in the blood. Something I don't think you get.You also don't understand about the role of fatty acids.

I take the Daily Mail and science "journalists" with a large pinch of salt.I am also very sceptical of maverick scientists who have an agenda.

My science background allows me to debunk what people say. Some may be reasonable.Some may be bollocks. I can see that - but you can't because you don't understand then science.

It's the same for anyone who understands a particular field.

'What has your story proved ?'

It proved that even experts, some of the leading public health experts in the country were in the dark and that ther doctors didn't advise them to stop and that by chance they thought one day maybe they should stop. And therefore what happens to people who aren't leading public health experts nd whose doctors also don't tell them to stop?

The Daily Mail does a service by bringing these things to light and printing them in a national newspaper so that ordinary people can question experts in case they are not giving them the best advice. These things need to be discussed and made clear.

I have direct experience of a drug side effect cover up by big pharma, so I'm coming from a point of not trusting them at all.
Patients are fobbed off left right and centre when trying to report new conditions since starting a drug.
Patient anecdote should be part of data. I'm stunned that when it comes to our health, and our children's health, our experiences are disregarded and considered not to be important, because it's not researched, computer logged data.
Thousands of children across the world are affected by a certain drug. The company developing and marketing the drug fast tracked it through the testing stage so some of the worst side effects were not seen. They then suppressed information until patient pressure forced them to add the side effects onto the information leaflet several years after patients started to suffer from the effects, but even now most GPs are ignorant to the side effects, it is still marketed as a wonder drug, and parents the world over are encouraged not to leave yellow card reports as the effects are often put down to parenting issues. Even with the side effects now listed, GPs still don't believe that they happen, because they are listed as very rare. How about patients are actually listened to for a change?
It's bollocks. People's health should not by toyed with by these huge money making corporations, yet it is. Patients become dehumanised statistics that don't matter.

didyou

Do GPs get paid to put people on certain drugs?

That's new to me. But I'm not a GP. I'm sure one of them would be happy to tell you the reality.

Orlando, I don't know if it happens as much now, but GPs and specialists were given big incentives to use certain drugs.
Reps have ways to encourage pushing of drugs whilst they can only be sold under their brand name. When they become generic there isn't the money in them.

I think there should be greater awareness of side effects. But I would hope that that advice should come from GPs.

GPs and doctors have the Hippocratic Oath to ensure no harm comes to the patient. I like to believe that the medical profession still hold to that and they are not corrupted by the pharmaceutical industry.

Maybe that's naive in the current climate of stakeholders, profit making NHS.

"A 70 year old man has been taking statins for years without side effects.

Where's the story?"

What about if the side effects were not immediately apparent but were longterm side effects that become apparent later? Just because soemone doesn't keel over immedately, doesn't mean there are no side effects. If there are big side effects in some people, maybe there are smaller ones in others that will become apparent later.

claig

Do you take medicines?

Read the side effects for them. It might surprise you.

It really is naive, Orlando. Wake up. Smell the coffee.

Or maybe we should just stop taking medication because of the unknown longterm side effects?

Then we just die of the disease that the medicine was helping to treat

Coffee's probably bad for you.

Or is it good for you?

The blind faith here is quite astounding I have been seriously ill virtually all my life and I have seen first hand some dreadful medical negligence and ignorance. And also some great doctors and treatment but the pharmaceutical industry is huge and of course it is open to abuse and corruption. I have had direct experience of doctors getting it very wrong indeed with drugs and their effects