NaturalNews.com published February 21 2008
Doctors in Denial about Patients' Side Effects from Prescription Drugs
by David Gutierrez (NaturalNews)
Doctors are overwhelmingly inclined to dismiss patients' complaints about potential side-effects from cholesterol-reducing statins and rarely report those complaints to the FDA, according to a survey conducted by researchers from the University of California at San Diego and published in the peer-reviewed journal Drug Safety.
The study suggests that doctors have a tendency to attribute patients' complaints to age or other factors unrelated to prescription drugs, and that this problem may extend to drugs other than statins.
"Person after person spontaneously [told] us that their doctors told them that symptoms like muscle pain couldn't have come from the drug," said lead researcher Beatrice Golomb. "We were surprised at how prevalent that experience was.
"The researchers solicited survey respondents through advertisements and over the Internet, including on web sites where patients had complained about side effects from the drugs. Most of the respondents lived in the United States, and the average age was in the early 60s. The majority of respondents reported having complained to their doctors about problems that arose after they began the drugs, particularly memory and attention problems or tingling and numbness in the extremities. But few doctors made a connection between these complaints and the drugs, even when the symptoms were documented side effects.
"Overwhelmingly, it was the patient that initiated that conversation," Golomb said. Doctors instead tended to blame the symptoms on aging or even to dismiss them as insignificant or imaginary.
As much as 30 percent of patients taking statins may experience muscle pain or other side effects. But these numbers may be on the low end if doctors are not reporting side effects when they occur.
The FDA relies primarily on doctors to fill out "adverse event reports" to help monitor drugs after they have hit the market. Patients can also file reports at http://www.FDA.gov/medwatch but few people are aware of this program. In contrast, other countries such as New Zealand rely heavily on data from patients to continue monitoring drugs.
According to Golomb, one-fifth of all FDA-approved drugs will eventually be withdrawn from the market or given black-box warnings due to severe side effects.
Article from http://www.naturalnews.com/022687.html
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Monday, February 11, 2008
Cholesterol Lowering Statin Drugs for Women, Just Say No by Jeffrey Dach MD
See Dr. Jeffrey Dach's good article on cholesterol and women here. Lot of good information for the rest of us as well.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Current clinical evidence does not demonstrate that titrating lipid therapy to achieve proposed low LDL cholesterol levels is beneficial or safe.
From the Annals of Internal Medicine - (3 October 2006 Volume 145 Issue 7 Pages 520-530).
by Rodney A. Hayward, MD; Timothy P. Hofer, MD, MSc; and Sandeep Vijan, MD, MSc
"The authors found no clinical trial subgroup analyses or valid cohort or case–control analyses suggesting that the degree to which LDL cholesterol responds to a statin independently predicts the degree of cardiovascular risk reduction."
Here are the 'Key Summary Points"
by Rodney A. Hayward, MD; Timothy P. Hofer, MD, MSc; and Sandeep Vijan, MD, MSc
"The authors found no clinical trial subgroup analyses or valid cohort or case–control analyses suggesting that the degree to which LDL cholesterol responds to a statin independently predicts the degree of cardiovascular risk reduction."
Here are the 'Key Summary Points"
- No high-quality evidence could be found that suggests that titrating lipid therapy to recommended low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol targets is superior to empirically prescribing doses of statins used in clinical trials for all patients at high cardiovascular risk.
- Studies addressing benefits of achieving LDL cholesterol goals have had avoidable problems, such as reliance on ecological (aggregate) analyses, ignoring statins' other proposed mechanisms of action, and not accounting for known confounders (especially healthy volunteer effects).
- Much more reliable evidence on currently proposed LDL cholesterol goals could be expeditiously produced by conducting cohort analyses of past statin trials that control for statin dose and pill adherence.
- Dichotomous comparisons (such as comparing those who reach goal vs. those who do not) can mistakenly suggest that not achieving the treatment goal results in moderate risk when in fact almost all of the risk is caused by large deviations from the ideal goal.
- Proposals for treatment goals should also consider the risks, patient burden, and societal costs of the treatments that may be needed to reach those goals.
Monday, November 26, 2007
A lesson from "Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) Dietary Modification Trial. "
Sandy Szwarc states the purpose of her blog Junkfood Science to be:
"Critical examinations of studies and news on food, weight, health and healthcare that mainstream media misses. Debunks popular myths, explains science and exposes fraud that affects your health. Plus some fun food for thought. For readers not afraid to question and think critically to get to the truth."
She then discusses some results of the WHI that didn't seem to make headlines. It's a good read and quite informative. Read her full article HERE.
"Critical examinations of studies and news on food, weight, health and healthcare that mainstream media misses. Debunks popular myths, explains science and exposes fraud that affects your health. Plus some fun food for thought. For readers not afraid to question and think critically to get to the truth."
She then discusses some results of the WHI that didn't seem to make headlines. It's a good read and quite informative. Read her full article HERE.
Are you a woman taking cholesterol lowering statin medication? Please read this.
In their paper "Evidence for Caution: Women and statin use" authors Harriet Rosenberg and Danielle Allard make the following statement,
"Our review of these fields identifies a troubling disjuncture between the widespread use of statin medication for women and the evidence base for that usage. What we found instead was evidence for caution."
Then in their conclusion they state
"We have assessed the impact of statin use on women starting from the assumption that if a woman is put on a drug for the rest of her life, the reasons for doing so must be based on the highest quality, most credible data possible. There must be solid evidence of advantage over harm and careful analysis of any serious adverse outcomes that may arise immediately or with years or decades of use or when used in conjunction with other drugs commonly prescribed for women. In other words, a Canadian woman should be able to take a pill, safe in the knowledge that its benefits and safety were tested on women like her. She should embark on long-term commitment to a drug therapy with the understanding that she is highly likely to derive a clear advantage in terms of health and longevity and also feel confident that information about any risks will be explained to her in meaningful and accessible language.
These expectations have not been met. Instead we have found a pattern of overestimation of benefit and underestimation of harm."
Please read the full article HERE.
"Our review of these fields identifies a troubling disjuncture between the widespread use of statin medication for women and the evidence base for that usage. What we found instead was evidence for caution."
Then in their conclusion they state
"We have assessed the impact of statin use on women starting from the assumption that if a woman is put on a drug for the rest of her life, the reasons for doing so must be based on the highest quality, most credible data possible. There must be solid evidence of advantage over harm and careful analysis of any serious adverse outcomes that may arise immediately or with years or decades of use or when used in conjunction with other drugs commonly prescribed for women. In other words, a Canadian woman should be able to take a pill, safe in the knowledge that its benefits and safety were tested on women like her. She should embark on long-term commitment to a drug therapy with the understanding that she is highly likely to derive a clear advantage in terms of health and longevity and also feel confident that information about any risks will be explained to her in meaningful and accessible language.
These expectations have not been met. Instead we have found a pattern of overestimation of benefit and underestimation of harm."
Please read the full article HERE.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
What? Me a Muscle Hack. ... I doubt it! In fact I deny it.
But there is a Muscle Hack that is up there in my book (actually I don't have a book - as in authoring one at least). And if you are a Muscle Hack (what is a Muscle Hack anyway?) please read an interview with one - Anthony Colpo. As usual, he has a strong, well informed, well researched, and entertaining view.
Caution: Anthony provides this disclaimer about the interview.
If you are a politically correct pansy who takes deep offense when a grown man speaks his mind, or if you are a member of The Church of Latter Day Metabolic Advantage Believers, then you read the interview at your own risk. Neither the interviewer or interviewee are in any way responsible for any resulting nervous breakdowns or intra-cranial hemorrhages occurring in those who can't handle information that clashes with their own deeply held beliefs.Though not a Muscle Hack I am interested in health and diet (I don't think they're distinctly different topics) and will say Anthony Colpo speaks on these topics with gusto.
Interview tith Colpo: Muscle Hack
Colpo's Books: The Great Cholesterol CON; The Fat Loss Bible
Colpo's article in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons: LDL Cholesterol:"Bad" Cholesterol, or Bad Science?
Caution: Anthony provides this disclaimer about the interview.
If you are a politically correct pansy who takes deep offense when a grown man speaks his mind, or if you are a member of The Church of Latter Day Metabolic Advantage Believers, then you read the interview at your own risk. Neither the interviewer or interviewee are in any way responsible for any resulting nervous breakdowns or intra-cranial hemorrhages occurring in those who can't handle information that clashes with their own deeply held beliefs.Though not a Muscle Hack I am interested in health and diet (I don't think they're distinctly different topics) and will say Anthony Colpo speaks on these topics with gusto.
Interview tith Colpo: Muscle Hack
Colpo's Books: The Great Cholesterol CON; The Fat Loss Bible
Colpo's article in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons: LDL Cholesterol:"Bad" Cholesterol, or Bad Science?
From the author of "The Fat Loss Bible"
Anthony Colpo author of "The Cholesterol CON" and "The Fat Loss Bible" speaks his mind on the unsubstantiated claim of those who espouse the metabolic advantage view of dieting. Read his expose here or select item under Credible Evidence column on the right.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Do You Drink 8 Glasses of Water a Day?
We hear a lot on advice, including from doctors, about how important it is to do just that.
How long has it been that you have gone through a day without seeing several or many people carrying and/or sipping from a bottle of water? The word has surely has gotten out and permeates our lives. Look at the tons of bottled water on the grocer’s shelves and in vending machines. And where I live there are ambitious hawkers along the busy streets selling same.
In a book written by a physician titled "Your Body's Many Cries For Water" it is claimed that simply drinking more water "cures many diseases like..."
So what is the truth about drinking water? Must I constantly be sucking on a water bottle as I go about my day? Do the 'scare' emails that have been going around for the past several years on this subject accurately portray the need and importance? Certainly your doctor who parrots the party line must know the truth, right?
Well I don't really know the answer myself but it's got to be out there somewhere. A nutrition researcher, Barbara Rolls has written a book on water and says of the "First Commandment of Good Health: Drink at least eight 8-ounces of water a day" she can't even tell you where it came from.
So as for me and my house, we will follow the "best general advice" as given at the end of this article http://www.snopes.com/medical/myths/8glasses.asp, to "rely upon your normal senses. If you feel thirsty, drink; if you don't feel thirsty, don't drink unless you want to."
That really makes sense to me.
How long has it been that you have gone through a day without seeing several or many people carrying and/or sipping from a bottle of water? The word has surely has gotten out and permeates our lives. Look at the tons of bottled water on the grocer’s shelves and in vending machines. And where I live there are ambitious hawkers along the busy streets selling same.
In a book written by a physician titled "Your Body's Many Cries For Water" it is claimed that simply drinking more water "cures many diseases like..."
So what is the truth about drinking water? Must I constantly be sucking on a water bottle as I go about my day? Do the 'scare' emails that have been going around for the past several years on this subject accurately portray the need and importance? Certainly your doctor who parrots the party line must know the truth, right?
Well I don't really know the answer myself but it's got to be out there somewhere. A nutrition researcher, Barbara Rolls has written a book on water and says of the "First Commandment of Good Health: Drink at least eight 8-ounces of water a day" she can't even tell you where it came from.
So as for me and my house, we will follow the "best general advice" as given at the end of this article http://www.snopes.com/medical/myths/8glasses.asp, to "rely upon your normal senses. If you feel thirsty, drink; if you don't feel thirsty, don't drink unless you want to."
That really makes sense to me.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Cholesterol lowering statin drugs and Cancer!
Today I came across an article in Medical News Today (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/) in the section under the Main Category: Cholesterol News which re-opened my eyes to the scary connection between statin drugs and cancer. I've linked to the full article under Credible Evidence.
The first paragraph of this article states the following:
"Statins, a type of LDL cholesterol-lowering drug, were recently shown to have a significant, positive association with newly diagnosed cancer cases. When newly diagnosed cancer cases were correlated with cholesterol reduction, a disturbing significant correspondence was found, and recently published as, "Effect of the Magnitude of Lipid Lowering on Risk of Elevated Liver Enzymes, Rhabdomyolysis, and Cancer, by Alsheikh-Ali, et al., in Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Vol. 50, No. 5, 2007, pages 409-418)."
So I ask "Would you rather die of a Heart Attack or from Cancer?" Of course if we had our druthers we'd likely all say 'NEITHER' Right? Well think about it for a moment then answer.
And If I was a betting man I'd bet this won't make the big time news.
Furthermore it's not even new news.
The PROSPER trial found a 25% increase in newly diagnosed cancers among elderly individuals treated with pravastatin (Pravachol). There were 24 more deaths from cancer to more than offset the 20 fewer deaths due to coronary heart disease. This had also been observed in animal tests earlier with one of the highest increases observed in the gastrointestinal cancers. And who should be suprised that the PROSPER authors dismissed these findings by referring to pooled analysis which showed no statistically significant difference in cancer incidence between placebo and statin groups. The PROSPER trial did not even include skin cancer. Two others did however, the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S) and the HPS simvastatin trial. They both noted an increase in skin cancer. And in the CARE trial 12 women taking pravastatin developed breast cancer whereas only one in the placebo group developed breast cancer.
Other quotes from the Medical News Today article :
"Following the adage, "lower is better," intensive LDL cholesterol lowering has been practiced by physicians on their patients throughout America since 1987, with Lovastatin and more recently with a new generation of statins."
"With statin use, the increase in cancer deaths offset (counteract) the lower cardiac mortality associated with lower cholesterol, resulting in a neutral effect of overall mortality. TRANSLATION: With statins, you don't die of a heart attack, instead, you die of cancer."
Well now that you've thought about it would you die of a heart attack or of cancer?
A side note that makes this a bit personal for me:
The first paragraph of this article states the following:
"Statins, a type of LDL cholesterol-lowering drug, were recently shown to have a significant, positive association with newly diagnosed cancer cases. When newly diagnosed cancer cases were correlated with cholesterol reduction, a disturbing significant correspondence was found, and recently published as, "Effect of the Magnitude of Lipid Lowering on Risk of Elevated Liver Enzymes, Rhabdomyolysis, and Cancer, by Alsheikh-Ali, et al., in Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Vol. 50, No. 5, 2007, pages 409-418)."
So I ask "Would you rather die of a Heart Attack or from Cancer?" Of course if we had our druthers we'd likely all say 'NEITHER' Right? Well think about it for a moment then answer.
And If I was a betting man I'd bet this won't make the big time news.
Furthermore it's not even new news.
The PROSPER trial found a 25% increase in newly diagnosed cancers among elderly individuals treated with pravastatin (Pravachol). There were 24 more deaths from cancer to more than offset the 20 fewer deaths due to coronary heart disease. This had also been observed in animal tests earlier with one of the highest increases observed in the gastrointestinal cancers. And who should be suprised that the PROSPER authors dismissed these findings by referring to pooled analysis which showed no statistically significant difference in cancer incidence between placebo and statin groups. The PROSPER trial did not even include skin cancer. Two others did however, the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S) and the HPS simvastatin trial. They both noted an increase in skin cancer. And in the CARE trial 12 women taking pravastatin developed breast cancer whereas only one in the placebo group developed breast cancer.
Other quotes from the Medical News Today article :
"Following the adage, "lower is better," intensive LDL cholesterol lowering has been practiced by physicians on their patients throughout America since 1987, with Lovastatin and more recently with a new generation of statins."
"With statin use, the increase in cancer deaths offset (counteract) the lower cardiac mortality associated with lower cholesterol, resulting in a neutral effect of overall mortality. TRANSLATION: With statins, you don't die of a heart attack, instead, you die of cancer."
Well now that you've thought about it would you die of a heart attack or of cancer?
A side note that makes this a bit personal for me:
- I was on cholesterol lowering statins for roughly 20 years beginning in the mid 1980s. I finally discontinues taking statins sometime in 2004
- In 1994 (with low cholesterol) I had a heart attack resulting in open heart surgery.
- P.S. Five subsequent heart attacks (most recent Jan 31, 2012), three requiring stents - all while having well below 'their recommended' serum cholesterol readings. (added this item Oct 8, 2007)
- In 2003 I had a fist sized gastrointestinal cancerous tumor removed along with about 9 inches of my small intestine.
- I've had one basal cell carcinoma (skin cancer) surgically removed about 3 years ago.
- I personally have no data to tie these events in my life together.
- I feel good now - like none of the above had happened. It almost seems surreal. But I've had five subsequent heart attacks - three with stents and there is some possibility that the cancer could reappear.
Something is going to get me sooner or later.
What will it be?
I'd pick the heart attack over cancer.
Am I worried? NO!
Because I believe the words of this hymn:
I know not why God's wondrous grace to me he hath made known,
nor why, unworthy, Christ in love redeemed me for his own.
But I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able
to keep that which I've committed unto him against that day.
I know not how this saving faith to me he did impart,
nor how believing in his word wrought peace within my heart.
I know not how the Spirit moves, convincing us of sin,
revealing Jesus through the word, creating faith in him.
I know not when my Lord may come, at night or noonday fair,
nor if I walk the vale with him, or meet him in the air.
But I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I've committed unto him against that day.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Doctors recommend Omega 3s and CoQ10
My RSS reader has been monitoring a blog from "Rebuild from Depression" (http://www.rebuild-from-depression.com/). I'll admit I don't actually read it often but the beauty of Real Simple Syndication (RSS) is being informed when new content is added. This one did catch my eye and I clicked the link to read the full article. Why? I usually get depressed reading about depression so it had to be something else. As you can tell from my Credible Evidence listings to the right of my blog, my larger interest is health issues related to the heart and diet. So, why is that not depressing? Guess I'm just wierd - though not depressed - even though some might think I have reason to be (see my previous post).
The new content that caught my eye began as follows:
========================================
"Best Omega 3 Food: Fish and Seafood
Every day it seems that there is new evidence that Omega 3 fatty acids can alleviate depression, heart disease, Alzheimer’s, and improve overall health. The Omega 3 supplement industry has soared.
Clinical trials on depression use high doses of Omega 3 fatty acids and find that people struggling with depression get some relief. Omega 3s are important in brain function generally and the western diet has been rather deficient in the fat for the last century.
What your best strategy is to improve your Omega 3 fatty acid status is to take an Omega 3 supplement and to add foods to your diet high in Omega 3 and low in Omega 6."
=======================================
I added the emphasis by italicizing, bolding, & bluing "heart disease" above.
I encourage you to read the full article at http://www.rebuild-from-depression.com/blog/2007/08/best_omega_3_food_fish_and_sea.html
Well Omega 3s have gotten a lot of press in the heart disease circles. I was even asked to begin taking fish oil supplements by my cardiologist several years ago. However I'd already been taking it for sometime but not on any of my doctor's advice as they mostly seemed to prefer statin drugs for what ails me and almost anyone else. And being advised to partake of FAT by a cardiologist who is mostly interested in your cholesterol levels (rather than your health), and the fact that Omega 3s have been shown to increase serum cholesterol in clinical trials, is a bit surprising. You may detect a bit of cynicism in my voice (or typed words). And it's true. I'll admit it. It's there. My parenthetical dig above, "rather than your health", is not entirely fair. In fact it was a stent toting cardiologist who I can thank for initiating my interest in what was to me, the good doobee patient, out of the box thinking which then led to my ongoing research into things good for my 'ticker'. What did he do or say? Well, after shoving a non-drug eluting stent up my groin into my heart to smash the nasty, gooey, fatty substance back out of the way of oxygen carrying red blood cells that were sorely needed (pun intended) by my suffering heart muscles, he suggested that I might look into taking a supplement called CoQ10 since I complained of statin myalgia (statin induced muscle soreness).
Anyway fish oil (not the same as snake oil), CoQ10, and many other interesting things have come from my search. Maybe one or more of my findings will be of interest to you as well.
The new content that caught my eye began as follows:
========================================
"Best Omega 3 Food: Fish and Seafood
Every day it seems that there is new evidence that Omega 3 fatty acids can alleviate depression, heart disease, Alzheimer’s, and improve overall health. The Omega 3 supplement industry has soared.
Clinical trials on depression use high doses of Omega 3 fatty acids and find that people struggling with depression get some relief. Omega 3s are important in brain function generally and the western diet has been rather deficient in the fat for the last century.
What your best strategy is to improve your Omega 3 fatty acid status is to take an Omega 3 supplement and to add foods to your diet high in Omega 3 and low in Omega 6."
=======================================
I added the emphasis by italicizing, bolding, & bluing "heart disease" above.
I encourage you to read the full article at http://www.rebuild-from-depression.com/blog/2007/08/best_omega_3_food_fish_and_sea.html
Well Omega 3s have gotten a lot of press in the heart disease circles. I was even asked to begin taking fish oil supplements by my cardiologist several years ago. However I'd already been taking it for sometime but not on any of my doctor's advice as they mostly seemed to prefer statin drugs for what ails me and almost anyone else. And being advised to partake of FAT by a cardiologist who is mostly interested in your cholesterol levels (rather than your health), and the fact that Omega 3s have been shown to increase serum cholesterol in clinical trials, is a bit surprising. You may detect a bit of cynicism in my voice (or typed words). And it's true. I'll admit it. It's there. My parenthetical dig above, "rather than your health", is not entirely fair. In fact it was a stent toting cardiologist who I can thank for initiating my interest in what was to me, the good doobee patient, out of the box thinking which then led to my ongoing research into things good for my 'ticker'. What did he do or say? Well, after shoving a non-drug eluting stent up my groin into my heart to smash the nasty, gooey, fatty substance back out of the way of oxygen carrying red blood cells that were sorely needed (pun intended) by my suffering heart muscles, he suggested that I might look into taking a supplement called CoQ10 since I complained of statin myalgia (statin induced muscle soreness).
Anyway fish oil (not the same as snake oil), CoQ10, and many other interesting things have come from my search. Maybe one or more of my findings will be of interest to you as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)