Pharm. companies don't lie? Zetia - Vytorin

[Gimpy]

http://health.msn.com/health-topics/heart-and-cardiovascular/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100188008&GT1=10808

MONDAY, Jan. 14 (HealthDay News)-- The long-awaited results of a trial of Zetia, a cholesterol-lowering drug prescribed to about a million Americans, shows the drug confers no medical benefit to users.

In fact, the pace at which artery-clogging plaques formed within vessels almost doubled in patients taking Zetia (ezetimibe) along with another cholesterol-lowering drug, Zocor (simvastatin), compared to those taking Zocor alone, the study found.

The two medications -- ezetimibe plus simvastatin -- are also marketed in one prescription pill, called Vytorin. About 60 percent of U.S. patients who are taking Zetia now receive the drug as part of Vytorin.

But the new two-year trial of 720 patients sheds doubt on whether it makes any sense for people battling cholesterol to take Vytorin versus Zocor alone, experts said. The study was funded by the two companies that make Zetia, Merck and Schering-Plough.

"This wraps it up," said Dr. Steven E. Nissen, chairman of cardiology at the Cleveland Clinic. "That's all there is. There just isn't any evidence that adding ezetimibe to simvastatin produces any advantage."

No one is disputing that Zetia can lower levels of LDL "bad" cholesterol by 15 percent to 20 percent -- that had been shown in previous trials. However, whether that reduction led to any greater lowering of heart attack or stroke risk had remained unclear.

The new ENHANCE trial -- which involved patients with a genetic condition that causes abnormally high levels of blood cholesterol -- found no such added benefit. According to a statement released by the two drug companies Monday, researchers found no statistically significant difference in heart attacks or stroke among trial participants who took Zetia plus Zocor, a widely used cholesterol-lower drug, versus those who got Zocor alone.

The study also noted that the speed at which arteries thickened with plaque almost doubled among those on the two-drug regimen compared to those taking Zocor alone.

Safety profiles were similar for Zetia/Zocor versus Zocor alone, the team added.

"These results are very important considerations on how we treat patients with elevated cholesterol and will very likely impact the way we choose drugs to lower cholesterol and eliminate plaque," said Dr. Howard Weintraub, clinical director of the Center for the Prevention of Cardio-Vascular Disease at New York University Medical Center, New York City, and clinical associate professor at the NYU School of Medicine.

"ENHANCE found that plaque got slightly worse when the drug combination was used," Weintraub noted in a statement. "But, the real take-home message here is that getting LDL down is important, and that's not something that should be lost as a consequence of this study."

The ENHANCE study was completed in April 2006, but the results were only released Monday by Merck and Schering-Plough after continual prodding by medical professionals. According to The New York Times, the companies had initially planned to release the findings by March 2007, but then missed several self-imposed deadlines, blaming the delay on the complexities of necessary data analysis.

Now that the results have arrived, Zetia and Vytorin should be viewed as "drugs of last resort," for patients not helped by standard statin therapy, Nissen said. Only if you can't tolerate full doses of simvastatin should you take ezetimibe, he said.

"This is one of the most widely advertised and widely used drugs out there, so it's obviously good to get these study results," Nissen added.

Another group questioned why patients should be prescribed more expensive cholesterol-lowering drugs, such as Vytorin, versus cheaper, generic statins such as Zocor.

"We already know that millions of people who take these brand drugs probably don't need to; they could be taking a less expensive generic instead. This study lends support to that cost-saving strategy for the health system and for consumers," said Steven Findlay, managing editor of Consumer Reports Best Buy Drugs, a public information and education project of Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports.

"If there is no apparent clinical benefit, why take a drug that cost three or four times more?" Findlay said in a statement. "Most people do not need that magnitude of cholesterol reduction anyway."

Sales of Zetia and Vytorin totaled $3.7 billion in the nine months ending Sept. 30, up 33 percent from a year ago. Analysts estimate that about 70 percent of Schering-Plough's earnings depend on the drugs, the Times noted

\Gimpy

[Gimpy]

I know that Vytorin has nothing to do with chronic pain, that's not the reason I posted it.

The reason I posted it because of what is happening with Bluebirdy. She was put on an anti-depressant that is now known to cause horrible withdrawals. You think the manufacture didn't know that and went ahead with the marketing anyway? You bet they did and a lot of these anti-depressants will be brought out in the open in the near future too, I believe. Along with other drugs that are the latest greatest snake oil.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, even though these drugs apparently caused no harm, they stole millions from insurance companies, insured and even more from the uninsured because they needed to cover their investments.

They should be forced to reimburse every insurance company and any amount ANY person paid for this drug. It's all recorded on computers within the pharmacies, the drug companies know exactly who bought their drugs so they could market directly to you.

Lets see how long it takes the lawyers for a class action suit to be filed. They will be billions and we'll get $14.29.

Makes me sick. Literally.

G

[mrsdoubtfyre]

I have a thread about this debacle on NeuroTalk on the PN forum.
I spent alot of time searching for information about this issue. I don't want
to recopy it here.

Suffice it to say the ENHANCE study was done in early 2006...it took all this time to massage the data, to get it to public consumption. The Wall Street Journal said it better than I:
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2007/12/11/those-vytorin-results-will-be-right-out/

This is all about MONEY... and bamboozling doctors. JMO.
(this site blocks links to NeuroTalk. Just Google it and go to the PN forum, this thread is on page one.)

Vytorin contains Zocor, which at one time (before Lipitor was born) also "saved" lives. In fact all the data on all the statins is massaged. You
can't believe any of it. Pfizer would have doctors believe it is the only statin that prevents heart disease. In fact NONE of them do. They only
lower cholesterol.

Watch this YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8SSCNaaDcE

[Gimpy]

Vytorin contains Zocor, which at one time (before Lipitor was born) also "saved" lives. In fact all the data on all the statins is massaged. You
can't believe any of it. Pfizer would have doctors believe it is the only statin that prevents heart disease. In fact NONE of them do. They only
lower cholesterol.

Watch this YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8SSCNaaDcE

I got in a huge fight with my cardiologist about just this. He didn't believe me when the proof is already out there. I told him I'd go somewhere else if he wouldn't respect my decisions about my own health care when apparently I know more about the medications than he does. So far he is still giving my blood pressure meds. I can't wait until I see him again. I'm taking all this with me along with a huge smile!

G

[bluebirdy]

I can't wait to read all of this, so many thanks Gimpy!!

I also want to tell you all about my recent journey on a Rx to lower my bp. Will come soon.

But I've exhausted - gotta get to bed ...

bb

[Kira]

Statins have been repeatedly shown to confer benefits beyond lowering LDL-C. They decrease the risk of heart attack/stroke/PAD from atherosclerosis, improve the odds of survival if given to patients post-MI, decrease the rate of both microvascular (kidney/eye/neuropathy/etc) and macrovascular (cardiovascular disease, etc) for diabetics, etc. This may be due to lowering the LDL-C, but may also be due to other effects of statins that are less well-understood.

(Because it is 4 am, I am not going to bother to do a Medline search for you right now... I will get to it tomorrow or the next day, but need to go to bed soon.)

Zetia is NOT a statin and does not work like one. Statins inhibit an enzyme called HMG-CoA Reductase, which is a crucial step in our bodies' synthesis of cholesterol in the liver. Zetia, on the other hand, interferes with the absorption of dietary cholesterol in the intestines. Both statins and Zetia have been shown to decrease LDL-C levels, and it was assumed that this decrease in LDL-C would lead to a decrease in patients' risk of cardiovascular disease. However, the ENHANCE study found that people's risk of cardiovascular disease was the same whether they took a statin alone vs. a statin combined with Zetia.

This does NOT mean that statins are ineffective at lowering the risk of cardiovascular disease. Statins have been around for many years now, allowing time for independent researchers and practicing physicians to become more familiar with their effects. Statins have, in fact, been shown to decrease the risk of CV disease, improve survival after a heart attack, decrease the amount of atherosclerotic plaque seen in patients' blood vessels during cardiac catheterization/angiography, and to decrease the risk of numerous complications from diabetes (from neuropathy and eye disease to heart attacks and kidney failure).

The article posted at the beginning of this thread is really just saying that you don't get any additional benefit from Zocor + Zetia (Vytorin) than you do from Zocor alone. I will look up the actual published, peer-reviewed literature on the ENHANCE trial tomorrow or Thursday and let you know what other conclusions were drawn.

I also disagree about all of the literature on medications being "tainted" by the drug companies. I do agree that some of it is likely tainted by drug companies' focus on making money, and I get VERY annoyed when pharmaceutical reps come in and try to "sell" their drug to doctors, residents, and even medical students with promises of free lunch, a cool pen, and photocopied journal articles that paint the rep's drug as the most wonderful thing since sliced bread.

While there is certainly a lot of involvement of the drug companies in drug development, setting up studies, funding, etc... it is important to note that many studies are NOT being done by the drug companies but rather by clinical researchers at universities and teaching hospitals. Some of these studies get funding from drug companies (which must be disclosed), but many of the studies get funding from NIH grants (Nat'l Institutes of Health), etc.

To find the least-biased studies, it is important to look in high-quality, peer-revied journals (JAMA, NEJM, Pediatrics, etc), like you would find on Medline/PubMed. When articles are submitted for publication in these journals, they are reviewed by other doctors/scientists in that field, which helps catch things like poor study design, conclusions that are not well-supported by the data, etc. Furthermore, these journals require authors to disclose their funding sources and any professional affiliations that may lessen objectivity, increase bias, and lead to a conflict of interest. This information is almost always included somewhere in the article/journal.

Furthermore, in order to carry out research on human subjects, study protocols must be reviewed and approved by their universities'/hospitals' IRBs (Institutional Review Boards), who go over everything in detail. IRBs look for anything that would jeopardize the safety of study participants, any sources of bias in the study design, scientifically-sound methods, ethical practices, and both internal and external validity.

In the United States, multiple phases of clinical trials are required before a drug is approved and put on the market. Phases 1-3 evaluate toxicity, dosing, efficacy, side effects, and so on, and these phases happen before the drug hits the market. The final phase, Phase 4, happens once the drug is available to the general population. Phase 4 continues to monitor the drug's effects (positive and negative) once it hits the market. This is very important for a number of reasons. First, the general population is usually pretty different from those who volunteered to be study participants, in terms of both demographic factors and health status. Also, clinical trials are time-limited, so they tend to pick up acute toxicity and early side effects but may miss long-term complications. Combine this with the limited sample size (compared to the size of the general population), and you can see why it would be very difficult to identify long-term and/or uncommon effects of the drug. That is why Phase 4 is so important... it allows researchers to continue to gather information on efficacy, side effects, and toxicity that may have been missed in Phases 1-3 due to limitations of time and sample size.

There have been many examples in recent years of drugs being taken off of the market for toxicities that emerged after the general population was expsed to the drugs for years. Some examples that come to mind are: COX-2 inhibitors (Vioxx, Bextra, etc) leading to an increased risk of CV disease... OTC cold/sinus remedies containing PPA (the old formula for Dimetapp, etc) causing heart rhythm disturbances in susceptible individuals if large doses were taken... Zelnorm (for IBS) causing some sort of heart issues in some people... certain brands/formulations of MRI Contrast Dye causing a syndrome called Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis... and so on.

There are even other examples of drugs, like Zetia, that successfully do what they are intended to do (lower LDL-C), but that do NOT decrease the risk of morbidity/mortality from the targeted disease. Another example is the long-acting bronchodilator called salmeterol. Salmeterol does open up the airways, like albuterol, but actually increased the risk of severe asthma attacks in many patients (particularly African-Americans) when used without also using an inhaled steroid.

Another well-known example is hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and the Women's Health Initiative study. Prior to the release of these findings, health care professionals knew that HRT increases the risk of some cancers but also thought that it decreased the risk of CV disease, improved bone density, etc. It was believed that HRT could decrease a woman's risk of heart disease since women's risk of heart disease rises after menopause. However, the Women's Health Initiative study showed that HRT actually increased the risk of CV disease. Additionally, HRT was found to be less effective than other treaments for osteoporosis (such as bisphosphonates). In the end, the only remaining reason to use HRT for postmenopausal women is to reduce the symptoms of menopause.

To sum up (so I can go to bed)... I'm trying to make two points here.

First, while drug companies do often play a part in the clinical trials for new drugs, much of the research is done by other, more objective scientists in the university and teaching hospital setings. They must disclose any affiliations and funding sources when attempting publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals, and this information is usually included right on the article or in the journal. IRBs scrutinize studies To make sure they are well-diesigned and as un-biased as possible.

Second, it is not at all uncommon for post-marketing (Phase 4) studies/surveillance to reveal additional information about drugs' safety, efficacy, and side effects in the general population.

The history of medicine is filled with examples of doctors who are convinced that a certain treatment is the best choice, only to be proven wrong as time passes and society learns more about physiology, pathology, and pharmacology. Sometimes ulterior motives are involved, but many more of them are just examples of how medical professionals still have much to learn about how our bodies work and how to fix them when things go wrong.

[Mark N]

Kira, thanks for writing the post I wanted to write but was too upset about to say it the right way. People that are unaware about scientific testing, the way that drug trials are done along with not understanding the larger picture of the role of Gov't, drug companies, pharmacies, health care providers, and consumers are misinterpreting what is going on. Are there ways the entire system should be improved, yes but a big part of the problem stems from the changes made when people were complaining we weren't getting new meds quick enough on the market. It was claimed that people were being damaged as a result while studies are still in progress and being done while the drug is on the market because it passed preliminary testing.

Thank you for explaining what the test are saying and the reason they come out the way they do far better than I could as I am frustrated with drug corporations are evil things that harm us. Without a doubt drug companies operate in their best interest which includes putting safe products on the market so they are sued for billions of dollars. We have an FDA, that acts for our protection, that evaluates and requires their own studies of medicines that drug corps want to put on the market. There is no perfect medicines that have no SE or WD effects for everyone. We should know that with the strong meds we take the chances for strong SE or WD effects are possible.

[Kathi49]

Kira,

And I thank you too and couldn't agree more. I just don't have the medical background you do and would not have been able to write it as well as you did. :) I can, however, speak to "massaging data"....have PLENTY of experience with that. And I can say right off...it can take months and even years. But I am speaking of governmental computer systems (large ones at that). As an example, ONE system which went to another totally different OS took two of us over a year to just TEST; it took the functional side almost two years to write the enhancements. And yet another system..overall, took 3 years...with 300 people working on it! :eek: Sooo...my point is...it is not uncommon at all to collect, massage, manage a project, test the data, and put it out to the customer and STILL have issues. But I will hush up about that as I am mixing apples and oranges in a way. :D The point is...people just have no idea what all goes into this.

Back to the Statins. I was taking Pravastatin for a month. I did notice I was getting weaker and the neuropathy was worse. To make a long story short, I came off of it after talking with my Cardio's office. But I WILL see my cardio doc in February. He may have to find a different one. You are right...the goal is to lower the cholesterol. My heart, it was determined, is fine. Cholesterol isn't. That doesn't mean I HATE all Statins or think they are useless. I just have to find the one that best suits me or I may have to find something else. I just don't know at this point. Anyway your point is well taken...Statins have been around forever. My mother has been one for years now and doing just fine with it....and it DID lower her cholesterol AFTER she told me she had tried dieting and exercise...to the letter...it did not work.

Oh, and regarding the WHI. I flipped after that occurred and talked with my RE about it. She had some good points regarding that particular study. IF I remember correctly, it was Prempro (could be wrong though). Anyway, she felt it was flawed since it was only one form of HRT that was tested and then went into a lengthy diatribe about the whole study. And mentioned that none of the transdermal routes were tested. But you are right..the MAIN reason to take ERT, as I do, is to alleviate the SYMPTOMS. And the new rule of thumb is to take the smallest dose for the shortest amount of time. And did you happen to see the new FDA report about compounded hormones???!! And, Mark, I am talking women here...not necessarily men. :) I was sooooo GLAD to see this! I know of a slew of women who go the compounded route and swear by it. HOWEVER, my RE warned me repeatedly. Her two main points were: 1) NOT FDA approved and 2) You simply do NOT know how much you are getting because of the fillers. And then she mentioned something about the molecules not being small enough to penetrate the skin.

Anyway, I wanted to try it...just to see. And she was right! As soon as I applied that cream, I thought...REALLY just HOW much am I getting???!! And when I asked the compounding pharmacist a ton of questions, he either would not or could not answer me. So, I pitched the stuff! At least I know with the transdermal patch how much I am really getting and at least it is a low and CONSISTENT dose.

I grow very weary of all of these false claims about compounded hormones and have for years! But what the FDA is saying is to really discuss HRT with your doc; not saying not to use compounded hormones but to really be careful with what you are doing BECAUSE of all of theses claims.

And what made me a bit upset the other day was a post saying estrogen was useless. NOT TRUE! Try telling that to someone who has lost both ovaries and has vaginal atrophy...sorry don't mean to be gross. Or to someone who has bladder issues because of weak tissues or even prolapses because of low estrogen over a long period of time. So, there is sooooo much more to it than just vasomotor symptoms. Anyway, just trying to back up what you are saying. This girl is NOT going to resort to supplements for vasomotor issues...no way! If anything, and IF I can stop using the transdermal route. I will STILL use the other LOL! Boy, I had a long talk with Urogyn about all of this other day....mainly about systemic absorbtion. But I can't go there because it gets too graphic LOL! My point is...no...estrogen is not useless.

Anyway, GREAT post...you really spelled it out! :)

Mark,

TOTALLY agree! I was reading the FDA website yesterday; about how they do their studies and such. It was a real education for me. So your points are well taken too. I am frustrated too. I do NOT think the pharmaceutical companies, docs or anyone else for that matter are out to get us. Sorry, just don't buy into that AT ALL! You are right...there are SE's to everything. Case in point. I had an injection of Lupron years ago. Since then I have seen lawsuits regarding severe bone and joint pain after its use. Did this contribute to my OA? I have no idea and NO WAY to prove it. But do I hate or am angry with the company that manufactures it? Nope! It did what it was supposed to do and I may or may not have residual effects from it. Do I regret having that one injection? No, again.

And as you all know I went through withdrawals on Klonopin which is also supposed to be an evil, nasty drug. And I had a tapering schedule...the withdrawals still occurred. But the minute they hit I went straight to the ER. There was no way I was going to sit around and wait to see what would happen or ride it out...VERY dangerous. IF I ever have to come off of it, I will do a much, much slower tapering and/or maybe even try the wafers as I do so. Anyway, you know the rest of the story...I am STAYING on it for now. I THOUGHT I was tolerant...but found out I wasn't. My point is...as you say...yes, we take our chances. But as my Neurologist told me...there are WORSE things that can happen than just staying on it. And I DO agree with her.

[Gimpy]

Well, don't where to start. It was my understanding the above article even stated that the combination of these two drugs made cholesteral levels higher!

"The study also noted that the speed at which arteries thickened with plaque almost doubled among those on the two-drug regimen compared to those taking Zocor alone".

The information is out there, how one chooses to use it is entirely up to the individual. I for one dont' want companies to shorten their trials nor will I take a drug that's new to the market. My dr. pushed and pushed Vytorin on me, and look what it COULD have done. One nothing, two made the cholesterol worse.

Look at the UTube links Mrs. D. provided and it will show the correlations between high cholesterol and death from cardiac disease. It's showing more and more and that the two are not related after all, it is in the inflammation in the arteries. I'm not saying it is not called for in some patients. Just not everyone who walks into the cardiologists office with elevated cholesterol levels. People are still willing to take a pill vs. eating right and exercising if able.

G

P.S., Thanks to everyone for taking the time to think of the right words for their reply ;) ! All is fair in love and war.............

[Kathi49]

Gimpy,

I have already talked to the cardio doc about eating right and exercising. I think the problem comes in because of today's society. We don't or can't eat right at ALL times and some of us can't even exercise as aggressively as some might want to. I have already been told that dieting and exercising won't bring this down. But maybe he will have something else in mind. Or, it may be that I can't take any Statins. I just don't know yet until I meet with him.

As for uTube, and please no offense intended, but it is, after all...just another website that may or may not hype things up a bit. I prefer to stick with JAMA, WebMD or the FDA sites. But that's just me. I have run across too many websites that have been misleading or provided misinformation. Not only that, but my own humble opinion is...we really need to listen to our docs and ask the pertinent questions. I don't have a problem researching medications that are suggested or are given; but I do take issue with a lot of negativity simply because what is good for one might not be good for another. No one size fits all is what I am trying to say.

[mrsdoubtfyre]

This is from Nov 2007 in Leeds. .. Dr. Kendrick

Part 1:
http://www.blinkx.com/burl?v=G6vciYc9OWSxx9DgMCWr_g

Part 2:
http://www.blinkx.com/burl?v=Ud5IomS6OH6J0Y8y3jmAiw

Part 3:
http://www.blinkx.com/burl?v=j3RyPH38jKvx3OFfno6jXg

Part 4:
http://www.blinkx.com/burl?v=hgY9SZFFgL2pJuzQUOt48A

Part 5:
http://www.blinkx.com/burl?v=W0HwxgQEyX7JMDAWVABmvA

http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm

http://www.thincs.org/
There are doctors who do not agree with the use of cholesterol lowering drugs and here are some:
http://www.thincs.org/members.htm

I think like many things in medicine today, patients need to be informed about their treatments. Only after reading both sides, should a person accept a treatment. If cholesterol drugs were so terrific they would CLEARLY show benefit (benefits are quite small in reality). But they do not. Data has to be mathematically massaged and numbers presented in confusing ways (percents of percents) to doctors.
I predict, just like with Mevacor and Pravachol, and Zocor, that when Lipitor goes generic we will see many decreases in its use. Why? Because liability suits for damage, for a generic revert to the patent holder. In Lipitor's case, that is Pfizer. They will begin to release negative studies, and studies of side effects to minimize any future suits.

The makers of Seldane did a remarkable thing. When the generic came out for it, they withdrew their patent application, so no generic could be sold in US.
They already had Allegra in the works, and wanted NO competition, or liability due to drug interactions that Seldane had. However, Seldane is still available in other countries. It was a brilliant move, and we can all learn from it.

edit to say: the statins were designed for treating a genetic disorder familial hypercholesteremia. The drug companies decided to extend that indication.

Dr. Kendrick and his colleagues have alternative views and they are doctors too. I think that patients deserve both sides of the story. And when doctors themselves provide that data for the other side, I weigh it accordingly.

[Gimpy]

Gimpy,

No one size fits all is what I am trying to say.

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!! I'm in 100% agreement with this Kathi :)

[Mark N]

Mrs D, I agree with reading both sides of the issue but I am careful about the source I am reading. Youtube is nothing more than individuals acting any way they want to and saying what they want to but we have no way which ones are real and which ones are just put ons. We need to educate ourselves about our meds and health issues but we need to be careful about the sources we are using.

Gimpy, like you I am careful about what meds I use and check on them as best as I can. I know each one can cause SEs and WDs if I use them and I prefer the tested meds if I can. I have seen some bad SE & WD effects with the AD meds and neurotin my wife has tried so I am very aware about the effects they can cause. Youtube is a very questionable source and as a teacher I taught my students about the importance of knowing your sources. I am not saying all the cases on Youtube are fakes but we have no way to really know what they are really going through unless we know them personally. As Kira pointed out about the study it shows different aspects of Vytorum and doesn't say it effects the majority of patients that way. Every medication we take has potential SEs and some with WDs even vitamins and supplements. Most people don't know that fat soluble vitamins can reach toxic levels in us. Everything we use to treat our health issues have their own potential levels of danger.

[houghchrst]

As soon as I saw this I had to call my mom and see what she takes. Crestor. I think she had a really rough time when she first started taking it.

[mrsdoubtfyre]

who just happens to appear on YouTube. Someone offered the video of that medical seminar. He is not an imposter or making any $$ off his lecture.

I know that YouTube has transvestites on it, stupid adolecent videos, celebrities, and even talking cats and dogs.

But it also has videos of quality, of the candidates running for office,
and medical seminars, authors, etc.

Where else would the layman have access to a real medical seminar given in another country? How else could we share this?

Nobel prize winners?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1MdWmO9WMc
Nelson Mandela?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODQ4WiDsEBQ&feature=related

quote from MarkN
Mrs D, I agree with reading both sides of the issue but I am careful about the source I am reading. Youtube is nothing more than individuals acting any way they want to and saying what they want to but we have no way which ones are real and which ones are just put ons. We need to educate ourselves about our meds and health issues but we need to be careful about the sources we are using.

Dr. Kendrick is real. And on that list I provided above, there is a well known published doctor from my area as well.
The MONICA study quoted in the YouTube is real:
http://www.ktl.fi/monica/public/objectives.html

I applaud those doctors who have the courage to present their point of view to anyone who needs to see it. This is not what the drug companies are doing for patients, at this time.
Pfizer is using Dr. Jarvik, and he has a strange past.
Why is this doctor pushing cholesterol drugs?
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/01/07/congress-to-pfizer-why-is-robert-jarvik-the-lipitor-man/

[Kathi49]

Mark,

I agree...you have to be careful of the sources.

[mrsdoubtfyre]

we all should be very careful of Dr. Jarvik on those Lipitor commercials!:rolleyes:

Here is Pfizer's Dr. Jarvik on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANmmhKZIR-k

[Gimpy]

we all should be very careful of Dr. Jarvik on those Lipitor commercials!:rolleyes:

Here is Pfizer's Dr. Jarvik on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANmmhKZIR-k

Jarvic invented the artificial heart if I am correct. His involvement in this was spoke about on the news last night. He is expect to have to answer up over this; even though he wasn't advertising Vytorin.

G

[mrsdoubtfyre]

On antidepressants:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20080116/hl_hsn/antidepressanteffectivenessprobablyoverstatedrepor t

Antidepressant Effectiveness Probably Overstated: Report
WEDNESDAY, Jan. 16 (HealthDay News) -- A systematic review of studies on antidepressants concludes that the positive effects of these drugs are probably overstated in the medical literature.
ADVERTISEMENT

But it's not clear if the bias comes from a reluctance to submit negative manuscripts or decisions by journals not to publish them, or a combination of both, according to Oregon Health and Science University researchers, whose report is published in the Jan. 17 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

The researchers compared drug efficacy inferred from published studies with drug efficacy reported to a mandatory U.S. government registry of clinical trials, in which all results, including raw data, must be included.

Only 51 percent of studies in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration registry were considered by the agency to have positive results.

In the published medical literature, however, 94 percent of studies appeared positive.

The article goes on to explain, just what we have been discussing here.

It won't be long, before statins join this review. IMO.

[Gimpy]

On antidepressants:


The article goes on to explain, just what we have been discussing here.

It won't be long, before statins join this review. IMO.

I've studied this for a long time, like a said. I don't have sources to back up my gut feeling about statins; but I will continue to avoid them. My family all has high cholesterol, nobody has died from a heart attack or heart disease. However, my father and my uncle were both misdiagnosed and this caused congestive heart failure and they both died. They took the pills, didn't help a bit, the drs killed them.

G

[Mark N]

Mrs D, I am not saying all on youtube is junk just we need to be careful about which ones we give credence to. Where the Dr Kendrick clip is a valid one to consider the clip on the woman that was blogging about her troubles with Cymbalta has no basis of validation that we can check. Why should we be more leery of Dr Jarvik talking about Lipitor than Dr Kendrick. Both are paid a fee for what they espouse and we need to know the supporting evidence for their positions. I just take the position that we need a good healthy dose of skepticism about our meds and the claims made by everyone. The companies are out to sell their product, advocates what to promote the drug, and detractors want to point out only the problems that some suffer with the meds. How the meds will work for us is something we won't know for sure but will have to weigh the advantages v. the possible SEs and WDs.

[Gimpy]

I just saw the claims against "Dr. Jarvic". People want to believe what they see and hear.

Jarvic never finished med school or didn't pass the board, something like that. He is NOT a doctor like we think of, he is a scientific dr. who cannot prescribe medications. He has falsely represented himself and there is now a congressional investigation into it and his claims.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........................


G

[Kathi49]

Mark,

I agree.

[mrsdoubtfyre]

by Pfizer for his TV commercials. Many ****** get a million minimum.. One of the first Claritin commercials brought that figure out. In fact Dr. Wolfe's consumer group has been lobbying against drug TV commercials since they started.
Dr. Jarvik is a huge question mark for me too. He is not and never was a practicing physician. He is basically an biomedical engineer...telling people to use Lipitor.

Dr. Kendrick is a practicing physician in Scotland. Has seen and is seeing patients.
More on the recent Lancet study:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23382830-details/Statins+won't+prevent+women+getting+heart+disease, +claim+doctors/article.do

But I do not know if ANY money crossed hands for the medical seminar that was copied to YouTube. You do know that YouTube is free, don't you?

MarkN you can think what you like. For the other readers here, I found some more very interesting data/ info.

This site is very interesting:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi69.html

I've already read the Cholesterol Myths, so now I am going to get Dr. Kendrick's new book. I find it interesting that doctors are seeing the light as far as the numbers that appear in studies:
Doctors are breaking ranks to tell a story to the world. You may stand in disbelief as you read it here.

The sudden disclosure by a Harvard Medical School doctor in the British journal Lancet (Jan 20, 2007), that cholesterol-lowering drugs are of no benefit for three-quarters of the people who take them, has been followed by an even more stunning revelation in the New York Times where Dr. Arthur Agatston MD, a Florida cardiologist who is better known as the author of a diet book (The South Beach Diet), stated that "my patients don’t have heart attacks any more." Dr. Agatston is not known as the cholesterol-lowering doctor, he is better known professionally for having developed the severity scoring sheet for calcification of the arteries, now known as the Agatston score. [New York Times, Jan. 24, 2007]....Dr. James M Wright of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, co-author with Dr. Abramson, thinks physicians should be honest with their patients about the lack of evidence for the use of cholesterol-lowering drugs in low-risk patients.

Says Dr. Wright: "If you take a male who is 50 years old, a smoker, with high blood pressure, who eats the worst diet in the world . . . then if I were an honest physician, I would tell him that maybe he should be taking a statin. And if he asked how much would that reduce his risk, I would have to tell him that it would only reduce his risk by 2% over the next five years. If he understood that information, he would say, You're expecting me to take a pill everyday for five years? And it's going to cost me two dollars a day? You're crazy! I'm not going to do it." If physicians were truly honest with their patients, the doctor says, "I think there probably would be very few people being treated for primary prevention with a statin drug." [HeartWire Jan. 27, 2007]

And for the Vit D posters here, there is interesting news about IT and blocked arteries:
Other natural antidotes to arterial calcifications include vitamin K, vitamin D and magnesium.

Groups who consume the highest amounts of vitamin K from dietary sources exhibit more than a 50% reduction in coronary heart disease mortality and aortic calcium scores.

[Journal Nutrition 134: 3100–05, 2004] Vitamin K is naturally rich in spinach, broccoli and turnip greens.

Vitamin D has also been shown to be correlated with the absence of extensive arterial calcification. [Circulation 96: 1755–60, 1997] But the public is going to have to overcome mistaken advice usually offered by health professionals about vitamin D.....Modern medicine has never been able to explain why some 45–60 percent of patients with hospital admissions for a heart attack have a "normal level" of cholesterol. [Atherosclerosis 149: 181–90, 2000; Medical Hypotheses 59: 751–56, 2002] If your cholesterol is low-to-normal you are still at great risk to have a mortal heart attack. But if your calcium artery Agatston score is zero, your risk for a mortal heart attack is almost zero. [Cleveland Clinic Journal Medicine 49: Supp 3 – S-6-11, 2002]

I am all for information. And I think when information is hidden, and people don't want you to find it, or think for yourself sometimes, that one should be VERY careful.

[Gimpy]

Thanks Mrs. D for the info to support this statin theory. I've belived it from the beginning.

Linda

[Ted Hutchinson]

Malcolm Kendricks site (http://www.thincs.org/Malcolm.index.htm)
Here are a series of five videos of Kendrick presenting his arguement to Leeds Doctors. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPPYaVcXo1I&feature=related) I think he's well worth listening to.

Dr Davis at the Heartscanblog (http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/) regards Vitamin D3 as one of his leading tools for reducing plaque. His Track your Plaque website (http://www.trackyourplaque.com/) has these supplements on the shopping list
Co-Enzyme Q10
DHEA
L-Arginine
Magnesium
Omega-3/Fish Oil
Vitamin D3
Vitamin K2
B-Complex Vitamins

But these are backed up with a diet and exercise programme. I haven't read the book or joined the website but I do regularly enjoy reading his blog.