Vioxx (and also other Cox2 inhibitors) was a common prescription for aches and pains that was given to many people before it was removed from the market for causing death via heart disease. In the court cases, it has come to light that the people that produced Vioxx were well aware of its potential to adversely affect the heart. Yet they still saw to it that these drugs were brought to market and actively marketed as drugs of choice for treating aches and pains.
Today, we have a whole class of drugs commonly prescribed to people by the medical field because their blood level of cholesterol is deemed high. Medical science has attributed high levels of cholesterol to heart disease, yet the truth be known about 50% of the people who have heart attacks have normal cholesterol levels. Also studies with older populations show people with higher cholesterol levels have a longer life expectancy. A good perspective on the falsity of cholesterol theory has been done by a Swedish MD, Dr Uffe Ravnskov. He has written a book called "The Cholesterol Myths"
In medicine the standard for bringing any drug to market should be the benefits in taking that drug outweigh any risks involved from that same drug. In the case of statin drugs, they effectively lower the blood cholesterol numbers by interfering with a metabolic pathway involved in the bodies production of cholesterol. However, studies have failed to show a lower mortality rate simply from lowering cholesterol numbers. And there are several problems associated with interfering with this metabolic pathway. Most notably this same pathway interferes with the bodies supply of CoEnzyme Q10. CoQ10 in involved in cellular energy production in all cells. A common side effect of statin drugs is muscle weakness caused by the lower amounts of CoQ10 that the body has to work with. The heart being the most important muscle in the body also has to function with a lower rate of CoQ10 bringing into question the wisdom of treating heart disease with this class of drugs.
Even more disturbing about this lowered rate of CoQ10, is the fact that this nutrient is typically low in cancer patients and is in fact considered one of the many alternative cancer cures (see http://www.cancertutor.com/ ) In my mind this brings into question the fact that statin drugs as a class may cause cancer. In fact the rat studies of statin drugs did see an increase in cancers. The reason that this may not be evident in human trials of statin drugs is that most if not all of the studies of statin drugs lasted less than five years. Cancers typically take longer than five years to develop and in fact if you were to conduct a study trying to find a correlation of tobacco use and cancer and the study lasted only five years, you would probably not find a correlation.
The drug makers are well aware that these drugs lower CoQ10 in the body. In Europe and Canada, patients prescribed statin drugs also get a prescription for this nutrient. Merck has patented a version of Lipitor that includes CoQ10 in the US but has not brought it to market. And unlike Europe and Canada, few physicians in the US advise their patient to take CoQ10 supplements.
Another effect of statin drugs is that they stimulate the growth of blood vessels. While this may might sound like an innocuous benefit, the greatest need for increased blood vessel growth is from cancer cells and recently researchers have called this effect into question For more info on this see http://www.mercola.com/2000/sep/10/statins_cancer.htm and/or http://www.yourmedicaldetective.com/public/1020.cfm
In closing I would like to add that this research takes on a personal note with me. My mother was a seven year statin drug user. She recently passed away at the young age of 72 from pancreatic cancer. I fully attribute her death to her total trust in the medical industry.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Perhaps you have seen the Direct-to-Consumer TV and print advertisements with Robert Jarvik, the inventor of the Jarvik Heart, speaking on behalf of the Pfizer’s anti-cholesterol drug, Lipitor.
Perhaps Jarvik is not the best choice for the Lipitor campaign which has had mixed reviews. Instead of Jarvik, a more convincing yet unlikely spokesman would be the popular Duane Graveline MD MPH, a former NASA astronaut, and author who was started on Lipitor during an annual astronaut physical at the Johnson Space Center, and 6 weeks later had an episode of transient global amnesia, a sudden form of total memory loss described in his book, Lipitor Thief of Memory.
Two more unlikely spokesmen for the Lipitor ad campaign include Mary Enig and Uffe Ravnskov.
Should either one be selected as Lipitor spokesman, I myself would run down to the corner drug store to buy up the drug. It seems unlikey that even Pfizer’s deep pockets could ever induce them to recant their opposing position on the cholesterol theory of heart disease.
Mary G. Enig writes, ”hypercholesterolemia is the health issue of the 21st century. It is actually an invented disease, a problem that emerged when health professionals learned how to measure cholesterol levels in the blood.
Uffe Ravnskov MD PhD is spokesman for Thincs, The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics, and author of “The Cholesterol Myths, Exposing the Fallacy That Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Cause Heart Disease”. His controversial ideas have angered loyal cholesterol theory supporters in Finland who demonstrated by burning his book on live television.
For more discussion on this, see my newsletter: Lipitor and The Dracula of Modern Technology
Jeffrey Dach MD
The correct estimate by the FDA is 27,785 heart attacks AND deaths. The ratio of heart attacks to deaths was 6675 / 1524, so the number of DEATHS indicated by the FDA memo was 5,165.
Mysteriously, when people repeat this initial figure of 27,785, they claim they were all deaths, and keep increasing the number over the years - it's often cited as 60,000 by 2005, and here in 2007 it magically became 100,000 deaths.
Vioxx made my life bearable for the 2 years I took it after sustaining a terrible nerve injury in 2001. Nothing else took away the pain without terrible side effects. And I was not in an at-risk category. I am grateful for Vioxx and resent the FDA's high-handed decision to decide for me that it was better for me to live in pain than to continue taking it.
Post a Comment