Medicine, Big Pharma, Big Science Can We Trust It In Its Current Corporate Driven For Profit Form?

by Damien M - PharmaWatch Tue May 17, 2011 02:09

Just had a quick gander at the GAIN study and a few others you mentioned.
Oh dear, this study used 'Atorvastatin' which is or was Pfizer's big 'me too' drug otherwise known as Lipitor. It rakes in a few billion or so each year for Pfizer-it should help them pay off their two most recent fines; fraudulently promoting Bextra ($2.3Billion(Ouch!!!)) and then there was that whole sorry mess where they tested them drugs on them Nigerian kids-a dozen died and many more were seriously injured. They got off light with that-a $50 million settlement there recently. Many thought 'The Constant Gardener' was a work of fiction...Pfizer's
Bextra fine was the 2nd largest in history, after Merck's fine for them 100,000+ Vioxx deaths-$4.5 Billion. Like, obviously I could be a mill or 2 out, there's so many fines I lose track of them all. ;-)

'Dr Waters has received investigator-initiated research support from Astra-Zeneca, Merck, and Pfizer and honoraria for lectures from Astra-Zeneca, Merck, and Pfizer. Dr Hsue has received investigator-initiated research funding from Astra-Zeneca and honoraria for lectures from Pfizer.'

Got anything from anyone reputable? You know if this were a supergrass trial, a good lawyer would tear their credibilty to shreds. Heck, an indifferent lawyer would!

The incidence (per capita) of heart failure has more than doubled since cholesterol-lowering statin drugs were introduced in 1987.

by Damien M - PharmaWatch Sun May 15, 2011 19:12

"Pharma companies will indeed do crooked things to make a buck as will all capitalist companies. Eternal vigilance is necessary."

No other capitalist industry-oil, food, technology etc proclaims to help people, while systematically killing them. That's my problem with them.

I think 'eternal vigilance' is a bit of a cop-out don't you think? Pat, do you expect regulatory bodies to provide this 'eternal vigilance'? Most staff are on the payroll of these companies.

"If you tell them that 99% of the actions of Pharma are evil then they are unlikely to take serious the important points you raise about Pharma corruption."

I present the facts that support my allegations that 99% of the actions (fraud, bribery, corruption, murder etc) of Big Pharma are evil; whether people take these facts seriously is up to them. I do not force these facts, or my opinions on anyone. I merely place them in the public sphere with supporting evidence.

by pat c Sun May 15, 2011 18:22

Hi Damien

Pharma companies will indeed do crooked things to make a buck as will all capitalist companies. Eternal vigilance is necessary.

Its important to realise though that these same companies produce medicines which keep millions of people alive. For hundreds of million others (including me) their quality of life would not be the same without those pills.

There are few people in this country who do not have a friend or relative whose sufferings are allieviated by the products of Pharma. If you tell them that 99% of the actions of Pharma are evil then they are unlikely to take serious the important points you raise about Pharma corruption.

by Damien M - PharmaWatch Sun May 15, 2011 17:50

Pravastatin is made by Bristol Myers Squibb, not really the most trustworthy of companies. They've been successfully sued in numerous US States for fraud, including a $150 million fine by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (1). So I'm sorry Gerald, but anything they say I'll have to take with a large pinch of salt, including such evidence that you claimed backfired on me..

I noticed you mentioned Simvastatin in your eloquent reference list? Not sure if you’re aware but those studies that you quoted were carried out by Merck, Sharp & Dohme, and dunno if you’re aware but medical fraud is something they’re rather good at.
The whole basis of scientific medical trials is flawed, regardless of whether it is double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, triple distilled with an extra shot etc. Merck's other drug Rofecoxib, or to give it its brand name Vioxx, a popular (and extremely profitable) cox-2 inhibitor killed upwards of 100,000 people. Merck knew this and covered up numerous deaths during the testing process. They binned trials that showed the drug was too dangerous and published only trials that favoured it. When numerous doctors spoke out against the ever increasing number of deaths, Merck drew up a ‘hit list’, a list of doctors to be discredited or silenced (2). Sinister eh? Merck were also recently involved in more medical fraud when they were caught publishing a phoney journal (3) in order to publish studies that were never even conducted!!

"And i'm not doubting that pharma companies are evil sometimes."
I would say they're evil about 99% of the time.

(1). US Securities and Exchange Commission. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company Agrees to Pay $150 Million to Settle Fraud Charges
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2004-105.htm

(2). Drug Company Merck Drew Up Doctor "Hit List"
http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/04/25/1626200/Drug...-List

(3). Merck published fake journal
http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55671/

As Martin McGuinness would say, “they’re not reliable people to be quoting at me!!”

by Gerald Sun May 15, 2011 11:51

Ok, so I did google statins and children like you said. First paper that comes up -
"Two years of pravastatin therapy induced a significant regression of carotid atherosclerosis in children with familial hypercholesterolemia, with no adverse effects on growth, sexual maturation, hormone levels, or liver or muscle tissue. "

What am I supposed to be seeing here - That doctors used a drug that has been shown to be effective and safe in adults in children with genetically determined high cholesterol and found it worked really well? Didn;t you just say there hasn't been any trials in children? I admit, I was unaware of this - Its not my field, but why are you giving me information that supports my position and weakens yours? Altruism?

"Erm, yeah."
RRRRReallly.... An increase that isn't attributable to increased OCP/HRT use, decreased childbirth and increased surveillance? After 2 decades of increasing incidence rates, the number of new female breast cancers decreased by 2.2% per year from 1999 to 2005. This decrease is thought to reflect reduced use of HRT following the publication of the WHI findings in 2002, which linked HRT use to an increased risk of heart disease and breast cancer. Rates of DCIS have stabilized since 2000.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1947145-overview#...owall

And i'm not doubting that pharma companies are evil sometimes. I don't think anyone would refute that. We are already off track from the GM topic.

by Damien M - PharmaWatch Sun May 15, 2011 11:23

Absolutely not. I picked the first one I seen. If you want to go into cherrypicking I can talk about that, its something your industry specialises in. Do you seriously think I had to trawl through 20 or 30 of them studies to find one false one? I can do them all in order if you like?
"Everone and their grandmother is on statins, and is there some massive outbreak of cancer?"
Erm, yeah. I'll go into the 1500% increase later.

"Eh Damo - Since when are children being put on statins? Since when has it been cool to test drugs on children? Pretty hard to get ethics council approval for testing a cholesterol lowering agent on kids lol"

Google 'children and statins'. I'm shocked you're blissfully ignorantly unaware of Doctors (with blatant conflicts of interest) recommending statins for kids as young as 8.
And when your finished Google the newsclip 'The Psychotropic Drugging of America's Children'.

As for your 'ethics and kids' quip, rest assured there will be an article up here on the Seroxat Scandal soon enough. Fairly sure you're aware of that? What about them kids that died from contaminated Baxter blood? Ethics indeed Gerald.

"I mean every time I walk outside I 'expose' myself to risk of getting hit by lightning. Should I stop going outside?"

Please don't, even though the risk may be miniscule.

'Heart disease: US doctors back statins for 8-year-olds'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jul/09/health.me...earch

by Gerald Sun May 15, 2011 11:01

"Total cancer incidence was not significantly different between the pravastatin and placebo groups. In the men, there were no differences between the groups in cancer incidence by site. Possible reasons for the higher number of breast cancer cases in the women in the pravastatin than those in the placebo group have been discussed and include a very low incidence in the placebo group (no new cases) or an imbalance in risk factors at baseline. There is no known biological basis for suspecting a causal link. The clearest evidence that this finding is anomalous and due to chance comes from the results of the Long-Term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischemic Disease (LIPID) trial, which studied 1,508 women for 6 years after pravastatin or placebo treatment. There was no excess of breast cancer in the pravastatin group (Tonkin A, oral presentation, 70th Annual Scientific Sessions of the American Heart Association, November 1997). Finally, the 4S trial found no increase in breast cancer in women treated with simvastatin for 5 years." Direct quote from the CARE trial.

"accompanied by a 1500% increase in breast cancer"
Hold up. You go on an righteous rant about relative risk and absolute risk then you state something like this? I mean you go staright from an absolute risk reduction and then compare it with a relative risk increase??? Way to fail science.

There are two reasons why this is wrong. Firstly, you make your bias known by going through all the studies and picking one that supports your position. This is called "cherry picking". I gave you a little gift in my references as a few of those studies found no change in cholesterol or cardiovascular incidence, but since there is always a possibility for error in studies, you look at the evidence as a whole, do meta anyses etc. Secondly, if it DID increase cancer by 1500% we would know about it. Everone and their grandmother is on statins, and is there some massive outbreak of cancer? No. Meanwhile, on a population level, cardiovascular complications are decreasing. Funny that.

Also taking this trial that you cherry picked as an example of dangers if statins - With your 1500% increase (ha) there was 11 more women per 1,065 (roughly) that got breast cancer, yet there was 16 less deaths from MI or Coronary heart disease. I'm sorry, but I would prefer to get breast cancer than die thank you very much. I mean the prognosis of breast cancer is 2.0% die per year if you are >50 so its not exactly a death sentence. And thats not even counting the reduction in other things that was shown by this trial you herald as an example - Less nonfatal MI, less strokes, less angina, less surgery.

Oh and I'm a bit bad at maths, but I dont see where you get 1500% increase in breast cancer. In the trial 12 placebo women got cancer and 23 in the statin group - Im not sure but isn't this more like a 100% relative risk increase?

"And when it comes to the drug Lipitor, 98 of 100 men treated for five years would receive no benefit from the drug, yet they would all be exposed to risk of its potentially serious and fatal side effects, such as muscle breakdown and kidney failure. Put another way, in the best-case scenario, 50 men at risk for a heart attack would have to be treated with statins like Lipitor for five years to prevent a single heart attack or stroke."

Oh dear, double science fail. Treating 50 to prevent one heart attack is a good result. I dont see how it isn't. Oh and they are 'exposed' to risk of side effects. Whoopdy doo, yet you fail to mention what the incidence of fatal side effects are, or even non fatal side effects. I mean every time I walk outside I 'expose' myself to risk of getting hit by lightning. Should I stop going outside?

A 1% absolute risk reduction is a fucking fantastic result. Do you know how many people die from heart attacks per year? Or are crippled by the consequences of heart disease? A 1% reduction in this is MASSIVE. Meanwhile, the risks of taking the drug are miniscule in comparison, and even then, since it can be predicted, you can be on the watch for it.

"and did not study the effects among women, children,"
Eh Damo - Since when are children being put on statins? Since when has it been cool to test drugs on children? Pretty hard to get ethics council approval for testing a cholesterol lowering agent on kids lol.
And you just brought up a trial that had a large female cohort - And it worked wonders for them. I mean - you are the advocate here against statins and the trial you use to support your argument actually supports mine?

Arguments aside, I do have to say it is refreshing to talk to someone who at least knows a bit about stats (sort of) and is committed to debunking bad science - Always a good thing, even if I do disagree with you on this.

by Damien M Sat May 14, 2011 22:28

And when it comes to the drug Lipitor, 98 of 100 men treated for five years would receive no benefit from the drug, yet they would all be exposed to risk of its potentially serious and fatal side effects, such as muscle breakdown and kidney failure. Put another way, in the best-case scenario, 50 men at risk for a heart attack would have to be treated with statins like Lipitor for five years to prevent a single heart attack or stroke.

Lipitor promoters insist that those with so-called high cholesterol can achieve a 36% "relative risk reduction" in heart attack by using the cholesterol-lowering drug. The contortionists ignore that the same raw data can yield a more revealing "absolute risk reduction" of a paltry 1%. Using absolute risk reduction is more accurate because it compares the actual difference between the treated and untreated groups. Unfortunately, it is not good for increasing sales!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That Lipitor does not prevent heart attack is a death-blow to promoters. It goes virtually unnoticed because they push the absolute risk reduction under the drug-rug while magnifying relative risk reduction. This type of advertising disguised as science is the most dangerous trend in journalism today. It promotes drug use among healthy populations who are needlessly putting themselves at risk for adverse effects of Lipitor like cancer and heart failure.

All statin drug trials from 1990 to 1999 suffered from age and gender bias. The statin drug trials were mainly conducted using middle-aged men, and did not study the effects among women, children, and the elderly or ethnic groups. Among these studies were 4S, CARE, LIPID, EXCEL, REGRESS, PREDICT, ACAPS, AFCAPS, WOSCOP, KAPS. There were 19 studies in total. The General Accounting Office (GAO) of the United States Government has recognized the bias and stated: "The trials generally have not evaluated the efficacy of cholesterol-lowering treatment for several important population groups, such as women, elderly men and women, and minority men and women. Thus, they provide little or no evidence of benefits or possible risks for these groups.

by Damien M - PharmaWatch Sat May 14, 2011 22:16

Evidence from the cholesterol-lowering drug trial that you quoted known as CARE (Cholesterol And Recurrent Events) (Financial support: Bristol-Myers Squibb) showed that Pravachol, a cholesterol-lowering drug made by Bristol-Myers Squib, reduced the chance of suffering from a heart attack by an absolute reduction rate of 1.1%. Wow. This miniscule benefit was accompanied by a 1500% increase in breast cancer among women taking Pravachol. An increase in cancer rates among Pravachol users was also shown in the drug trial known as PROSPER (1).

[1] Newman, Thomas B. et al. Carcinogenicity of Lipid-Lowering Drugs. Journal of the American Medical Association. January 3, 1996-Vol 275, No. 1.

by Damien M - PharmaWatch Sat May 14, 2011 22:01

Nothing to be sorry about, [good copy and paste job! ;-)].
Most, if not all of your studies pasted... I mean quoted were funded by AZ, GSK, MSD and all the others at Big Pharma-hardly a bastion of truth. I googled some of them there and the author list reads like a drug company board meeting.
I won't say which at present as I'll have to go through the studies, check the conflicts of interests etc, find out which statins have since been pulled off the market, but my main focus will be which drug company funded the study.
I do know that most of the studies were short in duration, didn't take into account cancer causing effects of statins etc and had their statistics manipulated. But cheers for all the refereences-I'll enjoy debuinking them.

by Scientist. Sat May 14, 2011 21:54

"When the first human or bear wandered over to the white willow tree and put what was to become known as aspirin."

Chimpanzees are well known to rub down their wounds with a leaf containing a mysterious pain killing substance.
We call the pain killing substance aspirin.

by Gerald Sat May 14, 2011 21:32

Well, the comment will probably get deleted since you managed to provoke me into getting off topic, but I am a stickler for evidence, so why not entertain you. Sorry to admin and people who want to know about GM!

# Azen SP, Mack WJ, Cashin-Hemphill L, et al. Progression of coronary artery disease predicts clinical coronary events. Long-term follow-up from the Cholesterol Lowering Atherosclerosis Study. Circulation 1996; 93:34.
# Brown G, Albers JJ, Fisher LD, et al. Regression of coronary artery disease as a result of intensive lipid-lowering therapy in men with high levels of apolipoprotein B. N Engl J Med 1990; 323:1289.
# Jukema JW, Bruschke AV, van Boven AJ, et al. Effects of lipid lowering by pravastatin on progression and regression of coronary artery disease in symptomatic men with normal to moderately elevated serum cholesterol levels. The Regression Growth Evaluation Statin Study (REGRESS). Circulation 1995; 91:2528.
# van Boven AJ, Jukema JW, Zwinderman AH, et al. Reduction of transient myocardial ischemia with pravastatin in addition to the conventional treatment in patients with angina pectoris. REGRESS Study Group. Circulation 1996; 94:1503.
# de Groot E, Jukema JW, Montauban van Swijndregt AD, et al. B-mode ultrasound assessment of pravastatin treatment effect on carotid and femoral artery walls and its correlations with coronary arteriographic findings: a report of the Regression Growth Evaluation Statin Study (REGRESS). J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 31:1561.
# Herd JA, Ballantyne CM, Farmer JA, et al. Effects of fluvastatin on coronary atherosclerosis in patients with mild to moderate cholesterol elevations (Lipoprotein and Coronary Atherosclerosis Study [LCAS]). Am J Cardiol 1997; 80:278.
# Ballantyne CM, Herd JA, Ferlic LL, et al. Influence of low HDL on progression of coronary artery disease and response to fluvastatin therapy. Circulation 1999; 99:736.
# Ericsson CG, Hamsten A, Nilsson J, et al. Angiographic assessment of effects of bezafibrate on progression of coronary artery disease in young male postinfarction patients. Lancet 1996; 347:849.
# Ericsson CG, Nilsson J, Grip L, et al. Effect of bezafibrate treatment over five years on coronary plaques causing 20% to 50% diameter narrowing (The Bezafibrate Coronary Atherosclerosis Intervention Trial [BECAIT]). Am J Cardiol 1997; 80:1125.
# Ruotolo G, Ericsson CG, Tettamanti C, et al. Treatment effects on serum lipoprotein lipids, apolipoproteins and low density lipoprotein particle size and relationships of lipoprotein variables to progression of coronary artery disease in the Bezafibrate Coronary Atherosclerosis Intervention Trial (BECAIT). J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 32:1648.
# Ruotolo G, Båvenholm P, Brismar K, et al. Serum insulin-like growth factor-I level is independently associated with coronary artery disease progression in young male survivors of myocardial infarction: beneficial effects of bezafibrate treatment. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 35:647.
# Schartl M, Bocksch W, Koschyk DH, et al. Use of intravascular ultrasound to compare effects of different strategies of lipid-lowering therapy on plaque volume and composition in patients with coronary artery disease. Circulation 2001; 104:387.
# Sacks FM, Pasternak RC, Gibson CM, et al. Effect on coronary atherosclerosis of decrease in plasma cholesterol concentrations in normocholesterolaemic patients. Harvard Atherosclerosis Reversibility Project (HARP) Group. Lancet 1994; 344:1182.
# Teo KK, Burton JR, Buller CE, et al. Long-term effects of cholesterol lowering and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition on coronary atherosclerosis: The Simvastatin/Enalapril Coronary Atherosclerosis Trial (SCAT). Circulation 2000; 102:1748.
# Nissen SE, Tuzcu EM, Schoenhagen P, et al. Effect of intensive compared with moderate lipid-lowering therapy on progression of coronary atherosclerosis: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2004; 291:1071.
# Nissen SE, Tuzcu EM, Schoenhagen P, et al. Statin therapy, LDL cholesterol, C-reactive protein, and coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2005; 352:29.
# Taylor AJ, Sullenberger LE, Lee HJ, et al. Arterial Biology for the Investigation of the Treatment Effects of Reducing Cholesterol (ARBITER) 2: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of extended-release niacin on atherosclerosis progression in secondary prevention patients treated with statins. Circulation 2004; 110:3512.
# Nissen SE, Nicholls SJ, Sipahi I, et al. Effect of very high-intensity statin therapy on regression of coronary atherosclerosis: the ASTEROID trial. JAMA 2006; 295:1556.
# Lee JM, Robson MD, Yu LM, et al. Effects of high-dose modified-release nicotinic acid on atherosclerosis and vascular function: a randomized, placebo-controlled, magnetic resonance imaging study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 54:1787.
# Vaughan CJ, Murphy MB, Buckley BM. Statins do more than just lower cholesterol. Lancet 1996; 348:1079.
# Allen Maycock CA, Muhlestein JB, Horne BD, et al. Statin therapy is associated with reduced mortality across all age groups of individuals with significant coronary disease, including very elderly patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002; 40:1777.
# Andrews TC, Raby K, Barry J, et al. Effect of cholesterol reduction on myocardial ischemia in patients with coronary disease. Circulation 1997; 95:324.
# Salonen R, Nyyssönen K, Porkkala E, et al. Kuopio Atherosclerosis Prevention Study (KAPS). A population-based primary preventive trial of the effect of LDL lowering on atherosclerotic progression in carotid and femoral arteries. Circulation 1995; 92:1758.
# Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Lancet 1994; 344:1383.
# Pedersen TR, Wilhelmsen L, Faergeman O, et al. Follow-up study of patients randomized in the Scandinavian simvastatin survival study (4S) of cholesterol lowering. Am J Cardiol 2000; 86:257.
# Pedersen TR, Olsson AG, Faergeman O, et al. Lipoprotein changes and reduction in the incidence of major coronary heart disease events in the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Circulation 1998; 97:1453.
# Otterstad JE, Sleight P. The HOPE study: comparison with other trials of secondary prevention. Eur Heart J 2001; 22:1307.
# Pedersen TR, Kjekshus J, Pyörälä K, et al. Effect of simvastatin on ischemic signs and symptoms in the Scandinavian simvastatin survival study (4S). Am J Cardiol 1998; 81:333.
# Wilhelmsen L, Pyörälä K, Wedel H, et al. Risk factors for a major coronary event after myocardial infarction in the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Impact of predicted risk on the benefit of cholesterol-lowering treatment. Eur Heart J 2001; 22:1119.
# Gerdes LU, Gerdes C, Kervinen K, et al. The apolipoprotein epsilon4 allele determines prognosis and the effect on prognosis of simvastatin in survivors of myocardial infarction : a substudy of the Scandinavian simvastatin survival study. Circulation 2000; 101:1366.
# Ballantyne CM, Olsson AG, Cook TJ, et al. Influence of low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and elevated triglyceride on coronary heart disease events and response to simvastatin therapy in 4S. Circulation 2001; 104:3046.
# Miettinen TA, Pyörälä K, Olsson AG, et al. Cholesterol-lowering therapy in women and elderly patients with myocardial infarction or angina pectoris: findings from the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Circulation 1997; 96:4211.
# Law MR, Thompson SG, Wald NJ. Assessing possible hazards of reducing serum cholesterol. BMJ 1994; 308:373.
# Ryman A. Cholesterol, violent death, and mental disorder. BMJ 1994; 309:421.
# Strandberg TE, Pyörälä K, Cook TJ, et al. Mortality and incidence of cancer during 10-year follow-up of the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Lancet 2004; 364:771.
# Prevention of cardiovascular events and death with pravastatin in patients with coronary heart disease and a broad range of initial cholesterol levels. The Long-Term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease (LIPID) Study Group. N Engl J Med 1998; 339:1349.
# Simes RJ, Marschner IC, Hunt D, et al. Relationship between lipid levels and clinical outcomes in the Long-term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischemic Disease (LIPID) Trial: to what extent is the reduction in coronary events with pravastatin explained by on-study lipid levels? Circulation 2002; 105:1162.
# Tonkin AM, Colquhoun D, Emberson J, et al. Effects of pravastatin in 3260 patients with unstable angina: results from the LIPID study. Lancet 2000; 356:1871.
# Marschner IC, Colquhoun D, Simes RJ, et al. Long-term risk stratification for survivors of acute coronary syndromes. Results from the Long-term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischemic Disease (LIPID) Study. LIPID Study Investigators. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 38:56.
# Colquhoun D, Keech A, Hunt D, et al. Effects of pravastatin on coronary events in 2073 patients with low levels of both low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol: results from the LIPID study. Eur Heart J 2004; 25:771.
# LaRosa JC, Grundy SM, Waters DD, et al. Intensive lipid lowering with atorvastatin in patients with stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2005; 352:1425.
# Wenger NK, Lewis SJ, Herrington DM, et al. Outcomes of using high- or low-dose atorvastatin in patients 65 years of age or older with stable coronary heart disease. Ann Intern Med 2007; 147:1.
# Wenger, NK. Personal communication (July 9, 2007).
# Pedersen TR, Faergeman O, Kastelein JJ, et al. High-dose atorvastatin vs usual-dose simvastatin for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction: the IDEAL study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2005; 294:2437.
# Study of the Effectiveness of Additional Reductions in Cholesterol and Homocysteine (SEARCH) Collaborative Group, Armitage J, Bowman L, et al. Intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol with 80 mg versus 20 mg simvastatin daily in 12,064 survivors of myocardial infarction: a double-blind randomised trial. Lancet 2010; 376:1658.
# Secondary prevention by raising HDL cholesterol and reducing triglycerides in patients with coronary artery disease: the Bezafibrate Infarction Prevention (BIP) study. Circulation 2000; 102:21.
# Sacks FM, Pfeffer MA, Moye LA, et al. The effect of pravastatin on coronary events after myocardial infarction in patients with average cholesterol levels. Cholesterol and Recurrent Events Trial investigators. N Engl J Med 1996; 335:1001.
# Plehn JF, Davis BR, Sacks FM, et al. Reduction of stroke incidence after myocardial infarction with pravastatin: the Cholesterol and Recurrent Events (CARE) study. The Care Investigators. Circulation 1999; 99:216.
# Flaker GC, Warnica JW, Sacks FM, et al. Pravastatin prevents clinical events in revascularized patients with average cholesterol concentrations. Cholesterol and Recurrent Events CARE Investigators. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999; 34:106.
# Sacks FM, Moyé LA, Davis BR, et al. Relationship between plasma LDL concentrations during treatment with pravastatin and recurrent coronary events in the Cholesterol and Recurrent Events trial. Circulation 1998; 97:1446.
# Lewis SJ, Sacks FM, Mitchell JS, et al. Effect of pravastatin on cardiovascular events in women after myocardial infarction: the cholesterol and recurrent events (CARE) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 32:140.
# Baseline serum cholesterol and treatment effect in the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Lancet 1995; 345:1274.
# ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group. The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial. Major outcomes in moderately hypercholesterolemic, hypertensive patients randomized to pravastatin vs usual care: The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT-LLT). JAMA 2002; 288:2998.
# Tsevat J, Kuntz KM, Orav EJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of pravastatin therapy for survivors of myocardial infarction with average cholesterol levels. Am Heart J 2001; 141:727.
# LaRosa JC. Prevention and treatment of coronary heart disease: who benefits? Circulation 2001; 104:1688.
# Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group. MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20,536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2002; 360:7.
# Collins R, Armitage J, Parish S, et al. Effects of cholesterol-lowering with simvastatin on stroke and other major vascular events in 20536 people with cerebrovascular disease or other high-risk conditions. Lancet 2004; 363:757.
# Rosenson RS, Tangney CC. Antiatherothrombotic properties of statins: implications for cardiovascular event reduction. JAMA 1998; 279:1643.
# Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group. The effects of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin on cause-specific mortality and on cancer incidence in 20,536 high-risk people: a randomised placebo-controlled trial [ISRCTN48489393]. BMC Med 2005; 3:6.
# Colhoun HM, Betteridge DJ, Durrington PN, et al. Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with atorvastatin in type 2 diabetes in the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS): multicentre randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2004; 364:685.
# Keech A, Simes RJ, Barter P, et al. Effects of long-term fenofibrate therapy on cardiovascular events in 9795 people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (the FIELD study): randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005; 366:1849.
# ACCORD Study Group, Ginsberg HN, Elam MB, et al. Effects of combination lipid therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 2010; 362:1563.
# ACCORD Study Group, ACCORD Eye Study Group, Chew EY, et al. Effects of medical therapies on retinopathy progression in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2010; 363:233.
# Chew, EY, Ambrosius, WT, Danis, RP. Retinopathy progression in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2010; 363:2173.
# Rind DM. Retinopathy progression in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2010; 363:2172.
# Chew EY, Ambrosius WT. Update of the ACCORD Eye Study. N Engl J Med 2011; 364:188.
# Knopp RH, d'Emden M, Smilde JG, Pocock SJ. Efficacy and safety of atorvastatin in the prevention of cardiovascular end points in subjects with type 2 diabetes: the Atorvastatin Study for Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease Endpoints in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (ASPEN). Diabetes Care 2006; 29:1478.
# Nakamura H, Arakawa K, Itakura H, et al. Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with pravastatin in Japan (MEGA Study): a prospective randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2006; 368:1155.
# Byington RP, Jukema JW, Salonen JT, et al. Reduction in cardiovascular events during pravastatin therapy. Pooled analysis of clinical events of the Pravastatin Atherosclerosis Intervention Program. Circulation 1995; 92:2419.
# Hebert PR, Gaziano JM, Chan KS, Hennekens CH. Cholesterol lowering with statin drugs, risk of stroke, and total mortality. An overview of randomized trials. JAMA 1997; 278:313.
# Marchioli R, Marfisi RM, Carinci F, Tognoni G. Meta-analysis, clinical trials, and transferability of research results into practice. The case of cholesterol-lowering interventions in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156:1158.
# LaRosa JC, He J, Vupputuri S. Effect of statins on risk of coronary disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 1999; 282:2340.
# Sacks FM, Tonkin AM, Shepherd J, et al. Effect of pravastatin on coronary disease events in subgroups defined by coronary risk factors: the Prospective Pravastatin Pooling Project. Circulation 2000; 102:1893.
# Simes J, Furberg CD, Braunwald E, et al. Effects of pravastatin on mortality in patients with and without coronary heart disease across a broad range of cholesterol levels. The Prospective Pravastatin Pooling project. Eur Heart J 2002; 23:207.
# Stenestrand U, Wallentin L, Swedish Register of Cardiac Intensive Care (RIKS-HIA). Early statin treatment following acute myocardial infarction and 1-year survival. JAMA 2001; 285:430.
# Newby LK, Kristinsson A, Bhapkar MV, et al. Early statin initiation and outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes. JAMA 2002; 287:3087.
# Arntz HR, Agrawal R, Wunderlich W, et al. Beneficial effects of pravastatin (+/-colestyramine/niacin) initiated immediately after a coronary event (the randomized Lipid-Coronary Artery Disease [L-CAD] Study). Am J Cardiol 2000; 86:1293.
# Briel M, Schwartz GG, Thompson PL, et al. Effects of early treatment with statins on short-term clinical outcomes in acute coronary syndromes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2006; 295:2046.
# Schwartz GG, Olsson AG, Ezekowitz MD, et al. Effects of atorvastatin on early recurrent ischemic events in acute coronary syndromes: the MIRACL study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2001; 285:1711.
# Cannon CP, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, et al. Intensive versus moderate lipid lowering with statins after acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2004; 350:1495.
# Ridker PM, Cannon CP, Morrow D, et al. C-reactive protein levels and outcomes after statin therapy. N Engl J Med 2005; 352:20.
# Liem AH, van Boven AJ, Veeger NJ, et al. Effect of fluvastatin on ischaemia following acute myocardial infarction: a randomized trial. Eur Heart J 2002; 23:1931.
# Thompson PL, Meredith I, Amerena J, et al. Effect of pravastatin compared with placebo initiated within 24 hours of onset of acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina: the Pravastatin in Acute Coronary Treatment (PACT) trial. Am Heart J 2004; 148:e2.
# de Lemos JA, Blazing MA, Wiviott SD, et al. Early intensive vs a delayed conservative simvastatin strategy in patients with acute coronary syndromes: phase Z of the A to Z trial. JAMA 2004; 292:1307.
# Rubins HB, Robins SJ, Collins D, et al. Gemfibrozil for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in men with low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Veterans Affairs High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Intervention Trial Study Group. N Engl J Med 1999; 341:410.
# Bloomfield Rubins H, Davenport J, Babikian V, et al. Reduction in stroke with gemfibrozil in men with coronary heart disease and low HDL cholesterol: The Veterans Affairs HDL Intervention Trial (VA-HIT). Circulation 2001; 103:2828.
# Whitney EJ, Krasuski RA, Personius BE, et al. A randomized trial of a strategy for increasing high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels: effects on progression of coronary heart disease and clinical events. Ann Intern Med 2005; 142:95.
# Brown BG, Zhao XQ, Chait A, et al. Simvastatin and niacin, antioxidant vitamins, or the combination for the prevention of coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2001; 345:1583.
# Taylor AJ, Villines TC, Stanek EJ, et al. Extended-release niacin or ezetimibe and carotid intima-media thickness. N Engl J Med 2009; 361:2113.
# Blumenthal RS, Michos ED. The HALTS trial--halting atherosclerosis or halted too early? N Engl J Med 2009; 361:2178.
# Kastelein JJ, Bots ML. Statin therapy with ezetimibe or niacin in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2009; 361:2180.
# The effect of aggressive lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and low-dose anticoagulation on obstructive changes in saphenous-vein coronary-artery bypass grafts. The Post Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Trial Investigators. N Engl J Med 1997; 336:153.
# White CW, Gobel FL, Campeau L, et al. Effect of an aggressive lipid-lowering strategy on progression of atherosclerosis in the left main coronary artery from patients in the post coronary artery bypass graft trial. Circulation 2001; 104:2660.
# Knatterud GL, Rosenberg Y, Campeau L, et al. Long-term effects on clinical outcomes of aggressive lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and low-dose anticoagulation in the post coronary artery bypass graft trial. Post CABG Investigators. Circulation 2000; 102:157.
# Frick MH, Syvänne M, Nieminen MS, et al. Prevention of the angiographic progression of coronary and vein-graft atherosclerosis by gemfibrozil after coronary bypass surgery in men with low levels of HDL cholesterol. Lopid Coronary Angiography Trial (LOCAT) Study Group. Circulation 1997; 96:2137.
# Syvänne M, Nieminen MS, Frick MH, et al. Associations between lipoproteins and the progression of coronary and vein-graft atherosclerosis in a controlled trial with gemfibrozil in men with low baseline levels of HDL cholesterol. Circulation 1998; 98:1993.
# Boccuzzi SJ, Weintraub WS, Kosinski AS, et al. Aggressive lipid lowering in postcoronary angioplasty patients with elevated cholesterol (the Lovastatin Restenosis Trial). Am J Cardiol 1998; 81:632.
# Bucher HC, Griffith LE, Guyatt GH. Effect of HMGcoA reductase inhibitors on stroke. A meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 1998; 128:89.
# Crouse JR 3rd, Byington RP, Hoen HM, Furberg CD. Reductase inhibitor monotherapy and stroke prevention. Arch Intern Med 1997; 157:1305.
# Byington RP, Davis BR, Plehn JF, et al. Reduction of stroke events with pravastatin: the Prospective Pravastatin Pooling (PPP) Project. Circulation 2001; 103:387.
# Amarenco P, Bogousslavsky J, Callahan A 3rd, et al. High-dose atorvastatin after stroke or transient ischemic attack. N Engl J Med 2006; 355:549.
# Pitt B, Waters D, Brown WV, et al. Aggressive lipid-lowering therapy compared with angioplasty in stable coronary artery disease. Atorvastatin versus Revascularization Treatment Investigators. N Engl J Med 1999; 341:70.
# Kjekshus J, Apetrei E, Barrios V, et al. Rosuvastatin in older patients with systolic heart failure. N Engl J Med 2007; 357:2248.

Sorry moderators!

by Gerald Sat May 14, 2011 21:29

Damien, you are too smart for me, totally caught me with my pants down. I totally was bluffing when it came to statins. All I can say to defend them is;

Trials like the Lipid Research Clinics Prevalence Study (and more) established link between cholesterol and morbidity and mortaility.
The The Familial Atherosclerosis Treatment Study (FATS) showed that using statins to lower cholesterol delayed progression and increased likelihood of regression of coronary lesions, also fewer clinical coronary endpoints such as death, myocardial infarction, worsening angina, or coronary revascularization. The Regression Growth Evaluation Statin Study (REGRESS) further supported this data. Then the Lipoprotein and Coronary Atherosclerosis Study, the GAIN trial, the Harvard Atherosclerosis Reversibility Project (HARP), the Simvastatin/Enalapril Coronary Atherosclerosis Trial (SCAT), the REVERSAL trial, the ASTEROID trial, the The Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S), Treating to New Targets (TNT) trial, the Incremental Decrease in End Points Through Aggressive Lipid Lowering (IDEAL) study, the The CARE (Cholesterol and Recurrent Events) trial, the Heart Protection Study (HPS), the CARDS trial, several meta analyses all followed and supported this, showing benefit of stains on cholesterol and/or real world endpoints.

But hey, if you say they dont work, then I guess I'm just misinformed. I would give you links to all the papers but I couldnt be arsed, do it yourself.

And while I commend you for realising the difference between maintanance and cure, I did not mis-type. Some forms of acute lymphoblastic leaukaemia were death sentences for children. Now there is an almost 90% CURE rate. In any case, if I have cancer and the doc says 'oh im afraid we cant cure you, we can only add 30 years onto your expected lifespan for you previously aggressive cancer' I would take that as very good news.

by Damien M - PharmaWatch Sat May 14, 2011 21:18

Hardly relevant what they called it, and even if they did have a term for it, I doubt it would be 'magic', or penicillin for that matter. I certainly know they didn't sell contaminated seaweed to the next village.
When the first human or bear wandered over to the white willow tree and put what was to become known as aspirin, did he have a name for it??

by Damien M - PharmaWatch Sat May 14, 2011 21:18

Hardly relevant what they called it, and even if they did have a term for it, I doubt it would be 'magic', or penicillin for that matter. I certainly know they didn't sell contaminated seaweed to the next village.
When the first human or bear wandered over to the white willow tree and put what was to become known as aspirin, did he have a name for it??

by Scientist. Sat May 14, 2011 20:33

"The ancient Chinese used moulds and fungii, although the specific strains weren't mass produced until penicillin made it big."

The Irish also used a mould from rotting seaweed to magically cure infections.
Like the Chinese they were using penicillin.

Neither the Irish or Chinese called it penicillin.

They called it magic.

by Damien M - PharmaWatch Sat May 14, 2011 19:40

"The people who DIDN'T swallow their medicine are all dead now."
Unfortunately most of the people who DO 'swallow their medicines' that are prescribed correctly account for the hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions of hospitalisations each and every year. I don't have figures for misprescribed meds or those bought from the side door of the factory.

And Opus makes an irrefutable point, those that are against 'monopolistic antidemocratic ownership of seedbanks and food chains' and also medicines, are not against the furtherment of science although it is a charge much labelled at us. I realise that sick people depend on invaluable devices-I disagree with certain corporations holding the monopoly on this, Scientist, you might have a look at my recent featured story to see what happens when that is the way.

As for the pennicillin argument, again thrown at us regularly; the ancient Chinese used moulds and fungii, although the specific strains weren't mass produced until penicillin made it big.

"Oh and the drug company "sweeteners" to GPs dont help either, thankfully in Ireland this practice has by and large been eliminated, bar some free sandwiches and pens every now and again."

I could disprove this, quite easily Gerald, and it takes the form of much more than prawn sandwiches and mouse mats. But maybe I have 'Disorder of Written Expression', No. 315.2 in the Merck Manual-what med do I need to take for this?

"Many previous uncurable cancers just 10 years ago are now curable thanks to monoclonal antibodies. Cardiovascular mortaility has taken a massive hit thanks to statins and aspirin."

I'm guessing you're not aware of the difference between curing a disease and maintaining it. Also, statins have never been proven to work. I'd be very interested to see what evidence you can provide to support this.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sat May 14, 2011 15:05

also a certain attention deficit.

I suspect you read what I wrote with preconcieved lenses. Nowhere have I advocated abandonment of proven and tested medicines. I merely caution against that same corporate manipulation of pseudo-science, at the expense of often vulnerable and maleable patients, and in the case of GM foods, populations.
Which we seem to have strayed from. That wouldn't be the intention, I hope. Electro-convulsive therapy is now used more responsibly, as are sedatives and tranquilisers, but the manipulations of pseudo medicine, from Nestle's false-flag 'clinical' promotion of its formula-milk to third world mothers without clean water, to the curent panacea claims of nuclear power corporations is an inherent part of our economic anarchism.

If Scientific voices would decry the lack of clean water for a billion while OUR billion buys bottled water at higher prices than petrolium I might have more confidence in its concerns for our general health and wellbeing, and less concern at its chasing the biggest research buck and not rocking the economic boat that allots the funds. Otherwise I stick to the cynic route. Especially when the inconsistencies are so blatant in the obviously tendentious arguments.

by Scientist. Sat May 14, 2011 14:58

In the old days science was quackery.

The mathematical genius Kepler spent a lot of his time saving his own mother from being burnt as a witch.

(Looking back over the centuries her problem was probably having an IQ over 200.
Just like her son.)

by Gerald Sat May 14, 2011 14:43

"Not so long ago 'surgeons' fed patients every poison under the sun, and bled them to anaemia and death with great and profitable regularity."

They sure did. Thats around the time Homeopathy rose up as doing nothing was more beneficial than their presumed beneficience. Thankfully, the 20thCentury evidence based medicine revolution came around and brought us out of the dark ages.

"The same scientific certainty brought us the joys of electro-convulsive 'therapy"
ECT helps a lot of people. Yes it has side effects and, as with anything will have people who fare badly with it. But it works wonders for a lot of people. Ancedotal evidence here, but my own grandmother has recieved it numerous times and it works wonders for her, she goes from a vacant immobility to back to her old vibrant self within a week.

"the chemical strait-jackets of diazepam and prozac zombification and addicion."
I get where your going here, that they are used sometimes forcibly to make people more compliant. But in the same stroke, these same drugs have helped a shitload of people. Over prescription and over reliance undoubtably, but to condemn a life saving med just because some people are blunted by it is going a bit far.

"Any good doctor, and the sign in my doc's office proves it, knows sometimes the best medicine is NO medicine."

Too right there Opus. Unfortunately due to a litigous society and the inability to use placebos this happens a lot less than it should. Oh and the drug company "sweeteners" to GPs dont help either, thankfully in Ireland this practice has by and large been eliminated, bar some free sandwiches and pens every now and again.

"When it comes to medicaments, I prescribe a grain of fucking SALT. "

Good thing your not a doctor then. HIV life expectancy in Europe is now the same as a type II diabetic thanks to new drugs. Many previous uncurable cancers just 10 years ago are now curable thanks to monoclonal antibodies. Cardiovascular mortaility has taken a massive hit thanks to statins and aspirin.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sat May 14, 2011 14:37

But I'm not about to heed the shingle if it hides a quack. And a lot of 'scientific' posters seem to practise like ducks.

And those antibiotic wars are not finished yet, thanks again, to vested interest in their overprescription and misuse. And that same lack of scepticism and balance in application. Conviction makes a bad starting point for research.

by Scientist. Sat May 14, 2011 14:17

Now Now Opus.

Penicillin saved more people's lives than all the bombs and bullets killed in the 20th Century.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sat May 14, 2011 14:05

' Those who are opposed to genetic research are opposed to human ingenuity.'

There is a difference between objecting to being the guinea pig in genetic trials for corporate 'science', which uses unscientific techniques to promote results suitable to its agendas of monopolistic antidemocratic ownership of seedbanks and food chains, and being opposed to genetic research.

Innovators logic is unscientific.

As for Scientific Innovators ' The people who DIDN'T swallow their medicine are all dead now': doctors STILL bury their mistakes.
Not so long ago 'surgeons' fed patients every poison under the sun, and bled them to anaemia and death with great and profitable regularity. The same scientific certainty brought us the joys of electro-convulsive 'therapy' and the chemical strait-jackets of diazepam and prozac zombification and addicion.

When it comes to medicaments, I prescribe a grain of fucking SALT.

Doctors differ and patients die. Many actually survived by dodging the doctors orders. Any good doctor, and the sign in my doc's office proves it, knows sometimes the best medicine is NO medicine.

A little balance. Health is, after all, a matter of balance. And science, after all, to proceed in extricating reliable fact from conjecture and belief-led error, requires a tincture of SCEPTICISM.

by Scientist Sat May 14, 2011 13:17

Rosalind Franklin was greatly wronged at the time.
(She was a "mere woman" in a man's world.)

History has restored her to her rightful place as a great scientist.

P.S.
Prejudice continues.
Pulsars were discovered by a young Irishwoman.
Her name is Jocelyn Bell-Burnell..
The Nobel Prize for physics was awarded to her male English boss.

by Gerald Sat May 14, 2011 13:01

"no better example of genetic research than the experiment currently being conducted by the nuclear mafia on the people of Japan."

What does that have to do with anything?

"Sure didn't Crick and Watson invent life back in the fifties. We wouldn't be here without their innovative thinking. Every mother knows that."

Huh? Where did that come from? Are you implying that Watson and Crick (who stole info from Rosalind Franklin, who actually did all the work) aren't responsible for inventing life do the demostratable fact that mothers have been doing it for millenia? Because, if you are... perhaps you should read Innovators comment again as you obviously misread it. Talk about misinterpretation and random tangents...

by Scientific Innovator. Sat May 14, 2011 13:01

The people who DIDN'T swallow their medicine are all dead now Opus.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sat May 14, 2011 12:33

...and no better example of genetic research than the experiment currently being conducted by the nuclear mafia on the people of Japan.

As for the peasants that wont roll over and swallow their medicines, they'll be wanting democracy next. Once the geneticists master the speech gene we'll shut all that Luddite nonsense up and dispense with the illusion of generalised intelligence.

The sorceror's apprentice always knows best. Sure didn't Crick and Watson invent life back in the fifties. We wouldn't be here without their innovative thinking. Every mother knows that.

by Innovator. Sat May 14, 2011 09:30

The discovery of the self replicating DNA molecule was one of the landmark discoveries in human history.
(This was the discovery of the cause of life itself.)
Those who are opposed to genetic research are opposed to human ingenuity.