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!

Cocosnapper, I remain shocked that you find it OK to say that a person's serious illness is of equal importance to a late bus .

But there you go. [shrug]

I am certain that a bus driver would take some responsibility for, and be able to explain the malfunction of, the bus service as a whole. Whereas in medicine this is simply not the case. "More than my job's worth, mate." "Nothing to do with me." "People die all the time." [shrug]

'Or maybe - in light of new evidence and research, we have updated our advice given what we know now. '

Yes after 40 years they seem to have finally found some new evidence. Hallelujah, they fnally came round towhat many of us thought all along.

But what is so important about the story and why the Daily Mail ran it is that it shows that they get things wrong (even over a 40 year period when many other sources were criticising and challenging them) and that means that the "tsars" may be wrong now when they say that over 50s should be offered a wonder pill known as the "polypill"

'Do you want health professionals to give advice based on the best available evidence to keep people healthy?'

Of course I do and by the Daily Mail criticising them, it may lead to them leaving their bubble and interacting with the millions of people and researchers who think that Monsanto roundup is harmful to health and that may lead to the "tsars" giving roundup intake advice as well as just salt and saturated fat intake advice. But don't hold your breath, it won't happen for probably another 40 years.

'If you don't believe any advice'

But I do believe advce which is why I buy books on nutrition and read the Daily Mail. i just don't happen to believe a lot of the "tsars'" advice about polypills or the need to put statins in our water.

"Statins should even be put in the water supply, according to one of Britain’s leading heart experts, Dr Mahendra Varma, who is vice-chairman of the Northern Ireland Chest, Heart and Stroke Association.

But a big scientific row has broken out this year over the Jupiter study. According to three expert articles in the journal, Archives of Internal Medicine, the Jupiter trial was deeply flawed.

Close analysis of the figures by French doctors found that statins did not actually achieve any real reduction in deaths, and the ­figures had been warped by commercial interference. Nine of the 14 Jupiter researchers had financial ties with AstraZeneca.

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1340299/Why-taking-statins-pointless--bad-you.html

Yes after 40 years they seem to have finally found some new evidence. Hallelujah, they fnally came round towhat many of us thought all along

How did you know that? Why did you think that? What was your evidence for thinking that?

Scientists get things wrong. Hell,smoking was thought to be safe once. Look back at history and see how science and knowledge has changed.

Critical analysis is needed. But people need to accept that sometimes science gets it wrong and many times it gets things right.

Just because it's official does not mean it's wrong. Just because it's in the DM does not mean it's right.

Seriously though - constantly reading and quoting the DM cannot be good for your health.

A song for you.

Not the first time I guess you've heard it.

didyouwritethe

"Cocosnapper, I remain shocked that you find it OK to say that a person's serious illness is of equal importance to a late bus"

I didn't say that, as well you know. But for the hard of thinking, it's called an analogy.

'How did you know that? Why did you think that? What was your evidence for thinking that?'

Because of the nutrition books I read and the occasional heads-up from the Daily Mail. Dr Weston A Price and the people there are just one example of what I prefer to believe than what the government tsars' say - who seem to remain strangely silent on GM foods.

Anyway, I'm out of here. I can only "debate" with Claig for so long before she grinds you down with her cynicism and her DM quotes.

It's not cyncism, it's common sense.
Lots of nutritionist have disagreed with the official advice for years and they were finaly proved right. What else might they be right about?

Have a nice day and get some eggs and bacon in for breakfast.

I don;t think I've been on a thread before where the comments section of the Daily Mail has been used as reasoned back-up for a scientific argument

It's an eye-opener for sure.

But I quite understand Orlando, there's only so many Daily Mail links one woman can take in a single thread.

Just waded through the whole thread because in a similar vein I read an article in the Times supporting what I have long suspected - having low blood pressure is at least as big a post op period risk factor as high blood pressure.

i have a few comments:

Scientific experts are only ever experts in their specific speciality and over time their objectivity diminishes in line with the increase in the level of their vested interest. I therefore think the right of lay people to research and question should be respected and given more credence than it generally is.

I am very concerned about mass health and medical advice which assumes I and my DC are overweight, inactive and have high blood pressure. We are none of these things. It is even more disturbing when there are financial incentives to encourage certain prescriptions.

With regard to statins I know a lot of people ranging from middle age upwards who are taking them or who have taken them. Most of them talk about managing side effects. It seems counter intuitive to prescribe a drug to reduce heart attack if it routinely introduces muscle issues which reduce ability to exercise.

Cocosnapper I have already answered your very very silly question about buses but here you are harping on about it again

Because I can't get over how daft your posts are! Why should I personally have any opinion whatsoever of the effects of an unnamed drug on an unnamed patient? It doesn't make sense! It's like holding me responsible for something else utterly uncontrolled by me, like the weather!

Cocosnapper Unnamed???? we have been talking about Statins - you have told me you were a product manager for statins

Now sorry but its obvious to me that you peddled a drug that has nasty side effects which you never knew about or just didn't care about - to pay your mortgage.

And you don't think you are morally responsible for the products you helped to sell sorry I disagree

But yes you have made it clear that big pharma and its employees just don't give a flying fuck about people its all about the money.

Now I am not going to engage in conversation with you anymore - unless you want to talk about the buses

Wow the daftness of your thinking plummets ever deeper!

Did anyone ever mention to you that statins are a class of drug? Over ten entirely different parented molecules delivered across about twenty different brands? No, clearly not. But such detail doesn't bother you, Oldsu does it?

Back to a transport analogy:

Oldsu - "My husband was sold a Car and it broke down. Cocosnapper, what are you going to do about that?"

me - "Do? I sold cars a few years ago. Most people liked them. I don't even know if your husband's car was made by us. You know there are loads of types of car don't you?

Oldsu - "that's besides the point. You sold cars. It is my unproven belief that cars hurt my husband. This is your fault."

Me "Oldsu you're not making any sense."

As for side effects OF BLOODY COURSE we knew about them. They are all there, on ALL of the data sheets for all statins. We knew, we publicised them, and more importantly, our prescribers knew and continued to prescribe. You must remember that drug firms are not allowed patient contact AT ALL.
But statins (again, remember that's a whole wide class of drug) were and continue to be prescribed because their main benefit is to reduce what in laymen's terms is generalised as heart problems. And that reduction in heart problems is a benefit that outweighs the side effects, as a general rule. Of course they don't suit everyone. Of course there will be detractors and those who advocate an alternative approach. And? There is no moral argument there. If you don't like them, go back to your healthcare provider and find a different treatment. Surely that's obvious. But ranting on Daily Express style about the evils of an entire industry and then trying to pin those rantings onto an anonymous poster on mumsnet whom you feel has some moral responsibility personally for your situation, based entirely on her job a few years ago, reads like the ramblings of a madwoman.

Does BigPharma give a fuck? That's probably an Oxford Union debate subject. I am certainly in no position to be the mouthpiece of an huge entire global industry! I'm flattered you think I might be. Should it give a fuck? Possibly.

Do I personally give a personal fuck about YOU, Oldsu? No. Not even a little bit. why should I?
I don't mean that in an aggressive way, I mean it as a question. Why should I? The fact that you seem to think I should, perplexes and entertains me in equal measure.

Know your enemy. It isn't me.

Now sorry but its obvious to me that you peddled a drug that has nasty side effects which you never knew about or just didn't care about - to pay your mortgage

That is a ridiculous statement. The side effects of statins are welll known. That would have come up during the massive trials on lots and lots of people. I bet if you looked at the original submission - that the side effects would have been mentioned.

To have a go at cocosnapper is ridiculous and unfair. It is like having a go at someone in the NHS because something went wrong in an operation. The risks are known. Your GP is the person you should be upset at. They should have explained the potential side effects and reacted to your complaints. The fact that cocosnapper was part of the massive machine involved in a drug that is used widely by many people without issue does not give you the right to attack her when the side effects happen.

I used to do blood tests. Part of the NHS. Would you have a go at me because the results that someone thought was in "the normal range" were actually high for that person and that person had a disease? Sensitivity and specificity - it's well known that medical tests aren't always 100% accurate and can give false results. If that happened to you, would you have a go at me for being part of the system?

Or would you have a go at the person who was part of the company that developed the blood test?

And who then told the lab that this is a great blood test. It can do all this, detect to low levels - however it's not 100% sensitive or specific and can give false positives or negatives? Which they would have to do.

And then the lab reports the results to the GP. Who should know the test is very good but not brilliant. But you come up negative.

You then show symptoms of the disease.Your GP dismisses them as the test was negative.

Then someone on Mumsnet said they were involved in the company that developed the test. Which has had a great effect on detecting this disease.

You sound like the kind of person who is having a go at the person who was part of the company. A small cog in a very big wheel.

Who is to blame for the negative result and telling you you do not have the disease?

Oldsu I think you are losing the plot a bit or that you don't understand that all drugs have side effects.

I took a relatively new drug which resulted (very probably but not proven) in my platelets disappearing. On the drug trials there was 1 person in 10,000 whose platelet levels dropped (but didn't disappear). I didn't respond at all to the usual drugs to improve platelet levels and having no platelets is a wee bit of a problem when a desire for staying alive is the aim. The only thing which worked in the end was high doses of steroids. Very high.

This caused massive weight gain which had the knock on effect of me developing sleep apnoea (steroid weight gain often congregate around the neck and face) losing my job and resulted in me selling my house to downsize.

All of the side effects of all the drugs I took were known by the pharma company who made them, the doctors who prescribed them and me.

And I thank god that they made them available to the public anyway because I'd be dead without the steroid in particular. The haematology department worked hard to get me off the drugs as soon as they thought it was practical and thats what we need to aim for.

Not removing the choice of people to take drugs which are considered to enhance or save their life but educate people to read the leaflets on side effects themselves and GP's to consider the best approach to managing those side effects.

For someone like my mother who is diabetic, 76, has arthritic hips, is overweight probably the considered approach would be to try to manage any side effects as it's most likely having a big effect on her risk of having a heart attack, someone who's younger with lower risks and perhaps higher side effects it might be better to come off them and consider going back on later when the risk increases with age.

One thing for sure is that I'd rather discuss it with a medical profession having read up on it for myself than someone whose total knowledge is gleaned from the Daily Mail.

Just for Oldsu, who presumably lives in a world without google, and didn't read the packet. Here's the Summary of Product Characteristics for one of the bigger brands, and this information has been freely available since its launch.

www.medicines.org.uk/emcmobile/medicine/1424

But although we all know scientists constantly research and learn new things and we all know drugs have side effects website and publicity play a massive and useful role in these things. there may be women out there told to get their c. levels down by doctors who aren't quite up to date and now they can research the topic on line. Secondly they can make informed decisions about side effects . For older men whether they should all be on statins as a matter of course or not is a massive issue for them

Also drug companies do not always rush to give out adverse results. I don't think they are wicked . In fact I regularly chair a pharma course but they need the press on their backs. My mother nearly took thalidomide or at least was offered it. i was that age group and as her view that try not to take anything if you can possibly avoid it as natural tends to be discovered to be best (which I share) prevailed.

The years of the state peddling fake findings making us all move to high carb and low good fat ways of eating and the NHS eating pyramid which stuffs us with masses of carbs at the bottom plays a role in why people are so fat and ill these days.

We need people like claig and others to challenge views.

Good summary, LotusLight.

I am shocked that MNers don't know about the financial incentives given to GPs to prescribe statins. This means GPs often put unwarranted pressure on patients to agree to go on them - otherwise the GP surgery makes less money; that means fewer profits for all the GPs in that practice.

Any GP who doesn't put that pressure on is likely to be less popular with their colleagues, who are the poorer for that one GP's principled stand.

These are DoH incentives aren't they? As a part of an overall plan in reducing CHD?

They certainly are. And the DoH have vast departments of PR people who could inform patients about the financial incentives given to GPs, if they were at all inclined to do so. But they aren't.

kewcumber correct me if I am wrong here but you wouldn't have needed the strong steroids if you hadn't been a guinea pig for a new drug in the first place?

amserhaf

In what way was she a guinea pig? The side effects were known to her but rare. They were explained to her.

Unfortunately, she was the person who got the rare side effects.

She was not a guinea pig. She was the unfortunate one to get the side effects which most people wouldn't have got. They were probably helped by the drug.

All drugs have side effects. Some rare.Some common.Education and awareness is key - the benefits of the drug vs the potential risks.

Aspirin

The risks:

www.safemedication.com/safemed/PharmacistsJournal/The-Benefits-and-Risks-of-Aspirin

Aspirin can increase the risk of bleeding in the stomach, small intestine, and brain. Normally, there is a layer that protects the insides of the stomach and intestine from the acid in your stomach. If aspirin is taken at high doses and for a long time, it can slowly damage this layer. This damage can lead to bleeding. Using aspirin to prevent blood clots can also affect the natural healing of damaged blood vessels and increase the risk of bleeding in the brain

Benefits of daily low-dose aspirin therapy outweigh the risks for certain people. These people include those who have had a heart attack or stroke, who have heart disease, or who have diabetes, according to the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the American Diabetes Association.

Ibuprofen

www.safemedication.com/searchresults/DisplayDrug.aspx?id=a682159

Lots of side effects and real potential for serious side effects.