Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Statins in the Drinking Water

The other day I was chatting with some medical students and someone mentioned a new study (published in the New England Journal of Medicine) that says that all American adults can benefit from statins. There was a suggestion of putting it in the water....which scared me enough to look it up. The study showed that people with elevated CRP (C Reactive Protein, an indicator of systemic inflammation) have fewer heart attacks when medicated with statins....but the study was done by...guess who? One of the makers of statin drugs. When I saw that, I just wrote off the study. Though I wonder, if the finding is repeated throughout the mainstream media without mention of who sponsored the study, how many people will begin to believe that they too could live longer on statins? And how many of those people will take a look into the side effects and alternatives....? Anyway, this morning I see that Dr Mercola also noticed the study, and here's what he has to say about it.


( 5 comments — Leave a comment )
Nov. 28th, 2008 01:06 am (UTC)
I've never understood this logic; actually I think I understand it all too well and it scares the hell out of me. So rather than focusing on the preventative measure of improving the ratio of essential fatty acids that we're all ingesting and reducing the amounts of modified fatty acids, refined carbohydrates, and assorted food additives the better idea is to add statins to the drinking water supply?

I'd like to say that I don't understand this logic, but I do. No one is going to make any money by eliminating the harmful things from our food supply. Creating a new market for statins will most definitely make the pharmaceutical manufactures an obscene amount of money in this new market.

Economists really need to learn that an increase in GDP does not necessarily mean that our lives have improved.

The cynical guy in me will be on the look out for the study funed by the coal fired electrical generators that the aerial dispersion of asthma medication will benefit the majority of Americans.
Nov. 28th, 2008 04:20 pm (UTC)
"...absolute differences in risk are
more clinically important than relative reductions
in risk in deciding whether to recommend drug
therapy, since the absolute benefits of treatment
must be large enough to justify the associated
risks and costs. The proportion of participants
with hard cardiac events in JUPITER was reduced
from 1.8% (157 of 8901 subjects) in the placebo
group to 0.9% (83 of the 8901 subjects) in the
rosuvastatin group; thus, 120 participants were
treated for 1.9 years to prevent one event..."
Does a NNT of 120 for 1 3/4 yrs seem like a great number to you? and the study participants were obese--does this study apply to those who are not obese?
Nov. 28th, 2008 05:57 pm (UTC)
Re: JUPITER study
No and probably not, but we don't know. I am certain that longterm statin treatment for an ever so slight reduction in cardiac "events" is not worth the side effects and psychological effects....but those are not mentioned. By psychological effects I mean that people being treated may think their risk is reduced enough that they do not need to worry about diet and exercise: a fatal misconception. My mother is on a statin and her doctor did not even mention to her that there are side effects, or that she might consider supplementing CoQ10. And welcome to LJ.
Nov. 28th, 2008 09:47 pm (UTC)
evidence for caution: women and statin use
Perhaps you and your mother should read Harriett Rosenberg's and Danielle Allard's report: "Evidence for caution:Women and statin use"

There has never been evidence that statins help women.
Nov. 28th, 2008 10:05 pm (UTC)
Re: evidence for caution: women and statin use
Interesting. Thanks!
( 5 comments — Leave a comment )



Latest Month

August 2019


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars