Cholesterol, Statins, Coenzyme Q10, Cardiovascular Disease, et al.

To set the stage, the following three paragraphs are the introduction at the top of each Outback column:

A great deal of what we read in newspapers, magazines, and books, and what we see in the movies and on TV is written and produced in New York City or Los Angeles. Much of the "political wisdom" comes from the PR machines of the White House, the Congress, and from the Washington media corps.

In short, one might conclude that all knowledge, wisdom, and wit are confined to those who inhabit New York City, Washington DC, or Hollywood.

I am now a senior citizen, in my 7th decade. My experience was gained in many cities in the U.S. and in about 30 foreign countries. That experience has included the U.S. Marines, law school, the ATF, the CIA, Fortune 500 executive, writer, public speaker, educator, editor, and publisher - for openers. Some insights come from talking with ham-radio operators in every major country and such idyllic places as the Cooke Islands. For over 20 years, I have written articles off and on for various magazines and newspapers. I've had an enormous number of letters published in major national publications. The Outback is the rural area in Northeast Texas where I have lived for the past 19 years. (Update 2007: I have suspended the Outback - for a variety of reasons. The old files are still on the sever.)

(When you click on a topic and then find it in a particular Outback, use your browser's BACK button to return here, or in IE6 Open a New Window, or in Firefox Open a New Tab - and a new Tab, etc.)

Disclaimer: The content of articles on this web site are provided for information purposes only. A decision to act upon the information presented on this web site is at the discretion of the reader. No liability or responsibility whatsoever is accepted by the author(s) of any material contained within this web site for any alleged harm arising from the use or dissemination of this material. All decisions regarding health and medical issues should be made in consultation with one or more competent medical practitioners.

• Links to Outback Articles
• Patent That Includes Statin and Coenzyme Q10 in Same Tablet or Capsule
• Some Other Avenues You Might Explore
• Bits and Pieces About CoQ10, Statins, Cholesterol, etc. From Various Outbacks
• Cholesterol and Saturated Fat Won't Kill You - But Too Many Carbs May

Links to Outback Articles

"Let's Beat Up On The Atkins Diet" Week - March 12, 2006

"Statins Inducing Heart Problems, Among Other Things" Sat. July 10, 2004

"The End-Run for the New Cholesterol and Blood Pressure Guidelines" Sat. Dec. 11, 2004

"Statins Prevent Pneumonia - Maybe, Maybe Not - Anyway Who Cares?" Tuesday, August 2, 2005

"Vitamin E and Harvard Med" Thur., June 2, 2005

"Medical Study Reports Have Many Flaws" Sunday, May 1, 2005

"Amiodarone (Cordarone)Forced by FDA to Admit Potential Lethal Effects" Sat. March 5, 2005

"Blood Pressure Medication Needs to Follow Body's Rhythms" Sat. March 5, 2005

"Amiodarone - A Classic Case of Dangerous Over-Medication" Nov. 27, 2004

"Heart Disease, Statins, Pick a Theory" Mon. Oct. 4, 2004

"Bill Clinton, I Feel Your Pain" Fri. Sept. 3, 2004

"A Simple Test For Dumping Your Doctor" Fri. Sept. 3, 2004

"LIPITOR Continues to Cite Dubious Facts" Tuesday, Oct. 14, 2003

"More Tiny Chinks in the Cholesterol-Satuarated-Fat Argument" Saturday, Feb. 8, 2003

"The 'Cholesterol Doesn't Matter' Debate Gains Momentum"   Saturday, Jan. 25, 2003

"Too Many Unneeded Heart Bypass Operations," Saturday, Dec. 7, 2002

"The Role of Cholesterol and Saturated Fat Questioned" Saturday, Nov. 24, 2002

"Coenzyme Q10 - A Multi-faceted Nutritional Supplement" Saturday, Feb. 23, 2002

"Does High Cholesterol Really Cause Heart Disease?" Saturday, Feb.23, 2002

"Baycol Cholesterol Drug Withdrawn From the Market," August 18, 2001

"Trans Fatty Acids - The Hidden Fat," August 4, 2001

"The New Cholesterol Guidelines - Everybody Gets A Pill," July 7, 2001

"My Medical Writing Credentials - Such As They Are," July 7, 2001

"The 'Eggs Are Bad For You' Alarmists Strike Again," May 12, 2001

Return to the List of Topics

Patent That Includes Statin and Coenzyme Q10 in Same Tablet or Capsule

In the article "Statins Inducing Heart Problems, Among Other Things," Sat. July 10, 2004, mention was made of patents that included a statin in combination with Coenzyme Q10, as recognition that statins reduce your level of Q10 and therefore supplementation is needed. Here is the summary of one of those patents:

Patent for Statin Combined with Coenzyme Q10

Return to the List of Topics

Some Other Avenues You Might Explore

www.thincs.org (devoted to medical experts who do not think that high cholesterol causes heart disease)

www.coenzymeq10.it/home.html International CoenzymeQ10 Association

www.thincs.org/unpublic.htm - A good sampling of rejected letters demonstrating the refusal of the medical community and many media outlets to let any voice be heard in opposition to the conventional wisdom on cholesterol, statins, et al.

www.statinalert.org (sobering facts, articles, and stories about the statin drugs)

www.spacedoc.net comments from statin users, mostly bad experiences

www.ravnskov.nu/uffe.htm

(Uffe Ravnskov, M.D., Ph.D. in Chemistry, author of "The Cholesterol Myths," and a formidable array of research papers and letters to the editor)

www.clinicaltrials.gov -- a government repository of ongoing and completed clinical trials, with abstracts and links to articles. It is slow going for the layman, and a medical dictionary would be helpful.

www.health.nih.gov -- U.S. Government's National Institutes of Health Web site. Also several links to authoritative health sites.

wwww.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus -- Another informative U.S. Government health site.

http://ods.od.nih.gov/Health_Information/Health_Information.aspx -- links to a wide range of information on dietary supplements, vitamins and minerals, and so forth.

www.consumerlab.com -- Lab tests of various vitamins, minerals and nutritional supplements.

High-grade Coenzyme Q10: "Bio-Quinone Gold Q10" from Jordet's Inc. Update: September 28, 2007. Jordet's terminated their business. There are apparently no other U.S. outlets for the Danish produced Bio-Quinone Gold Q-10 (But there is a new superior form of Q10 available in the United States. See "New Form of Coenzyme Q10" below.)

Return to the List of Topics

Bits and Pieces About CoQ10, Statins, Cholesterol, Saturated Fat, Trans Fat, etc.

You can find the Outback in full for any given date by clicking on "Back Issues" below.

June 21, 2008

The Harvard Heart Letter (www.health.harvard.edu) cannot seem to bring themselves to back off from their long-held view that Eggs contributes to a variety of medical problems. Back in the July, 2006 issue of the Harvard Heart Letter, they said: "The liver makes most of the cholesterol that circulates in the bloodstream." And, "... the amount of cholesterol in food generally has a small impact on the amount of cholesterol in the blood." "And the warning on egg consumption was based on the logical - but incorrect - assumption that cholesterol in food translated directly into cholesterol levels in the blood."

Yet, in the Harvard Heart Letter for July 2008, they comment on a study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition for June 2008, without naming the study or providing other references. The study was of 21,000 male physicians whose health was followed for 20 years. The Harvard Heart Letter said: "Although egg consumption had no effect on the rates of their heart attack or stroke, men who ate more than seven eggs a week, especially those with diabetes, were more likely to have died during the study." Then, they give their lame and misguided advice that if you are partial to eggs, try egg whites.

First, with the study surely following a large variety of health issues, how could anyone possibly conclude that those who ate more than seven eggs a week were more likely to die? Only by the wonders of number crunching to find a way to support a preconceived idea. Even worse, diabetes is a debilitating disease that, among many other things, predisposes one to heart disease. I suggest that the early deaths among diabetics had nothing to do with eating eggs, but with the general complications and ravages of diabetes.

June 21, 2008

However, there is at least one sign of intelligent life in the Harvard medical establishment. The February 6, 2008 article posted on the Web from FORTUNE magazine, talks about skeptics of cholesterol-lowering drugs (Lipitor, Zocor, Vytorin, et al.) The focus was on the showing that Vytorin, a combination of Zetia and Zocor, was no better at slowing the buildup of fatty plaque in the arteries than a generic cholesterol pill alone (a statin). I noted that they avoided the use of the words "a buildup of cholesterol." One more sign that there is a gradual trend away from the decades-long admonition that "high cholesterol" will give you heart disease. They are finding new ways and new words to scare you into taking a statin.

Anyway, the good news. Dr. John Abramson, a clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School, is said for years to have railed against the drug industry for pushing what he labels "the myth that lowering cholesterol with drugs is the most effective way to treat heart disease". He is quoted as saying: "American doctors and the public, have been duped. These drugs have been on the market for 21 years; they are the best selling drug class in history. And yet there is not a single study that documents a health benefit for women of any age or men over 65 who don't already have heart disease or diabetes."

My own cardiologist, Peter Langsjoen, M.D., of Tyler, Texas, is quoted in the same article. "We've created cholesterol neurosis. It's a sham based on an attractive theory." Dr. Langsjoen is well known for his work with Coenzyme Co-Q10, espcially with congestive heart failure patients. He is also one of the medical doctors who has petitioned the F.D.A. to place a "Black Box Label" on all Statin drugs that warns against the depletion of vital Q-10 by those taking a statin drug. He is one of the enlightened doctors who strongly suggests that you eat eggs, which he calls "a nearly perfect food."

I have written at length about "The Great Cholesterol Con," by Malcolm Kendrick, M.D. of the U.K., whom you will never see quoted by the Harvard Heart Letter or mentioned in any of the incessant press releases spawned by the makers of Statins. Because, if Dr. Kendrick, Dr. Uffe Ravnscov, M.D., Ph.D. (in chemistry) author of "The Cholesterol Myths," Dr. Langsjoen, and Anthony Colpo, author of the other book called "The Great Cholesterol Con" (did he and Dr. Kendrick not talk about their titles before they published?) and others at www.thincs.org are right, the worldwide $36 billion anti-cholesterol industry, second only to the oil industry, might collapse like a house of cards! Well, all the billions of dollars in profit generates a continued drum-beat of studies and pseudo studies, often conducted by the statin industry itself or those with "stipends" from Big Pharma. It is so easy to spot one of their canned press releases, whose headline often starts with "A study suggests (or hints) that Statins ...."

You have to be pretty thick-headed not to accept the cumlative medical conclusion of Dr. Kenrdick, Dr. Ravnscov, Dr. Langsjoen, Tony Colpo (and their cohorts at www.thincs.org) that "cholesterol does not cause heart disease." First, you have to read the books and papers by these men. They are not far-out nut cases, but learned and experienced men in the field of heart disease.

June 11, 2008

Headline: REUTERS "Guideline would boost cholesterol drug use" The relentless push continues to get as many people as possible taking a statin drug (Lipitor, Zocor, Crestor, etc.) Even though the Cholesterol Guidelines were rewritten outside the normal protocols to make "millions more sick on paper," big Pharma has found yet another way to increase their already outlandish scare tactics and penetration of statins. The SHAPE Task Force recommends using a CT scan to detect "calcium" deposits in the coronary arteries. Calcium, they conclude, is a component of the artery-clogging "plaques" that can eventually trigger a heart attack. Note that the use of the words "artery-clogging-cholesterol" seems to be mentioned less and less. Is it possible that books like "The Great Cholesterol Con," by Malcolm Kendrick, M.D. and other similar books and papers, are finally starting to seep into the consciousness of patients and even some "party-line doctors"?

An important question left unanswered by this study is whether putting all those extra individuals on cholesterol medication will actually prevent heart attacks and deaths, according to an editorial published with the report. The study "is necessary and important but does not in itself provide sufficient evidence for the adoption of the SHAPE recommendations," write Dr. Mark J. Pletcher, of the University of California, San Francisco, and Dr. Philip Greenland, of Northwestern University in Chicago.

The study "is necessary and important but does not in itself provide sufficient evidence for the adoption of the SHAPE recommendations," write Dr. Mark J. Pletcher, of the University of California, San Francisco, and Dr. Philip Greenland, of Northwestern University in Chicago. Pletcher and Greenland question where the task force's funding came from, and whether "conflicts of interest might bias the authors' judgment."

Regardless of its validity, the recommendations of the SHAPE Task Force once again puts one more scare into people. And CAT scans are not cheap, thus driving up medical costs for a test that has no proven outcome of preventing heart attacks and deaths. Not to worry. The goal seems not to save lives, but line the pockets of those administering CAT scans and add to the already unconscionable profits for statins. It is enough to make you sick. What kind of pill or test can we take to ward off the nausea brought about by the continued assault on our bodies and bank accounts by big Pharmas unending campaign campaign to get nearly every person taking a statin?

February 24, 2008

An article from the American Heart Association (AHA) 2007 Scientific Sessions produced in me a reaction that I am sure the authors did not intend. "Why Patients Stop Taking Statins and What Can Be Done About It." An analyses of prescription databases showed that 50% of patients taking statins (Lipitor, Zocor, etc.) discontinue their medication after one year of treatment. What seems like a problem for these "statin-happy" doctors is good news for those who believe that statins are the most over-prescribed drug in modern history. Statins are, for sure, the most prescribed drug. To all of those in the anti-statin crowd, this 50% discontinuance rate was great news. Still, it is too bad that the non-compliance is not higher.

The study was based on an analysis of prescription data from Walgreens over a period of just over two years. Data were used from 768,184 patients! Then, a subset of patients were mailed a survey form asking for the reasons that they discontinued taking the statin drug. Preliminary results of the survey revealed that only 19% of subjects stopped taking their medications because of side effects. The most common side effects experienced were muscle ache (33%) and weakness (16%). Other side effects experienced by > 4% of subjects included stomach complaints (9%), headache (8%), memory loss (7%), flushing (6%), and liver problems (5%). One has to wonder how many people did not know or did not realize that the statins were causing side effects, especially if they took several prescription drugs. Why people answer a survey based upon an invasion of their medical privacy escapes me. If I got such a survey, I would first tell them where they could stick it, and second I would write my Senator and Congressman about such an insidious invasion of medical privacy.

October 27, 2007

"Harvard Heart Letter" Gives Conflicting Advice

Although the "Harvard Heart Letter" is, like many other sources, a shill for the statin producers and continues to perpetuate the myth that a high cholesterol level promotes heart disease, I continue to subscribe. I parse every sentence, watching for subtle hints that Harvard Med is backtracking on the saturated fat/cholesterol connection to heart disease. Apparently, the medical geniuses at Harvard have not read the two books entitled, "The Great Cholesterol Con." At least they won't comment on those books, since they completely and methodically destroy the "cholesterol causes heart disease" hypothesis. I have written earlier about how the Cholesterol Guidelines were adjusted downwards, making millions of people "sick on paper." And how the guidelines skirted the normal review and approval process. Slowly, I have seen chinks in the diet/heart-disease hypothesis played out in the Harvard newsletter. And I do cartwheels when I catch them in a real doozer of a blooper. Like they did about their long-standing admonition to not eat egg yolks because of their high level of cholesterol. (See comments below about their mea culpa.)

In the issue for November, 2007, the newsletter covers food and diet issues. They repeat what anybody who reads already knows about avoiding refined carbs, such as white bread and white rice in favor of whole-wheat bread and pasta, and so on. They note that "the low-fat mantra .... has been edged aside by real research." Trans fats are now the demon du jour of fats. The newsletter touts eating protein from plant sources such as from nuts and beans and eating fish, chicken, and eggs. Yet, when they post a suggested Grocery List, they suggest that instead of Eggs, buy Egg Whites or Egg Substitutes. This is a pathetic discrepancy for a institution of the caliber of Harvard.

The eat eggs, but don't eat eggs snafu is all the more egregious in view of what I wrote earlier:

June 19, 2006:

In the Outback for Sept. 3, 2004, I wrote an article entitled "A Simple Test for Dumping Your Doctor." One test was if your doctor prescribed a statin but did not insist that you take a supplement of Coenzyme Q10, to offset the depletion of Q10 by the statin - which could lead to heart problems. The second test was if your doctor told you not to eat eggs, that they contained cholesterol that would raise your blood cholesterol and lead to heart disease. In part, I said: "Eggs contain nutrients that may help lower the risk for heart disease, including protein, vitamins B12 and D, riboflavin, and folate. They are a nearly-perfect food."

It took them a long time for them to finally speak the truth, but in the July, 2006 issue of the Harvard Heart Letter, they say what many of us knew for many years. In "To Make an Omelet, You Have to Break Some Eggs," they say ".... 'perfect food' is closer to the truth." And .... "The liver makes most of the cholesterol that circulates in the bloodstream." And, "... the amount of cholesterol in food generally has a small impact on the amount of cholesterol in the blood." "And the warning on egg consumption was based on the logical - but incorrect - assumption that cholesterol in food translated directly into cholesterol levels in the blood." Remember when doctors not only told you to stay away from eggs, but to shy away from Shrimp because they contained significant amounts of cholesterol? All based on a false premise.

July 19, 2007

New Form of Coenzyme Q10

The Kaneka Corp. of Japan, who are the major producers of Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10), have a new proprietary formulation of Q10 called Ubiquinol. Its main claim is that it is several times more readily absorbed into the bloodstream than previous iterations of Q10. One primary packager - Jarrow Formulas (Jarrow.com) sells the new Q10 as "Ubiquinol QH-Absorb." One of the lowest prices for the Jarrow QH-Absorb is at iHerb.com, and is a site that sells the 100mg (60 capsules - JRW-06019). Other sites are now jumping on the QH-Absorb train. My cardiologist, Dr. Peter Langsjoen, who is a primary researcher on Q10, mentioned QH-Absorb during a radio interview in Dallas, and confirmed to me by phone that it was a superior formulation of Q10. Naturally, I ordered some. Taking two 100 mg caps (one in the morning and one at noon), the 60 capsule bottle is one month's supply.

There is a profile of Ubiquinol at: http://www.jarrow.com/productProfile.php?newsId=7

May 26, 2007

I have been falling down on the job about reporting all the wonderful things that Statins can do for you. In a Pending folder, I found a Health Day article for Oct. 23, 2006.

Statins Good for Smokers' Lungs

I'll spare you the full summary and quote one sentence: "It has been shown in rheumatology studies that statins reduce inflammation in the airways."

Is there anything that statins can't help? Are we at the point where we can throw away all our other prescription drugs, vitamins, herbal supplements, Coenzyme Q10, et al.? And just take Lipitor or Zocor? You would think so from all the statin press releases. It is getting to be rather fun to search for the "latest benefit from taking statins." I welcome all these statin miracles, because the more things they claim, the more ludicrous and suspect it becomes.

May 26, 2007

Health Day headline for Apr. 30th:

Cholesterol-Lowering Drug Aids Memory in Alzheimer's-Like Mice

According to a new study, Zocor boosted memory in mice genetically bred to have an Alzheimer's-like disease. No mention is made of how many mice were tested. Two mouses equals "mice." Also, there is no mention that one of the common side effects of the current crop of statins is "memory loss." This has been documented in many studies and patient screenings for statin side effects.

And what is an "Alzheimer's-like disease"? You'd have to ask the mice, I guess. More useless propoganda from the "cash rich" statins makers. Leave the poor mice alone, and stop giving them diseases that don't exist in humans, such as an "Alzheimer's like disease." Reserve the mice for important research, such as testing women's foundation creams. Who wouldn't want to see a mouse with a better complexion? Where is PETA when you need them?

May 26, 2007

A recent REUTERS headline read:

Statin before bypass surgery may boost survival

Here is the lead paragraph: "A study hints that taking a statin or other cholesterol-lowering drug before heart bypass surgery may boost survival. However, investigators caution that the improvement may be more directly associated with factors other than cholesterol-lowering medication." (American Journal of Cardiology March 15, 2007)

Once again, if you read only the headline, you might say to yourself, "Gee, another of the myriad benefits of takings statins." "A study hints ..." One more case of a shameful misuse of the media to promote an agenda. As so often with statin reporting. This is not worth reporting.

April 19, 2007

Statins Lower Respiratory Death Risk?

A study of more than 76,000 people who had taken a statin for at least 90 days showed that these people had a much lower risk of dying from emphysema, chronic bronchitis, penumonia, and influenza. This was described as "yet another unexpected benefit" of statins. The key words are "yet another." How are we to believe that statins can possibly prevent, cure, or ameliorate so many conditions? I have grown weary of the incredible number of benefits attributed to taking statins, and am not alone.

February 8, 2007

Bayer is at it again. Lying in their ads, that is. During a broadcast of "Wheel of Fortune" in the Dallas market, Bayer ran an ad that said in part: "Taken regularly, Bayer low dose helps prevent 1 out of 3 heart attacks." They showed the 81mg Bayer Aspirin.

Back in the Outback for Dec. 20, 2005 and following, in Outbak14.htm, I wrote: "Bayer Aspirin is at it again. Telling lies, that is. On a TV ad, is the following statement: "Only genuine Bayer can help save your life when taken during a heart attack." This is a blatant lie. Where is the FTC and truth in advertising?"

I defy Bayer to provide any responsible study that shows that either of two outrageous claims are true. The closer truths would be that "Taken regularly, a low-dose 81mg aspirin - of any reputable brand - may help prevent 1 out of 3 heart attacks." Or: "Aspirin - of any reputable brand - can help save your life during a heart attack."

I will cut and paste the above paragraphs and send them to the FTC. Somebody in the government needs to step up and stop Bayer from making these ridiculous claims.

December 8, 2006

I have reported on several studies that show high levels of cholesterol, rather than low cholesterol, may be of benefit, especially in the elderly. Now, a study of 2654 men and 3811 women, who were at least 55 years of age, shows that high cholesterol levels in women may decrease the risk for developing Parkinson's disease. A similar beneficial effect was not found in men with high cholesterol. This may have to do with a stronger association of higher levels of cholesterol and Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) in the women - or the levels of estrogen in the women. Other studies have shown that CoQ10 may help ward off Parkinson's disease. The short abstract available to non-subscribers did not mention the level of HDL (the good cholesterol) in the test subjects. (American Journal of Epidemiology, Nov. 15, 2006 - Vol. 164, Issue 10)

November 1, 2006

On Oct. 23, HealthDay reported on a study that indicated that taking statins may help boost the lung health of smokers and former smokers. Whether this is true or not, it is yet another in the enormous number of claims for the efficacy of statins in ameliorating an astounding array of maladies - many of them unrelated. Here is an exercise in logic for you. Forbes.com reported that in a recent year there were 9,991 prescription drugs on the market. They may have counted all the various strengths of each drug as a separate drug. I don't know. But, if you will go to www.fda.gov, you will find the 2006 list of approved drug products. It is a 6MB .PDF file! The list will boggle your mind! The point? Most of these drugs were approved for a particular use. Many are prescribed "off label" for other purposes. I think one can say without fear of contradiction that in the history of prescription drugs that no single category of drugs has been used for, or suggested as being efficacious for, as many medical conditions as the statin drugs. The list of things statins are claimed to help are seemingly endless, with a new one cropping up weekly or monthly, it seems.

Even doctors are beginning to tire of the endless claims for statins. As noted in the "Harvard Heart Letter" for Sept., 2005: .... statins, the cholesterol-reducing drugs that seem good for almost anything that ails you these days."

November 1, 2006

For all the hype about how statins will help you with an endless variety of medical problems, there has been a lack of data on the side effects of statins. In reporting on Oct. 3, 2006, The Wall Street Journal said in part: "It's widely believed that only a fraction of drug side effects are reported under the Food and Drug Administration's Adverse Event Reporting System, or AERS. Through AERS, drug reports are collected from doctors, pharmacists, pharmaceutical companies and patients themselves, often through the www.fda.gov/medwatch4 Web site.... For one, men are the biggest users of statins, but the Archives report noted that women are far more likely to report adverse drug effects than men. But perhaps the bigger problem is that many purported side effects of statins -- muscle aches, thinking problems and fatigue, among others -- are common complaints associated with aging. As a result, patients may talk to their doctor about mild aches, memory problems or fatigue, but many doctors just tell them it's part of getting old and don't think to report the complaint as a side effect of statin use."

October 21, 2006

Writing in the Washington Post on July 11, 2006, Dr. Mark Siegel wrote mostly about patients who informed themselves through research and doctors and patients working as a team. But, the part that I saved as a pullout quote is the following: "I've learned from my patients that pills can be a form of dependency. It is also too easy for many medicine-takers to forgo important lifestyle changes. Though it was unlikely to happen with this patient, many people find it is too easy to revert to a lax diet once they are put on a cholesterol-lowering drug. I call this the 'hot fudge sundae with Lipitor on top' phenomenon."

September 28, 2006

Even the mainstream media is beginning to show signs of intelligent life. On the NBC Nightly News they ran a segment about the evils of Trans Fats, how they lower your good (HDL) cholesterol and raise your bad (LDL) cholesterol. One reporter said that "trans fats increase the risk for heart disease four or five times as much as the animal fat in this corned-beef sandwich." Dr. Nancy Snyderman, the NBC resident talking-head medical doctor said that we may get " .... back to basics. That means butter and olive oil and the things our ancestors grew up on." But, Nancy, butter has saturated fat. Well, those of us who have studied this for years know that the saturated-fat/cholesterol/heart disease syndrome has no real basis in fact. So Dr. Nancy can be forgiven for glossing over the fact that butter has saturated fat. For instance, read the new book "The Great Cholesterol Con," by Anthony Colpo. Meticulously researched and footnoted.

What was heartening about the NBC coverage was that perhaps unconsciously they were admitting that "saturated fat" may not be as bad as we thought it was. For now, Trans Fats are the villains and have upstaged saturated fat. And for an M.D. on NBC to suggest that we might go back to eating butter is almost heresy. We went through decades being told that butter was bad and margarines were good. Now, it turns out that for all those years most of the margarines contained Trans Fats. Oh, goodness. Could the medical profession have made a mistake and touted us on the wrong food? Sadly, yes. If you read further down, you find out that the Harvard Medical School admitted in their newsletter that the cholesterol in eggs (and other foods) really does not raise serum cholesterol (the one they measure with blood tests). They said their assumption about the bad effects of the cholesterol in eggs was "based on an incorrect assumption."

Here are percentages from my pound of Unsalted Land O Lakes butter - with values per Tablespoon (g=grams, mg=milligrams): 100 Calories, Total Fat 11g, Saturated Fat 7g, Trans Fat 0g, Cholesterol 30 mg, Sodium 0mg, Carbohydrate 0g, Protein 0g. So, as you will see later, the 30mg of Cholesterol is not a factor in high serum cholesterol.The 7g of saturated fat will eventually be shown to have no effect on heart disease, trust me.

At a recent lunch prepared by a medical doctor friend, we had chicken, sausages, salad with dark greens (iceberg lettuce has NO nutritive value), goat-milk cheese (from fresh goat milk at their ranch) and muffins made from an exotic dark whole grain whose name I cannot remember. What did we spread on the muffins? BUTTER! Lots of BUTTER. So BBB not only stands for Better Business Bureau, but for "Better Buy Butter." If you put it on white bread, I will personally come to your house and strangle you.

You can see the handwriting on the wall - tiny scribble by tiny scrawl. The day will come when the medical community will say: "It turns out that saturated fats and the level of your serum cholesterol has no effect on heart disease. We had based these conclusions on false premises."

September 21, 2006

Medical Research Explained by a Doctor Friend

Recently, I had lunch with friends. The wife is a medical doctor. We were talking about cholesterol and statin research, among other things. My lady doctor friend told me an anecdote from her days in med school, when an instructor was trying to make a point about medical research. Here is the example he gave to her:

You can teach a flea to jump over a stick when you ring a bell. If you pull off one leg and ring the bell, the flea will still jump over the stick. If you pull off a second leg and ring the bell, the flea will jump over the stick. If you take off all of the flea's legs and ring the bell, the flea will not jump over the stick. What does this prove? That pulling off all of a flea's legs will make it deaf.

August 27, 2006

Malcolm Kendrick, M.D. is one of a growing number of medical people who do not believe that cholesterol and saturated fat cause heart disease. He went through statistics produced by the World Health Organization on saturated fat consumpution and heart disease in 46 countries. He shows a graph of his findings, but presents a quick summary in plain English: "The French consumed three times as much saturated fat as was consumed in Azerbaijan, and had one-eighth the rate of heart disease. Every single country in the top eight of saturated fat consumption had a lower rate of heart disease than every single country in the bottom eight of saturated fat consumption." (see: www.thincs.org)

August 12, 2006

AP Headline: "Statin drugs may cut second stroke risk"

The study was funded by Pfizer, the maker of Lipitor. Who would have guessed?

Here is one less-than-comforting sentence: "For every 100 people given high doses of the statin Lipitor, there were about two fewer strokes and three to four fewer major heart problems than among those given dummy pills, but also one more hemorrhagic stroke, or bleeding into the brain." High doses of Lipitor are more likely to cause serious side effects. Not only was there a risk of hemorrhagic stroke, but the actual reduction of second strokes in the study was only about 2 percentage points. Taken together, this does not bode well for taking high doses of Lipitor to prevent stroke. The risk/reward ratio is not good.

Whereas the AP and others simply repeat what was no doubt a press release from Pfizer, the Wall Street Journal has some different takes on the subject. They point out that: "Pfizer has been trying to expand the uses for the blockbuster Lipitor as it faces increased competition from generic Zocor ...." And further: "But the strokes that occurred in Lipitor patients included 55 hemorrhagic strokes, which can be particularly devastating, compared with 33 such events among patients getting a placebo (a sugar pill)." "Hemorrhagic strokes are not only more fatal, but are much more disabling," said cardiologist Eric J. Topol of Case Western Reserve University in Ohio. He also noted that higher doses were more likely to produce side effects, as I said earlier above.

The WSJ adds: "The study was funded by Pfizer, and every one of the researchers had connections to Pfizer and other drug companies, ranging from research grants, to consultancies, to being Pfizer employees with stock ownership. In addition, even the doctor selected by the New England Journal of Medicine to write an opinion piece on the study also has gotten grant support from Pfizer."

So, you think I make up this stuff about the dangers of statins and the maniacal scramble to prove that statins are good for yet another problem? And of the constant stream of press releases that upon careful scrutiny often have more holes than a Swiss Cheese? Billions of dollars are at stake. People and companies do some desperate things when that kind of cash flow is involved - and particularly if it is in possible jeopardy. Keep your eyes open for more studies of statins with more tenuous and suspicious conclusions.

August 9, 2006

Print and TV media have both been talking about a "study" that showed that just one high-fat meal could prevent HDL (the good cholesterol) from protecting your body against clogged arteries. This is another in a series of "the most stupid press releases of the year." The so-called study involved 14 people, yes 14 people. No study of any kind involving only 14 people should ever be published in the mainstream media. We even saw serious-faced cardiologists on TV who thought this study was another important warning about the ingestion of saturated fat. Dr. Stephen Nicholls, a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, said "the take-home, public-health message is this: It's further evidence to support the need to aggressively reduce the amount of saturated fat consumed in the diet." Horse manure!

The Cleveland Clinic has a reputation for outstanding cardiology care and heart surgery. I subscribe to their news letter. But, increasingly, I find the Cleveland Clinic being irresponsible in some of its pronouncements and actions. One of the well-known cardiologists at the Clinic is prescribing Statins to persons as young as 10-years-of-age. Since there is considerable controversy about the safety of statins, I view prescribing them to a 10-year-old as unconscionable. Especially since there is mounting evidence that saturated fat and cholesterol are not the cause of heart disease.

How could any doctor or layman read, for example, "The Modern Nutritional Diseases: And How to Prevent Them - Heart Disease, Stroke, Type-2 Diabetes, Obesity, Cancer," by Alice Ottoboni, Ph.D. and Fred Ottoboni, Ph.D., MPH (who have been in the public health field for 50 years), and still believe that saturated fat or cholesterol causes heart disease? This is a great book on several levels. It has among other things, detailed information about many nutritional supplements and vitamins. And I have yet to see any mainstream doctor successfully refute the meticulous research in "The Cholesterol Myths," by Uffe Ravnskov, M.D., Ph.D. (chemistry). In fact, I can't remember any mainstream doctor even mentioning Dr. Ravskov's name in print. He is avoided like the plague, because if he is right, the Statin Empire will collapse like a house of cards. Do yourself a health favor and read both of these books, which are both in paperback versions. Make your own judgments. Ignore these idiot press releases about "studies" of 6-14 people. These "studies" are an insult to science and the public's intelligence.

"The Great Cholesterol Con," by Anthony Colpo, is being hailed as an up-to-date and thoroughly researched book that presents the counter argument to "cholesterol and saturated fat cause heart disease." Every review on Amazon was 5-Stars when I checked, with several medical doctors among the reviewers.

July 7, 2006

It would appear that the Statin PR Machine is grasping at straws to get a headline. REUTERS: "Cholesterol drugs may treat Hepatitis C." Various statin drugs were introduced into lab petri dishes that contained the Hepatitis C virus. "All the drugs except pravastatin interfered with the virus to some degree." That's a real definitive scientific conclusion. REUTERS and any others who repeat this "study" ought to be ashamed of themselves. It is bad enough when "studies" of six people are reported as medical research. Now, we are down to dropping pills into petri dishes in a lab. As a throwaway sentence near the end, apparently to fill space, is the following: "An expert proposed last month that they (statins) may affect influenza viruses, including bird flu, and other research has shown they reduce the risk of cataracts." Pathetic. I dealt with the Cataract issue on June 21, 2006 (below). I have not come across the "statins may affect influenza" study, but will comment on it if and when I find it.

June 27, 2006

In an article that spoke mainly to the question of whether it was worthwhile to lower cholesterol in the Elderly with high blood pressure, I found some interesting comments about cholesterol and the elderly. In an abstract of a book about cardiovascular drugs and the elderly, were the following comments:

" ....61% of women aged between 65 and 74 have total cholesterol levels over 6.2 mmol/L [240 mg/dL]). From the data available, it is reasonable to conclude that after the age of 65, increased blood lipids, although still a risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD), become less pronounced as risk factors and that by 75 years of age their predictive value has disappeared. Indeed, in the very elderly, there is evidence to suggest that high total cholesterol is associated with longevity."

The lead author of the book is Dr. Nigel Beckett, whom it appears from my surfing is involved in research, particularly on the elderly, at the Imperial College in London. I hope to establish contact with the doctor and open a dialogue about cardiovascular problems in general among the elderly.

June 21, 2006

I religiously take my blood-pressure medication. It is a good thing, because when I read most headlines and press releases about Statins, I get livid, and my BP starts up. AP, June 20, 2006, by Lindsey Tanner: "Statins May Reduce Risk of Cataracts." Somebody hopes you are too busy to read the article. "Adults who took statins were found to be 45 percent less likely to develop the most common type of age-related cataracts." Wow! But a significant portion of the article is devoted to people cautioning against jumping to any conclusions. "... the study does not prove cause and effect." Several cholesterol drugs (the word "statin" is avoided) never made it to market because of concerns that they might cause cataracts.

There is considerable information about cataracts and the surgery which is largely irrelevant to the Statin issue. Debra Schaumberg, an eye specialist at Harvard's Brigham and Women's Hospital said: "While I agree with the authors that the potential for a relatively benign and inexpensive preventive therapy for cataract would have substantial public health importance, I think it is still far too early to assign any such role to statin medications." A researcher at the National Eye Institute said that the study does not mean that people should take statins to ward off cataracts. There was no data on the duration of use and the doses used. In other words, this is yet another useless piece of "research" that tries to prove the efficacy of Statins for another malady, but actually proves nothing.

The study is reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) on June 21, 2006. Here is one sentence from the summary: "There were 1299 persons who were seen at the third examination in 1998-2000, had gradable photographs in both eyes, and were deemed to be at risk of developing nuclear cataract within 5 years. The participants were followed for five years. And "Conclusion - Statin use in a general population appears to be associated with lower risk of nuclear cataract, the most common type of age-related cataract." If you say so. As a layman, I have a hard time making the leap to the conclusion. Has your eye doctor ever told you that you probably will get cataracts within five years? It is easy to prognosticate about elderly people, since half or more of those over age 70 develop cataracts.

The latest cataract surgery is not very invasive, and there is now a folding lens that can slip into a small incision in the eyeball that will not only cure cataracts but often restores normal or near-normal vision. I'll pass on taking a statin to prevent cataracts and wait until I need an operation and then get the new lenses. See: http://jama.ama-assn.org and http://www.nei.nih.gov (National Eye Institute). A fairly thorough scan of the National Eye Institute site did not reveal any mention of the "Statins May Reduce Risk of Cataracts" study.

June 19, 2006:

In the Outback for Sept. 3, 2004, I wrote an article entitled "A Simple Test for Dumping Your Doctor." One test was if your doctor prescribed a statin but did not insist that you take a supplement of Coenzyme Q10, to offset the depletion of Q10 by the statin - which could lead to heart problems. The second test was if your doctor told you not to eat eggs, that they contained cholesterol that would raise your blood cholesterol and lead to heart disease. In part, I said: "Eggs contain nutrients that may help lower the risk for heart disease, including protein, vitamins B12 and D, riboflavin, and folate. They are a nearly-perfect food."

It took them a long time for them to finally speak the truth, but in the July, 2006 issue of the Harvard Heart Letter, they say what many of us knew for many years. In "To Make an Omelet, You Have to Break Some Eggs," they say ".... 'perfect food' is closer to the truth." And .... "The liver makes most of the cholesterol that circulates in the bloodstream." And, "... the amount of cholesterol in food generally has a small impact on the amount of cholesterol in the blood." "And the warning on egg consumption was based on the logical - but incorrect - assumption that cholesterol in food translated directly into cholesterol levels in the blood." Remember when doctors not only told you to stay away from eggs, but to shy away from Shrimp because they contained significant amounts of cholesterol? All based on a false premise.

The Harvard Heart Letter still could not let go of its old bias. They suggested that if you are making scrambled eggs use one complete egg with its yolk and the white from another. This advice is no doubt based on a Harvard study of 80,000 nurses years ago. The nurses ate one egg a day and there was no indication of an increased risk for heart disease. So, Harvard has no clue if two or three eggs, with the yolks, per day is okay - or is unhealthy. They should have fed 20,000 nurses one egg a day, 20,000 two eggs a day, and so on. And tossed in a group who ate sausage and three eggs every day.

Like most medical journals, the Harvard newsletter suggests cutting down on saturated fats and trans fats. Consistently throughout this section, I have noted that there is growing skepticism that saturated fats cause heart disease. Trans fats are the new "fat villain." So, rush off to IHop for your scrambled eggs (ask them to fry them in Olive Oil, rather than a trans fat) - and buckwheat pancakes with real butter. Butter is good for you. I had some tonight with my whole-grain brown rice topped with three eggs fried in Olive Oil - and a dash of Parmesan and some salsa. The anti-butter myth will be shattered in due course, but the margarine makers will fight to the very end. You have seen that KFC (chicken) is under public pressure for frying in oils with trans fats. For lunch, drop by Red Lobster and have a platter of broiled Shrimp and Lobster. All those years we were given faulty advice about the role of cholesterol in food makes one wonder about other dietary advice.

The medical profession is very reluctant to admit they ever made a mistake. The convincing evidence about the goodness of eggs and the fact that cholesterol in foods does not translate into significant amounts of cholesterol in your blood has been around for many years. Now, they tell us!

If you worry about Trans-Fats, and it appears that you should, pick up some Oreo cookies or Lay's potato chips. Neither now contain any Trans-Fat. They are among the leaders in reducing or eliminating Trans-Fats.

May 14-24, 2006:

I can hardly wait until I am 80 to 85 years of age. The medical evidence keeps piling up. First, that older people benefit from high cholesterol, as noted elsewhere in this section. Older men without an earlier history of a high PSA or suspicious digital exam for prostate Cancer can forget about getting exams, as they will probably die from something else. Now comes a fascinating study from examining all the inhabitants of the city of Leiden, Netherlands, who reached their 85th birthday between September 1997 and September 1999. The study found that high blood pressure is not a risk for mortality once you reach age 85. Moreover, there is an increased mortality risk if your blood pressure at 85 and beyond is low (less than 140/70). New lenses available during surgery for the removal of cataracts in the eyes can in many cases restore normal vision, allowing the patient to throw away their glasses. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reports that the risks of colonoscopy appear to outweigh the benefits for people in their 80s and 90s. These elderly patients are more likely to die of other causes - even if Cancer is found - because colorectal cancer develops slowly. So, once you are 85, I guess you just die of "old age."

May 14, 2006:

The shameless Statin behemoth continues to "plant" stories that if you read only the headlines, you are convinced that Statins are the greatest medication in history, ameliorating a host of conditions never dreamed of when they came to market as a pill to lower cholesterol. Headline on Health Day for May 10, 2006: "Cholesterol-Lowering Statins Might Help Eyes" The study involved 12 healthy men. Whoa! Stop right there. What happens to 12 people, good or bad, is so statistically insignificant that it is an insult to our intelligence to report such a study. The folks got either Zocor or a placebo for seven days. So, I guess that means that about six (6) people got the Zocor. Blood flow in the retina was increased in those who took the Zocor. Blood flow in the retina will probably increase if you take the natural supplements Lutein, Ginkgo Biloba, or L-Arginine, for example. So, spare us the drivel about 6 people whose retinal blood flow increased from taking Zocor.

May 14, 2006:

A recent study using the statin Crestor claims that not only was cholesterol dramatically reduced by the drug, but heart disease was reversed. The grabber headline: "Study Shows Drug Reverses Heart Disease". It may cause some other problems, but that is not something we care to talk about, thank you. Since there is a raging debate about what causes heart disease, it is hard for many to get too excited over the study. It was reported that blockages in the blood vessels of the study group shrank. It's too soon to tell whether the shrinkage of artery deposits will mean fewer heart attacks, but doctors were excited by the possibility, the report went on. Once again, read that as: "We are not real sure of what causes heart attacks."

Crestor is the strongest of the Statins and is under attack from the consumer group Public Citizen, who have said among other things, "Crestor has unique risks without evidence of unique benefits." The study has engendered criticism from doctors who question some of the methodology, such as the lack of a control group and lack of testing Crestor against a lower dose of another statin.

April 26, 2006:

I have noted several times that eating a variety natural substances, such as plant sterols found in certain margarines, can lower cholesterol, if you are interested in lowering your cholesterol. A group of 65 people ate seven servings of these natural foods, such as two teaspoons of psyllium (found in Metamucil and its imitators), or a slice of whole-grain bread and seven servings of soy protein (such as soy milk like I use on my oatmeal), five teaspoons of margarine containing plant sterols (such as Benecol and TakeControl) and 1 1/2 oz. of almonds. Cholesterol was reduced by 14 percent, with 1/3 or participants lowering their LDL by more than 20 percent. Of course, all of these products are available at the average supermarket. The only "side effect" seemed to be mild weight loss among the group. Good news for obese America. (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, March 2006)

March 2, 2006:

The sleeping Statin Giant has reared its ugly head only to make a pronouncement so puny as to not even be noticed, were it not for headlines that say: "Statin Drugs Might Help Fight Impotence." (HealthDay News) Twelve men (12 men!) with erectile dysfunction (ED) who were not getting good results by taking Viagra took part in the study. Some of the 12 men were given Lipitor and some a placebo. Does that mean that possibly only six men (6 men!) were given Lipitor? There did seem to be some improvement with those who took the Lipitor, said the lead doctor in the study. That's a less-than-rousing endorsement of the results. The study was funded by Pfizer, Inc., who makes both Viagra and Lipitor. Who would have guessed? This very-limited "study" was not worth doing and certainly not worth reporting on. It is yet another example of the brainwashing of doctors and the public about the potential benefits of statins. They are counting on the fact that perhaps most people with only read the headline.

Update Mar. 6, 2006: Reuters Health was not content to say that "Statin Drugs Might Help Fight Impotence" when they wrote a headline about the pathetically-inadequate study noted above of 12 men! The Reuters Health headline reads: "Viagra plus cholesterol drug improves impotence". Shame on Reuters. One can only suspect some sort of payola for such an irresponsible and misleading headline.

Feb. 12, 2006:

A lady wrote a letter to The Wall Street Journal in which she said that her doctor suggested she start taking a statin drug. The patient did not think her slightly elevated cholesterol was worth taking the drug with its possible side effects. She was cut off from specialists at her clinic (where she had been a patient for 50 years), now has no internist at the clinic, and in two months has not been able to get her medical records transferred. One would hope that this is a fairly isolated case.

Once again I suggest to you: If your doctor wants to prescribe a statin and you don't want to take it, take the prescription and ask that it have enough refills for one year. Just accept the prescription form and don't get the pills. By the time you go around again with your doctor, your cholesterol may have been lowered by more natural means, or your doctor will have discovered that low cholesterol and statins are not all that he and the mass of the medical community have been brainwashed into thinking. Or, he may prescribe an increased dose. Again, take the prescription form and don't get the pills. This will allow more time for your doctor to get some common sense. Or for you to find a doctor who does not have his head up his butt. I surmise that the lady in question is elderly. She might have read some of the research I site later in this page about the benefits of high cholesterol in the elderly.

Jan. 25, 2006:

Each time I see an article from a respected source that advocates the "off label" use (that is, not approved by the FDA for the particular use) of Amiodarone for Atrial Fibrillation (AFIB), I lose more respect for the medical profession. Here are some comments from a recent article by several doctors: "Amiodarone .... has numerous side effects involving the thyroid, liver, lung, eye, and skin that significantly limit its use. Given the cumulative toxicity of amiodarone, it is often not considered an appropriate choice of therapy for younger patients with a longer life expectancy." Terrific! Don't take a chance with screwing up younger patients, but it apparently okay to foist the "cumulative toxicity" off on older people. Very comforting.

The Statin Hyperbole Press-Release Factory has been strangely silent in recent weeks. In fact, the only prominent mention I found was a news release that said in two studies statins had not been found to help prevent Cancer. Could it be that they have run out of diseases and medical conditions for which they can claim statins will help? If so, this will be only a temporary lull. The 800-pound-statin Gorilla has a voracious appetite that must be fed.

Dec. 8, 2005:

Several times I have noted that my cardiologist is a specialist in congestive heart failure and that one of the mainstays in his treatment regimen is Coenzyme-Q10. Doctors in Germany and the UK studied some elderly patients with heart failure. After an average of 295 days, the patients who had been assigned to get micronutrient supplements experienced significant improvements in cardiac output. Dr. Klaus K. A. Witte, writing in the European Heart Journal for Nov. 2005, said in part: "At present there are few supplements that include the constituents we used. I would generally recommend a combined multivitamin supplement along with zinc, copper, and selenium. I also feel strongly that a high dose Coenzyme-Q10 is important. Most currently available supplements do not have enough Co-Q10." This advice could well be heeded by younger people, and older ones who have yet to experience heart failure. My supplementation regimen goes far beyond those in the report, but does include all of the ones mentioned by Dr. Witte.

Nov. 17, 2005:

The Statin Press Release of the Day. Headline: "Statins May Delay Effects of Alzheimer's - Study" (London - Reuters) Without boring you with the study results of a three-year study of 342 Alzheimer's patients, I will only quote the following from the Reuter's release:

In an editorial in the journal, Dr Frank-Erik de Leeuw, of University Medical Center in Nijmegen in the Netherlands, said more work needs to be done before any conclusions about the usefulness of statins for Alzheimer's disease can be drawn. "There is conflicting evidence for a causal relation between cholesterol, its treatment, and the incidence of Alzheimer's disease," he added.

Does that sound like the promise of the headline? I get so damn mad at the statin makers for putting out these press releases, which if not carefully read, often lead you to false conclusions about statins. I also get upset with the news media who use headlines that are misleading, but nearly always in the favor or the efficacy of statins for yet another medical problem. I swear it's a conspiracy.

Nov. 17, 2005:

There was a TV program about treating irregular heart rhythms and heart failure on a UCTV show broadcast on a public-service channel on the DishNetwork satellite feed. The presenter was Ulrika Birgersdotter-Green, M.D. (U of Calif., San Diego), a heart specialist. What got my attention was the constant charts comparing treatment outcomes. The anti-arrhythmic drug Amiodarone, which I have written disparagingly about several times in the past, was in many of the comparisons. In each case where it was cited, Amiodarone was either said to be "ineffective" or a much poorer alternative to an implanted defibrillator/pacemaker (ICD) - when it came to living longer, i.e., mortality as an "end point" of the study.

Ventricular fibrillation is one of the few conditions for which Amiodarone is approved for use by the FDA. Even then, at best, it may still be controlling the heart's rhythm 65% of the time after one year - often with life-threatening side effects! Conclusion: those who had the ICD had better survival rates than those who took Amiodarone. In congestive heart failure, the ICD patients had improved mortality over those on Amiodarone. What was interesting about the doctor's presentation was that she talked of improving mortality, not some short term effect on heart rhythm, as is often quoted in the drug studies.

(From the medical school Web site re Dr. Ulrika: http://cardiology.ucsd.edu "Research Interests: Mechanisms of arrhythmias. Pharmacology of arrhythmic drugs, investigation of catheter ablation techniques, investigational defibrillators and pacemakers.")

Nov. 16, 2005:

Not long ago, I had a thorough exam by my cardiologist, including an EKG and echocardiogram of my heart. To my surprise, my ejection fraction, the percentage of blood pumped out during each heart beat, had increased since my physical about a year ago. Even last year, it was in the high-normal range, but had improved over the past 12 months. I am 73 and had five heart-bypasses a few years ago. I should be going downhill, not uphill. Of course, the higher the ejection fraction, the more efficient your heart. The only thing I could tell the doctor that had changed was that in recent months I had increased my intake of Coenzyme Q10 (BioQuinone Gold Q10) from 200 to 300mg per day, taken 100mg/3 times per day, and was taking a little more L-arginine. My treadmill and other exercise was about the same. He did a blood test specifically to test the level of Q10 and Vit E in my bloodstream. The result: "Your Q10 concentration is perfect!"

So, when I read in the "Harvard Heart Letter" for December, 2005, that cardiologists were not generally recommending people take L-carnitine, L-arginine, or Coenzyme Q10 for their heart (I take all three), I got a little angry. I still cannot believe that mainstream cardiologists cannot accept the success stories and the research demonstrating the efficacy of, for example, Q10 and L-carnitine (both "prescribed" by my cardiologist). I am looking for the full 37-page report from which these "non-recommendations" were made. This, I have to read.

In the same Harvard Heart Letter, Fish Oil (Omega 3) was recommended as good for your heart. That's some progress. It took them long enough to admit that most people were not able to, or not going to, eat enough Omega-3 rich fish in their diet. And buried in there, if you are not hip to all the terminology, is a recommendation for taking in 2 grams a day of "plant stanols/sterols." These are the ingredients added to butter substitutes like BENECOL and TAKE CONTROL - which have been proven to lower cholesterol. I have reported several times on the efficacy of BENECOL and TAKE CONTROL spreads in lowering cholesterol, if you care about lowering your cholesterol. Sterols have also been added to some Orange juice and some salad dressings.

Nov. 10, 2005:

A new study reported Nov. 15 in "Circulation:Journal of the American Heart Association," suggests that in elderly patients with an HDL cholesterol level of >45 mg/dl, taking statins is of little benefit. This is but one more hint that the medical profession does not have a clue as to what causes heart disease and that all the furor over lowering LDL cholesterol in the elderly has been misplaced. In fact, as I have reported several times, higher total cholesterol in the elderly is probably of greater benefit that having low cholesterol. For decades, many doctors have felt that having a low ratio of LDL/HDL is perhaps more important than the level of LDL. The higher the HDL the better. That is, if your LDL is 100 (LDL, not total cholesterol) and your HDL is 40, your ratio is 2.50. If your LDL is 150 and your HDL is 65, your ratio is 2.31. According to the LDL/HDL-ratio theorists, the lower ratio (2.31) is better, and you would have less risk for heart disease. Or even better, you can join the many "unsung experts" at www.thincs.org who do not believe that cholesterol levels have anything to do with heart disease. I am going to keep beating this thincs.org drum until you take a couple of hours to read some of it and links to Dr. Uffe Ravnskov's work.

Oct. 1, 2005:

A new study, of records of existing patients, not a controlled study, indicates that taking a statin reduces the risk of suffering a bone fracture. Once again, one has to ask why you would take a drug with many potential serious side effects, when there are natural ways to prevent bone fractures. Among those are taking in more calcium, either in foods such as milk, cheese, broccoli, etc., taking calcium supplements, and engaging in weight bearing exercises, such as walking. Doing modest free-weight exercises for the upper body would also be advised. Even the practicing medical community is becoming weary of all the claims for statins. As noted in the "Harvard Heart Letter" for Sept., 2005: .... statins, the cholesterol-reducing drugs that seem good for almost anything that ails you these days."

At about the same time as we are being told of yet another wonder for statins, which once were touted only for lowering cholesterol, we find evidence there may be associations between low cholesterol and suicide, stroke, depression, and even violence. At the annual meeting of the American Neurological Association, Dr. Xuemei Huwang described a possible link between low cholesterol and an increased risk for Parkinson's disease. In the study, compared to men with LDL cholesterol levels higher than 135, those with levels between 91 and 135 were 6 times more likely to have Parkinson's, and those LDL levels below 91 were 4 time more likely. Huang cautioned that doctors needed to balance the benefits and risks of medication used in achieving 'optimal' cholesterol levels." This is now one of several studies that show the benefits of higher cholesterol readings, especially in the elderly. So, Gramps, enjoy your Pecan pie, as I did for lunch. More and more, you are on the winning side of the cholesterol debate.

In the view of many, the FDA took a step in the wrong direction when it approved the statin Lipitor to be prescribed to people to reduce the risk of stroke and heart attack - to many diabetics who have risk factors for heart disease. The FDA also approved prescibing Lipitor to reduce the chance of stroke in people without diabetes but who have multiple risk factors. While there is some scientific evidence to back up the claims that statins may reduce the risk of heart attack or stroke, the evidence is based on a limited number of studies, in which the pharmaceutical companies nearly always had a vested interest in the outcome. It seems premature for the FDA to approve statins to be prescribed as preventatives for heart attack and stroke. If anything, they are merely lending the government's cachet to what was already being done. Doctors have been prescribing statins in greater quantities than for any other medication - often "off label." Now, they will be emboldened even further.

Sept. 4, 2005:

A long-term trial of treatment of high blood pressure concluded that the use of Norvasc, a calcium channel blocker in combination with Aceon/Coversyl, an ACE inhibitor, was superior to taking a combination of a diuretic and a beta-blocker. The Aceon/Coversyl ACE inhibitor is a new drug covered by a patent and thus can demand a high price. The venerable and highly effective ACE inhibitor Vasotec is now off-patent and can be obtained in a generic form at a huge savings. It is probable that Vasotec - and its generic - produces similar results to Aceon/Coversyl. Why do you suppose that Vasotec was not used in the trials? Could it have been because Aceon/Coversyl has no cheaper generic equivalent? Generic diuretics are a dime a dozen. Generic beta-blockers are available. Norvasc apparently also has no cheaper American-made generic equivalent. The guide from my very large prescription drug plan does not list a generic for Norvasc.

Internet sources for generic Norvasc are available, but still at very high prices. One Web site notes that: "This generic product (for Norvasc) is sourced from FDA-approved manufacturing facilities in India." Now, I would like to see a study that compares taking an ARB (non are off-patent) in combination with an ACE inhibitor, such as a Vasotec generic, to the outcome of the study noted above. Read up on ARBs versus Calcium Channel Blockers, and about the various heart-friendly aspects of ACE inhibitors, and get your bets down early. Update Sept. 9, 2005: I ran across the following tidbit; Generic versions of Norvasc (amlodipine) are waiting for the end of patent protection before hitting the shelves. To counter the generic threat, Pfizer is combining Norvasc with Lipitor to make it more appealing than the numerous generics likely to hit the market - and thus extend the sales life of Norvasc. This is a two-fer, prolonging sales of Norvasc and increasing the already enormous market share of the cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor. Query. Is there any proof that this particular combination of drugs is appropriate for any class of patients? Not Pfizer's problem. Market share and profit are their main concerns.

Sept. 2, 2005: It is interesting to watch the slow backing off by some in the medical profession from all the myriad of claims made for statins and their efficacy for untold numbers of maladies. Consider the following from the "Harvard Heart Letter" for Sept., 2005: "Not long ago, researchers began to hope that aortic stenosis (narrowing) could be stopped by statins, the cholesterol-reducing drugs that seem good for almost anything that ails you these days." I read that as, "Come on guys, give it a rest. Nothing could be a good treatment for as many things as you claim." The editors went on to say: "Statins have also been eyed for preventing age-related memory loss. Some studies support this notion, others don't." (See: www.health.harvard.edu)

Sept. 2, 2005: I call it "Mining for Gold." You sift through thousands of pounds of silt in the river bottom hoping to find one tiny nugget of Gold. In the medical arena, researchers sift through millions of records in various databases hoping to find a tiny kernel of truth. Often, that truth is some forgone conclusion or wishful thinking that they are trying to validate with "data." Headline: "Prompt Use of Statins Lowers Risk of Death by Heart Attack." This conclusion was drawn by examining the medical records of more that 170,000 heart-attack patients. One of the astounding conclusions was that patients who had not been taking a statin in the past, but were given one within 24 hours of hospitalization were 58% less likely to die in the hospital.

There might have been 100 other reasons that those 58% did not die, but because they were given a statin, it is given all the credit. Doctors noted that statins lower cholesterol, but also raise the levels of nitric oxide, which in turn may reduce the inflammation associated with heart attacks. L-arginine, a natural supplement, raises your level of nitric oxide. Aspirin helps prevent clots and further complications after heart attacks. Beta-blockers slow down the heart rate and thus help keep an injured heart from having to work so hard. How many were administered Angioplasty and/or the placement of a stent, to free the flow of blood to the heart in the blocked artery? How many were given blood thinners or clot-busting drugs? Were any of these 170,000 people given aspirin and beta-blockers? Had they previously been taking Coenzyme Q-10, L-Arginine, Fish Oil, and a host of other heart-friendly supplements? Were they active people who exercised, or were they sedentary? What was the severity of the heart attacks, mild, moderate, massive? Was this their first heart attack? There could have been many other reasons that the 58% did not die in the hospital, other than that they took a statin.

Tues., Aug. 2, 2005: Two different times I wrote about the dangers of the prescription drug Amiodarone, and how it has been cavalierly prescribed "off label" for Atrial Fibrillation (AFIB). I continue to be amazed that medical articles still point to Amiodarone as a possible treatment for AFIB. Check the Outback Archives for articles dated Nov. 27, 2004 and March 5, 2005. Many of you will remember Dick Schaap, the sportscaster. Dick died following hip-replacement surgery. In a lawsuit against a cardiologist who treated him before the hip surgery, a jury awarded the Schaap family $1.95 million in damages. Mr. Schaap had been taking Amiodarone for "a non-life threatening heart condition." A good guess is that it was AFIB or Atrial Flutter, neither of which is Amiodarone approved for as a treatment by the FDA guidelines.

My article of March 5, 2005 clearly describes the conditions for which Amiodarone is approved by the FDA and of its many sometimes-lethal side effects. Dick was suffering from lung damage, one of the known side effects of Amiodarone. His lawyers said that his cardiologist should have taken Dick off Amiodarone, and given his lungs a chance to heal before allowing the hip surgery to take place. One could argue that Mr. Schaap probably should not have been on Amiodarone in the first place.

July 9, 2005: Another New Test for Heart Disease. In the ever-challenging quest to discover what causes cardiovascular disease, we have seen many theories and tests discussed in recent years. In an editorial that accompanied the article** about the new test for a fat in the bloodstream called "oxidized phospholipids," which is a component of LDL cholesterol, Prof. Judith Berliner, professor of medicine at UCLA said: "Most of the studies in the past have revolved around cholesterol," but other factors also must be involved because cholesterol levels are normal in many heart-attack victims."

We now have at least half-a-dozen blood tests that some doctors run to help them discover or predict heart disease. In fact, nobody knows exactly what causes blockages that starve the heart for blood, leading to angina or possibly a heart attack. Yet, we are constantly told that we should take a statin or this drug or that drug to "protect against heart disease." It is the shotgun approach. Spray enough buckshot at the heart-disease target and you might get lucky and actually get a hit. Just hope that none of the buckshot ricochets - causing side effects that may be worse than the hoped-for cure. (**New England Journal of Medicine, July 6, 2005)

July 5, 2005: Writing in the Washington Post for July 5, 2005, David Brown said in part: "Neither low-dose aspirin nor vitamin E supplements prevent cancer in women, and vitamin E also does little or nothing to prevent heart disease in them, according to results of a large and authoritative study released today. The findings from the 40,000-person Women's Health Study add to the growing evidence that vitamin E pills have no health benefit, but run counter to the rising tide in favor of wider use of aspirin to prevent disease."

David Brown is incompetent. To say that there is growing evidence that Vit E pills have no health benefit, is a misguided judgement by an extremely uninformed journalist. In fact, the study did show that healthy women over the age of 65 in the vitamin E group experienced a 34% reduction in heart attacks and a 49% reduction in cardiovascular deaths. I reported on the results of the Women's Health Study in the Outback for June 2, 2005. In that Outback, I noted that the Women's Health Study was written about in the March 31, 2005 edition of the "New England Journal of Medicine." Mr. David Brown's comments about Vitamin E also ignores, as did the Harvard Heart Letter for June 2005, the many, many other beneficial effects that Vitamin E has shown in literally thousands of trials. To single out an apparent lack of effect of Vitamin E with regard to Cancer and Heart Disease in younger women as an indication of "the growing evidence that vitamin E has no health benefit," is simply asinine. Incidentally, although the same study did show that Aspirin did not help prevent heart attacks in women, it did lower their risk for stroke. With men, Aspirin has been shown conclusively to help prevent heart attacks and strokes. This anomaly between the sexes with regard to prevention of heart attacks by taking Aspirin has yet to be explained.

June 26, 2005: The "Harvard Heart Letter" for July 2005 has an article about new and potential tests for heart disease, but concludes that there is "promise but no payoff." In the article, they state: "Cholesterol levels offer a hint at what's going on inside the arteries. They aren't that precise, though." All this time, the millions of people taking statins were told that high cholesterol was one of the main things that was going to kill them. Now, it's only a hint? The "Heart Advisor" from the prestigious Cleveland Clinic (July 2005), has an article entitled "The Myth of Immunity to Heart Attack." They point out that even if you keep your cholesterol level down, your blood pressure under control, quit smoking, have your weight around normal, and you have good genes, it doesn't mean you won't develop cardiovascular disease or will not have a heart attack. There are "more than 100 independent risk factors" for cardiovascular disease, they note. Please, don't tell us about the other 94+! Most of us can't cope with the ones we've got and know about.

June 9, 2005: In an article published in the May 24 issue of "Neurology," a study indicates that high cholesterol levels in later life appear to be associated with a reduced risk of dementia. (Neurology:2005;64:1689-1695) On April 9, 2005, I noted a study that showed that "Low cholesterol in the elderly increases mortality rate." Geezers take note. If you are prescribed a statin, maybe the best place for the prescription is in the round file. Later, if your doctor takes a blood test and says that your cholesterol is still high, he may write a prescription for a higher statin dose. Again, the round file. Eventually, you may have to change doctors when he catches on to your scam - or you could present him or her will all the research that led to your decision to not take a statin. Or, you will die from some other cause, totally unrelated to high cholesterol or cardiovascular disease - and not related to any side effect of statins.

June 9, 2005: A study consisting of 155 people was carried out to see if a statin drug, such as Liptor, could halt the progression of Aortic Stenonis which is the stiffening of a heart valve due to the valve narrowing and a buildup of calcium. Of the 155 in the study, 77 people were given a high dose of the statin Lipitor and 78 were given a placebo - and progress followed for two years. The results showed that the statin did not halt the progression of Aortic Stenosis. The study was funded in part by Pfizer, the maker of Lipitor. A doctor was quoted as saying that the trial was relatively small, so future studies would be required to confirm the results. I read this as: "We will keep trying and trying, until we finally prove that statins will help slow the progression of Aortic Stenonis." It would probably boggle our minds if we knew the total number of studies and meta-analyses (number-crunching of existing studies) now in progress or planned by the makers of statins. They are constantly striving to show that statins are effective in a very wide spectrum of medical problems. If one test turns out negative, we'll do another one, until we get it "right."

June 9, 2005: In a study reported on in the May 23 issue of the "Archives of Internal Medicine," it was shown that if you are taking a statin to lower your cholesterol, you can add Psyllium to your intake to further lower cholesterol. The study concluded that "Eight weeks of 10mg of simvastatin with psyllium daily is as effective at lowering LDL-C, Apo B, and total cholesterol as 20mg of simvastatin daily for patients with moderate hyperlipidemia (high cholesterol)." Psyllium is a major ingredient in Metamucil, and is usually touted as fiber that will help keep your bowels regular. Psyllium can be purchased in health food stores. Metamucil has several cheaper copy-cat competitors, which can be found at Wal-Mart, SAM's Club, and some drugstores and supermarkets.

If you are concerned about lowering your cholesterol, before you accept a statin prescription from your doctor, you might consider taking a product with Psyllium in it, using margarines such as Benecol and Take Control, and pursuing more aggressively the many food choices that can lower your cholesterol - such as eating more fruits and vegetables. If you somehow feel compelled, or you have been told that you "must" take a statin (I would strongly question that advice), you should at least take Psyllium daily, use Benecol or Take Control, take Coenzyme Q10 daily, and reduce the dosage of your statin. Benecol now offers "Smart Chews," a kind of caramel that contains the ingredients that help lower your cholesterol. (www.benecol.com and wwww.takecontrol.com) Update: Oct. 26, 2005, Benecol "Smart Chews" have been taken off the market with no explation given. From benecol.com: "In clinical studies, where patients consumed 5.1 grams of Plant Stanol Esters (6 servings of pre-reformulated formulated BENECOLŪ Products), LDL was reduced, on average, by up to 14% and total cholesterol by up to 10%."

June 2, 2005

The Statin Alert of the Week. Researchers at the Stanford Prevention Research Center found that among patients with high cholesterol in moderate and high-risk groups, fewer than half of patient visits in 2002 ended with a statin recommendation. Use of these drugs overall grew during the decade, but doctors said the drugs were still underused, in particular among moderate-risk patients. The study was funded by Merck Co., which manufactures statins Zocor and Mevacor, and by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. I don't have time right now to research the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality - or their sources of funding. Maybe later. The guidelines for who should be treated with a statin continue to expand. What is a "moderate-risk" patient, for example?

May 25, 2005:

The never-ending miracle of the statin drugs continues like a tsunami. The New England Journal of Medicine published an article that showed taking a statin could reduce the risk of colon cancer by 47 percent. I want to see that study and all its supporting documents - not just a throwaway headline on the Internet "Heart Drug Reduces Colon Cancer Risk." Statins used to be called "cholesterol-lowering drugs." Now, they call them "Heart Drugs." Do you see the insidious brainwashing that is taking place? I actually heard a doctor on a network news interview suggest that statins might be a "wonder drug." Enjoy your free vacation in Bali, doctor. Two studies of this type, taken together, examined the histories of less than 4,000 people and found a reduction in colon cancer of from 47 to 51 percent.

Were these genuine controlled blind tests, or were they just statistical analyses (number crunching) whose results could have been accounted for by a dozen other reasons in the diet, by heredity, and so on? The research team estimated that 4,814 people would have to take a statin to prevent ONE case of colon cancer. No mention of how many of those 4,814 might end up with debilitating side effects, including congestive heart failure. There is good news! So many people are now taking statins that it will be hard to find a "real test cohort" where some of the participants will be given a statin and some a placebo - and where there is a specific end-point being studied. We have had enough of "mining for gold" among medical records attempting to show a connection between taking a statin and the prevention of some disease or condition. We may be gullible, but we are not stupid.

May 14, 2005

The STATIN CURE OF THE WEEK! I live from day to day hoping to see yet another claim for the efficacy of statins (Lipitor, Zocor, Pravachol - for lowering cholesterol). Why? Because it is getting ridiculous. Before long, people will figure out that no ONE DRUG can possibly have this many beneficial effects. This week's prevention is Breast Cancer. In a study of 40,000 female veterans, the users of statins were 51% less likely to develop Breast Cancer. That is a statistic, not a cause-and-effect relationship from a clinical trial. Maybe the non-cancer ladies ate less fat and more veggies - or one of dozens of other explanations as to why they did not develop Cancer. The doctors said they were not ready to recommend statins for those who do not have high cholesterol - because statins are "not entirely safe." What an understatement.

In addition to the risk of muscle damage from statins (among the many side effects), they also may raise the risk of Cancer in the elderly. So follow this. Statins prevent Breast Cancer, but may raise the risk of Cancer in the elderly. Even to the layman, that does not make a lot of sense. I predict that eventually, many, if not most of the claims for statins will be ameliorated or disproven, except that they lower cholesterol. And there is a substantial group of medical and biochemical experts who do not think cholesterol is a factor in cardiovascular disease.(See www.thincs.org and www.statinalert.org)

April 9, 2005

Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig, Ph.D., posted a very interesting article regarding the debate over the use of statin drugs to lower cholesterol. Dr. Enig is an expert of world renown in the subjects of lipids and human nutrition. She was an early critic of the use of trans fatty acids in our processed foods. Sally and Mary are in the "cholesterol and saturated fat do not cause heart disease" camp. They also note some of the flaws in the research that supports the "common medical wisdom" on the subject of statins. (www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/statin.html) Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig, Ph.D., also teamed up to write "Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook that Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats." Of the 141 reviews of the book on Amazon.com, the overall rating was 4 1/2 stars. A few people were very caustic in their reviews, even suggesting that their heart disease was caused by following the dietary guidelines in the cookbook. But, on balance, the book received high praise. (See also www.newtrendspublishing.com, Sally's publishing company.)

Low cholesterol in the elderly increases mortality rate. In an article in the Journal of the American Geriatric Society, 2005; 53 (2): 219-226, written by Nicole Schupf, Rosann Costa, Jose Luchsinger, Ming-Xin Tang, Joseph H. Lee and Richard Mayeux the conclusion is: "Those in the lowest quartile of total cholesterol, non-HDL-C, and LDL-C were approximately twice as likely to die as those in the highest quartile, after adjustment for age, sex, ethnic group, and level of education." Inclusion of treatment with lipid-lowering drugs in the model attenuated but did not abolish the associations between low plasma lipid levels and risk of death. Studies have also found that lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels are a stronger predictor of mortality than total cholesterol in the elderly. In other words, having a high HDL cholesterol level is more protective than attempting to lower the total cholesterol level. (My earlier comments that I once had a total cholesterol of 150 and purposely raised it, and was not alone in this pursuit, seem vindicated by the above research. You might also read Dr. Ravnskov's article on the benefits of high cholesterol at www.thincs.org.)

March 19, 2005

In an earlier Outback, I suggested that one test for dumping your doctor is if he or she tells you not to eat eggs. The evidence is overwhelming that the cholesterol in eggs is not harmful, and that is does not raise your cholesterol level. Our body needs cholesterol to function. In fact, eggs are a nearly-perfect food. Now, another small-scale study of 49 healthy adults published in the March 10th issue of the International Journal of Cardiology notes that eating two eggs a day for six weeks did not increase cholesterol levels. This simply adds to the multitude of other studies in which doctors seem surprised that eggs are not bad for you. Most doctors still cling to the argument that saturated fat and high cholesterol are the culprits in heart disease. Some are hedging their bets by saying that the real villain is trans-fatty acids. Some are hedging even further, saying that the problem is "inflamation" in our arteries.

One prominent researcher whose work I read said that in 10 years if a doctor suggests that saturated fat and/or cholesterol cause heart disease, other doctors will look at him as if he is crazy. I think that this sea-change in thinking will happen in less than 10 years. There will be a lot of kicking and screaming, and the statin drug makers will do everything they can to prevent this from happening. But, pieces of the perimeter of the saturated-fat/cholesterol argument are chipped away nearly every month. In time, the whole core idea will collapse. And are you going to be mad that you gave up Cheescake and Pecan Pie 20 years ago.

The Statin PR machine strikes again. In the Journal of Clinical Investigation, Dr. Micael Freeman said that when mice were injected human prostate cancer cells and the mice were fed a high-cholesterol diet, the cancer-induced tumors grew. When administered a statin (simvastatin), the tumors stopped proliferating. The doctor opined that statins, "which are widely used and fairly safe," might be effective in preventing prostate cancer. Cancer cells injected into mice are slowed in growth by statins? That's some-rock solid evidence to go on. Let's all ask our doctors, "are statins right for me?," especially since they are "fairly safe" to take. And it seems to help the mice.

Writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA 2004;291:2243-2252), Drs. Judith M.E. Walsh and Michael Pignone commented on the drug treatment for women with high cholesterol and the effect on coronary heart disease (CHD) and total mortality. Under "Conclusions," they wrote: "For women without cardiovascular disease, lipid lowering does not affect total or CHD mortality. Lipid lowering may reduce CHD events, but current evidence is insufficient to determine this conclusively. For women with known cardiovascular disease, treatment of hyperlipidemia is effective in reducing CHD events, CHD mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and revascularization, but it does not affect total mortality."

February 19, 2005

Another new study said that taking statins did not reduce the risk of dementia or Alzheimer's disease. This contrasts with earlier studies in which it was suggested that statins do reduce the risk of dementia. The statin police are falling down on the job. They are letting studies get published which challenge their position that statins will reduce risks of half of maladies known to mankind. Are we in for a period of refreshing reports that question some of the many, many claims for statins? One would hope so.

January 12, 2004

The FDA is considering whether to allow the statin Mevacor to be sold over-the-counter without a prescription. They state in part, that the data support the conclusion that risk of muscle and liver toxicity are rare events that do not offset the benefits associated with long-term use of an over-the-counter dose of Mevacor in otherwise healthy patients. This is insanity! If you study the research and the back channel reporting on statins, you know that there are many other potential debilitating side effects from statins - other than just potential muscle and liver problems. I mentioned back channel reporting because it is very difficult, even for an extremely qualified doctor or researcher, to get anything negative published about a statin drug. For the 10th time, I refer you to www.statinalert.org, among other resources.

The statin ZOCOR is available in England without a prescription, but you must get it from the pharmacist. I wonder if the pharmacists ask questions about the health status of those who seek ZOCOR, and if they are empowered to refuse to provide the drug. I constantly think back to the e-mail I got from a lady from England who said that Lipitor, prescribed by a doctor, killed her father. Some pharmacist will eventually provide you with ZOCOR, so any mild regulations seem to be without teeth. In the U.S., the current plan being floated is that the statin MEVACOR would be available right alongside Aspirin and Ibuprofen on the retail shelves. If the idea is to avoid the time-consuming process of consultations with doctors to expedite the access to statins, who is going to do the blood tests and the followup to see if there are debilitating side effects? Is that just a leg cramp, or it is a degenerative muscle disease? Is the memory loss caused by the statin, or is it just senility taking its toll? And on and on, the questions pile up. The biggest one is: what real long-term proof does the industry have that taking statins will reduce heart attacks and stroke? They talk a good story, until you see some of the material that they don't care for you to read. If MEVACOR is approved for over-the-counter sale, what drug will be next? I used to get upset that I had to see a veterinarian to get a heart pill for my dog - and pay a very high price. And the only question they needed answered was how much does the dog weigh? If you have to see a Vet to get a pill for your dog, how can the FDA even think about allowing a powerful drug like a statin to be sold like Aspirin?

Jan. 14, 2005: A U.S. advisory panel, voting 20-3, urged the FDA to reject over-the-counter sales of the statin Mevacor because of doubts the medicine could be used safely without a doctor's guidance. The FDA is likely to follow the panel's advice. Any other outcome would have been without merit.

Dec. 11, 2004

On the outside envelope of a solicitation for the "Harvard Health Letter," was this comment: "ZOCOR, LIPITOR and other statin medicines help those with high cholesterol - but do you know the wonderful things these drugs do for people with normal cholesterol?" You read the alleged claims versus the potential side effects and see how "wonderful" you think the statins are. Harvard medical ought to be ashamed. That statement alone was enough for me to trash the offering, although I once subscribed and found that all of the health newsletters were fighting over the same "news" and became redundant. Especially with the advent of more and more health information on the Web being drawn from medical journals and papers at conferences. (See, for example, www.statinalert.org and www.thincs.org) Sadly, there is also a statinalert.com, which is a shill and shopping site for statins. You want to read the STATINALERT.ORG site, if you or anyone you care about is taking a statin.

Nov. 27, 2004

In the Outback for July 10, 2004, in a article entitled "Statins Inducing Heart Problems, Among Other Things," I noted that cardiologist Peter H. Langsjoen, M.D. had asked the FDA to require a label on all statins what would warn against the depletion of Coenzyme Q10 when taking a statin. This depletion has caused, in the opinion of more than one cardiologist, heart failure, among other problems. The FDA has done nothing about this. On Nov. 29, 2004, Julian M. Whitaker, M.D. an author and expert on heart disease, filed a second petition to the FDA for inclusion of the warning label for all statins. He noted that Health Canada already insisted on the Q10 depletion warning in the advertising of statins.

I got an e-mail from a lady in England in which she said that she attributed her father's death (he was 71) to taking Lipitor. A lady in Texas wrote and asked me about the information that statins (Lipitor, Zocor, Crestor, etc.) deplete Coenzyme Q10 and can cause heart failure. I have exchanged several e-mails with both ladies. The one in England is actively pursuing the matter in legal and medical channels. The lady in Texas has already begun taking Coenzyme Q10. After these exchanges, I decided to put a new topic on my main Web page "Cholesterol, Statins, Q10," where I will pull into one place everything I have ever written on the subjects and many reference links.

In 2003, the statin Lipitor had global sales of $9.2 billion. It is the top-selling drug in the world. Lipitor is only one of several statins on the market. The total statin sales figures can pay for a lot of honoraria to doctors to promote the drugs at conferences, pay for a lot of travel expenses and other perks for doctors to attend seminars and conferences, pay for funding for research - including honoraria to many doctors who perform the research - and for a barrage of ads in print and on TV telling the public about the statins. To put Lipitor sales in perspective, years ago when I lived in Dallas, Southland Corp., the then parent of 7-ELEVEN, had about $9 billion in annual sales. That is a lot of Slim-Jims, coffee, cigarettes, and Slurpees. But Lipitor alone in recent years has sold more product than all the 7-ELEVEN stores combined. That's a lot of pills.

Nov. 6, 2004

The ever dependable Statin press-release machinery keeps pumping out their message. This week, a Reuters release notes a "small study" of statins, a popular class of drugs that includes Lipitor, shows that statins may slow the progression of Alzheimer's disease. The study included 46 people, with 25 receiving 80mg of Lipitor and 21 given a placebo (sugar pill). Is this tiny study worthy of articles all over the media? And one guess on who partly funded the study. A couple of days later, came a press release that statins can help lower blood pressure. Is there no end to the miracles of statins? About 13 million people in the U.S. take a statin. The pharmaceutical companies will not be happy until it is 50 million. I always look to Reuters and AP for my authoritative medical research - not. In fact, they are mostly just conduits for press releases from the drug companies and the U.S. government. Reuters and AP are insidious, in that whatever they put out get repeated in literally thousands of media outlets. Look in your newspaper and on the Internet and see how many stories bear attribution to Reuters and AP. Scary that two sources account for so much of the news we read.

Ooops! On Nov. 12th, Reuters Health reported: "New study findings suggest that the cholesterol-lowering drugs known as 'statins' do not appear to lower the risk of dementia or Alzheimer's disease except possibly in cases of early-onset Alzheimer's disease... the discrepancy may have to do with how the data were analyzed." What did I say? The earlier report did not even merit being distributed to the wire services. My advice. Just skip over all the reports of the "new" findings of the types of diseases that statins can help. Wait 10 years and we'll see. It is a con game. But, "There's a sucker born every minute."

Aug. 8, 2004

The claims being made for the statin drugs, originally prescribed for lowering cholesterol, are getting preposterous, unless you believe that a statin is capable of affecting more classes of disease than perhaps any drug in history. Now, they are making claims that statins help with glaucoma disease in the eyes. From Spanish doctors comes a report that statins may slow down the AIDS virus. The headline is all that many people will read. They tested the statins in the lab and on SIX people. Levels of the AIDS virus, fell and T-cell count went up. When the patients stopped taking the statin the viral levels rebounded, the researchers reported. I wonder who funded this "research" on SIX people? Wanna bet it was one of the makers of statins? They sure got their money's worth; a headline that means virtually nothing in terms of real research. Part of the "statins are a miracle drug" conspiracy. Somehow, the information from such sources as www.statinalert.org don't seem to get headlines. I wonder why?

Return to the List of Topics

Cholesterol and Saturated Fat Won't Kill You - But Too Many Carbs May

When Kenneth H. Cooper, M.D., started the Aerobics Center in Dallas back in the 70's, his hope was to set an example for preventive medicine. The key principles were exercise, good nutrition, weight control and periodic treadmill stress tests to determine your overall Aerobics fitness (heart, lungs, muscles) and to catch any early signs of heart disease. I first met Dr. Cooper about 37 years ago. I was overweight, had high blood pressure, and could not pass my FAA flight physical that year for my private pilot's license. In just a few months, through exercise, diet, and more healthful eating, I lost weight, my blood pressure dropped to an accepable level, and I passed my FAA physical. That was without taking any medications. When the Aerobics Center opened in Dallas, I was among the first priveleged few to join.

Doctor Cooper spoke at an annual awards ceremony in the gym one year to our rather small group about how most doctors practiced "crisis medicine." They waited until you got sick and then tried to treat your problem. He was largely ignored by the mainstream medical community for years. The truth is that doctors, hospitals, and the pharmaceutical industry make very little money unless you get sick. Dr. Cooper's secret weapon was his computer database. Aerobic's Center members recorded the type, length and intensity of their workouts on terminals in the gym.

Most members had stress tests, blood tests, and physicals at the Cooper Clinic, which adjoined the Aerobics Center. As the word spread, it was common to see the head of a Fortune 500 company getting the full-day physical evaluation at the Cooper Clinic. A cardiologist, an internist, a radiologist, a dietician, and a dentist were among those on the staff. If you came through the battery of tests and the various scans without a red flag, the chances were that you had no serious health problem.