Hubble..I haven't read that exact link, but have seen other's. I agree with you, people should research their drugs and drs. should also give U a chance with diet and exercise before taking out that prescription pad. These days if U are 5 pts. over on just about anything, BP, cholesterol, etc. U are labeled "PRE" everything. Worst part of all this is, most dr.s will not agree with you that these drugs cause alot of people pain or other problems. It tells U right on tv, if U experience certain symptoms to tell your dr., yet if U do, they say.."no way".
I switched drs. twice, as neither would work with me. When I told the dr. some day these things are going to be off the market, he told me, NO way, they were the best thing since sliced bread, and I was on Baycol at the time, and we see how THAT went. Many times if U don't take what the dr. wants, they treat U different, and your labeled uncooperative, it is almost a catch 22 situation.
Oh well, off my soapbox, as I have no answers to this problem anymore then most folks. Just have to hope and pray U get a dr. that will work with you and not dismiss your ideas if you choose to go a natural route. Have a great day, and stay well.... :wave:
BTW...spring has finally sprung here for a few days, yahooooo. :D
I place much more confidence in studies about natural remedies than in any study funded by a profit-seeking pharmaceutical company, or which was conducted by researchers who take consulting fees or accept funding from the pharmaceuticals. The financial conflict-of-interest that the FDA and many clinical-study research groups have with the pharmaceuticals today is incestuous to say the least.
The profits on drugs are so astronomical, that the pressure to push them on an unsuspecting public is overwhelming. Statins alone are a $27 BILLION dollar industry.... Like they say, money talks!!!
Congress didn't demand public hearings last summer about drug-saftey and the FDA's inability to protect the public from dangerous drugs for nothing. By the time congress gets involved, a situation is not just serious, it's damn near critical.
I think there is something about the efficacy of high-dose vitamin-c and l-lysine in reducing the risk of CHD. Several independent, non-pharmaceutical-tainted studies to date have indicated such a reduction in CHD - but only when the vitamin dosage was sufficient.
I believe these studies much more than anything funded by the makers of Baycol, Vioxx, or Celebrex et al.
By the way, the pharmaceuticals provide the vast majority of the funding for the New Drug Approval division of the FDA. If you were an employee in this division, would you dare to publish findings that reflected negatively on a new drug at the expense of having your department funding slashed by the pharmaceuticals, and your job put at risk? Or would you slant the research in favor of the drug and keep your job? Would you dare to conduct a study that applauded the benefits of a low-cost alternative to the drug (to wit, Vitamin-C)?? Congress is seriously considering (and rightly so) taking the funding of this FDA division out of the hands of the drug companies. THey are also considering funding post-approval studies of drugs to monitor their safety - something the FDA DOES NOT DO TODAY (as incredible as that sounds).
Once you understand this simple, but overwhelmingly powerful, financial conflict of interest plauguing the drug-approval process as it stands today, you begin to accept most clinical trials of drugs only with a huge grain of salt (and maybe a side-order of a mind-altering drug).
I think it will take years, but eventually, I think Pauling's therapy will be vindicated.
Are statins a complete and utter fraud because I personally experienced severe side-effects with them? I don't believe so, nor do I think anyone does. They clearly benefit high-risk, middle-aged males with a number of risk factors.
I understand your disbelief in vitamin-c and I'm sorry you ran into such serious CHD problems - hope you recover fully.
But there are a number of us who don't believe in statins either - and think their benefits have been inflated, their risks downplayed, and that they are flagrantly over-prescribed.
The verdict on statins is far from over - despite the fact that they are riding the crest right now. I still maintain that no study has ever indicated a longer lifespan for those taking statins versus those who don't. I also don't think anyone has shown a clear, definitive relation between cholesterol level and CHD. Very high cholesterol, and very low cholesterol seem to be clearly bad for you - in between is a gray zone. If there were such a definitive link between cholesterol and CHD, then 40% of heart attack victims would not have 'normal' cholesterol levels, but they do. Swedes have higher cholesterol levels than Americans, but a lower level of CHD... and on, and on, and on....
And I do steadfastly maintain that there are real and serious financial conflicts of interest between those certifying the safety of drugs, and the pharmaceuticals. So evidently does the U.S. Congress...
In any event, I'll never convince you that statins can be bad for a lot of people, and you'll never convince me that they're as good as they are touted to be. Time and further research will be the jury on this one. I for one am anxiously awaiting results of Dr. Golumb's UCSD Statin Study to shed more light on the side-effects of statins...
I respect your opinion, and hope statins work wonders for you.
I for one have been relatively free of CHD thus far, (at 51) and intend to stay so, but not by taking statins. Convince me that Baycol, Vioxx, and Celebrex problems were not known by the pharmaceuticals long ago, and that their recall is not indicative of a systemic problem with the drug approval process, and I'll reconsider my position.
