Should everyone over 50 take statins? page 3

[JL22]

Also, newspapers never get anything right about health and research. Best not to read at all.

Being from NYC you probably won't be familiar with the Daily Mail... The headlines are usually "____ causes Cancer"

Scrambled eggs and mashed bananas blog: The Daily Mail list of cancer causes... basically... EVERYTHING!

I merely thought that the story would provide an interesting reaction on the forums

[Forever Young]

In my past life I was a research nurse. I wasn't involved in the above study so I can't really comment on it. I was involved in another statin study though. Yes, it was paid for by the drug company. All of the study participants and co-ordinators (nurses and Dr's) had to sign documents every year to say that they had no financial interests/investments with the drug company involved.

In the statin study I was involved in we gave clients with 'normal cholesterol' levels but who had kidney disease (high risk group for heart/vessel disease) a statin. We eventually showed a 7% reduction in heart/vessel disease events.

Immediately all renal Dr's rush out to prescribe statins to all of their patients.

I don't think that we should dismiss a study simply because a drug company funded it, I'm sure there are some studies that are completely flawed because of this, but its generally not the case. Every single medication you take has been researched by the drug company that manufactures it. I don't see us all swearing off Aspirin or Ibuprofen because a drug company researched its safety for human consumption.

I think it would be great to see some studies into the effectiveness of lifestyle/diet change on a normal cholesterol level - but then who's going to fund that? A study of diet and lifestyle change would likely show a vastly more dramatic drop in events than statins ever would, and we all know it. Trying to get most people to make those changes is near on impossible though, whereas most people will take a tablet if their Dr tells them they should.

Haven't had an aspirin or ibuprofen in my house in years. Swore them off.

You are right that most will take whatever pill the doctor says with no though whatsoever about it.

Sheep.

[Forever Young]

The 1 in 10,000 figure for patients experiencing muscle pain is ludicrous. I work in a small pharmacy and have had several patients complain of leg pain after starting statins-- and I suspect that many others may be affected, but it just doesn't occur to them to complain about it, because how could their "cholestrol pill" cause muscle pain?

Yet again, the sheep mentality!!

[Nady]

Haven't had an aspirin or ibuprofen in my house in years. Swore them off.

You are right that most will take whatever pill the doctor says with no though whatsoever about it.

Sheep.

Are you sure?

from Salicylic acid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dietary sources

Fruits and vegetables are natural sources of salicylic acid, particularly blackberries, blueberries, cantaloupes, dates, raisins, guavas, apricots, green pepper, olives, tomatoes, radish, mushrooms and chicory. Some herbs and spices contain quite high amounts, although meat, poultry, fish, eggs and dairy products all have little to no salicylates. Of the legumes, seeds, nuts, and cereals, only almonds, water chestnuts and peanuts have significant amounts.[10]

It's been around forever~

What Is Aspirin? What Is Aspirin For?

A short history of aspirin

Acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) is a derivative of salicylate, which can be found in such plants as willow trees and myrtle.
ca. 3000 BC - An ancient Sumer stone tablet from the Third Dynasty of Ur of medical text mentions willow-tree based remedies. However, it does not specify what the remedies were for. Sumer was a civilization and a historical region located in Mesopotamia, southern Iraq, known as the "Cradle of civilization".

[Uncephalized]

Nady (and Forever Young), unless you are regularly drinking boiled willow-bark tea I seriously doubt the concentrations of (acetyl)salicylic acid in a whole-foods diet approaches anything near taking a single daily aspirin, which is quite safe, as shown by millions of people who have taken daily aspirin for decades to reduce coronary risk, AFAIK. Aspirin is one of the more benign pharmaceuticals as long as you don't take a lot of it.

[Nady]

Not worried in the least~ Remember what Hippocrates said *Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.* We live in nature's pharmacy. Most of the drugs out there are just chemical (patentable) imitations of what is already growing in someone's back yard.

[annedawso]

I find it really sad that they are talking about medicating a healthy population against a disease that is preventable if you eat healthy food.
I think any studies such as these should declare what pharmaceutical grants they have received in the last few years and what freebies they have received from them.
I can understand reading that article why most people would think it was a good idea to take statins. You assume if research is done at a internationally renowned university that they are acting in the interest of the population.
I hope there will be a backlash from other so called experts saying it is nonsense to medicate us for something we don't have.
Though I won't hold my breath.

[Bob-Tao]

But when they say the drugs cut the risk of a heart attack by a third, that's the relative risk. The absolute risk of anyone over 50 dying of a heart attack is less than one percent per year of life (ie, less than 33% during their additional 33 years of expected life span of about 83). A study of absolute risk tells a different story, but all of these studies are always written in terms of relative risk. So if there is a one in a million chance of dying of west nile virus, and a new drug raises the odds to one in two million, then the drug makers can print their drug reduces the risk of dying of West Nile virus by 50%. That's how these studies are always reported, and it's really a dishonest scare tactic.

[joelwlcx]

What's with all the biased, unobjective media in the UK.

[annedawso]

What's with all the biased, unobjective media in the UK.

We have mostly a right wing press in the UK. Most stories I read seem to favour big pharma, big food corporations.
When you think they slag eggs off yet wouldn't dream of strong criticism of the real rubbishy junk food. Instead let's medicate rather than tell people to eat properly.