Swallowing Statins; Hook, Line & Sinker

Swallowing Statins: Hook, Line and Sinker

ABC Good Morning America: June 29, 2010

NewsFlash: “Nearly two years ago, a study known as the JUPITER trial hinted at a new era in the use of statins -- one in which the cholesterol-busting drugs could be used to stave off heart-related death in many more people than just those with high cholesterol.”

This study ‘changed the treatment guidelines;’ opening the floodgates for doctors to prescribe statins, such as AstraZeneca’s Crestor, to adults who do not have high cholesterol, and begin prescribing them to children as well.

Is it surprising to anyone that a study audaciously named JUPITER (Justification for the Use of Statins in Primary Prevention), a study funded by a drug company (AstraZeneca), performed by researchers with strong financial incentives and ties to the drug company, a study in which “the sponsor collected the trial data and monitored the study sites,” concluded the use of statins in primary prevention is justified?

That would be like believing BP, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, etc., have realistic contingency plans for deepwater oil spills.

Both are examples of self-serving, inhumane, corporate profit-driven science.

A second look at this study (2 years and multi-billions in corporate profits later),”turned up no evidence of the ‘striking decrease in coronary heart disease complications’ reported by investigators behind JUPITER.”

No surprise there!

This isn’t a 2010 newsflash. I wrote about how flawed and corrupt the JUPITER study is back in November of 2008 (Holy JUPITER Batman!), two weeks after the study was released!

The short of it is:

1. High blood cholesterol is not a disease. While it can be secondary to many other diseases, it is mostly associated with poor lifestyle choices: poor diet and lack of exercise.
2. “According to Framingham Heart Study, people with an age greater than 50 years have no increased overall mortality with either high or low serum cholesterol levels.”
3. Half of all heart attacks occur in people with normal cholesterol. That said, how can anyone ‘justify’ lowering cholesterol in any group to ‘normal?’
4. The results of JUPITER were underwhelming: “the proportion of patients with hard cardiac events-cardiovascular death, MI, and stroke-was reduced from 1.8% in the placebo group to 0.9% in the statin group. That represents an absolute reduction of only 0.9%.” Stated another way; ‘the data actually means that 120 people would need to take Crestor daily for 2 years to (possibly) prevent 1 heart attack or stroke. At a cost of $3.45 a day, that’s $300,000 for Big Pharma to (possibly) prevent one problem.‘

The red flags here are numerous and ominous.

1. Drug companies are constantly creating new diseases and marketing their drugs as cures, seeking FDA approval for ‘cradle-to-grave’ blockbuster drugs. They are getting close to that goal with statins.
2. Corporate profit-driven science is corrupt and cannot be trusted.

3. Medical treatment guidelines are being developed by doctors/researchers with financial ties to corporations. These guidelines determine ‘standards of care’ and doctors’ prescribing habits with legal ramifications. Stated another way: drug companies are writing guidelines that require physicians to prescribe their drugs or be open to malpractice suits.

4. For us to believe that we all need to take statins, or any other drug, to stave off disease, is to believe that we all inherently suffer from some drug deficiency syndrome. It disarms us from taking personal responsibility for our health and making simple lifestyle changes that, better than any drug, can help us reclaim our health.

Holy J.U.P.I.T.E.R Batman!

Holy J.U.P.I.T.E.R. Batman!

Last week the results of a "landmark" drug study ‘that could dramatically change the treatment of cardiovascular disease’ were broadcast to the world.

The study called JUPITER (Justification for the Use of Statins in Primary Prevention; an Intervention Trial Evaluation Rosuvastatin (Crestor) claims ‘new data showing that the treatment of apparently healthy patients with a statin cuts their risk of cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality by almost half .'

Such a stunning claim is likely to 'change the (treatment) guidelines', to include treating a much wider range of apparently healthy people with satins.

This is the typical medical-pharmaceutical modus operandi: broadening the diagnosis (to include many more people); to justify drug therapy to broaden the market (to boost sales).

Back in 2001, the last time the cholesterol guidelines were changed by the Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol, the number of Americans who ‘needed’ to be on statins jumped from 13 to 36 million overnight (Overdo$ed America: ch 9). What a boon to the pharmaceutical makers! The drug industry's statin sales surpassed $15 billion last year. Now, they are working hard to dramatically expand on that.

It is not surprising that 9 of the 14 'experts' on that panel had strong ties to the drug companies that make statins. Dr. Paul Ridker, who presented JUPITER, is the co-inventor of the CRP test recommended in this study. He has also worked as a consultant and received research money from AstraZeneca, the pharmaceutical company that sponsored the study and manufactures the statin Crestor.

Now, let’s look at J.U.P.I.T.E.R.

But, before we do, it is important to understand the concept of absolute verses relative risk. After all, if the claim is that statins lower the risk by almost half, isn’t it of paramount importance to know what that risk really is?

So…

Would you take a drug every day for 2 years if it…..?
(Selling Sickness p.84)

A. Lowered your risk of having, and/or dying from, a heart attack by 50%?
B. Lowered your risk of having, and/or dying from, a heart attack by 1%
C. Possibly would prevent 1 person in 100 from having, and/or dying from, a heart attack, but there is no way of knowing who that person is or, if it is you?

All the above are different ways of expressing the same thing.

If the risk of having, and/or dying from, a heart attack is only 2% and taking statins lowers the risk to only 1%...

A. a change from 2% to 1% represents a relative decrease in risk of 50%
B. a change from 2% to 1% represents an absolute decrease of only 1%
C. a change of 1% represents 1 in 100.

That is exactly what the JUPITER statistics reveal: 'the proportion of patients with hard cardiac events—cardiovascular death, MI, and stroke-- was reduced from 1.8% in the placebo (group) to 0.9% in the statin group. That represents a relative decrease of 50% but an absolute reduction of only 0.9%.'

Stated another way; 'the data actually means that 120 people would need to take Crestor daily for 2 years to (possibly) prevent 1 heart attack or stroke. At a cost of $3.45 a day, that's $300,000 for Big Pharma to (possibly) prevent one problem.'

You see, the science is corrupt and should not be trusted.

Drug manufacturers either own, or hugely influence, the researchers, the doctors, the most prestigious medical journals, the legislators, the FDA, the guideline panels of experts, the media broadcast news and advertising and the so-called consumer advocacy groups, like the American Heart Association, etc (Overdo$ed America: ch 7).

They ask questions like: 'Does this drug lower cholesterol?' And then they proceed with studies to justify the answer they want. Remember, they even named the study JUPITER; JUSTIFICATION for the Use of Satins!

They manipulate us and the numbers. They abuse our fear and our trust and then they use mathematical relative values (a 50% decrease) to sell the benefits of a drug and the absolute values (1% chance) to downplay the risks associated with taking the drug itself.

What you don’t know can hurt, or even kill, you. Cholesterol is not the problem.

The recent reports about JUPITER even state: 'doctors have long been mystified by the fact that about half of heart attacks occur in patients with normal cholesterol levels.'

That means nothing less than: having normal cholesterol is as ‘dangerous,’ and as much of a ‘risk factor’ of having a heart attack as is having high cholesterol.

So, what science can possibly support the lowering of cholesterol to ‘normal’ if the risk is 50/50?

Answer: NONE!