I recently received a very thought-provoking comment from Jeffrey Dach, MD, an extremely conscientious and informative integrative physician and blogger, who works hard to get the truth out about pharmaceutical company duplicity AND about holistic and integrative treatments that the mainstream media often gives short shrift to.
Dr. Dach was commenting on my posting about the JUPITER/Crestor/AstraZeneca study, which concluded that Crestor lowers levels of C-Reactive Protein (CRP) in people with normal cholesterol levels, who may (or may not) still be at risk for heart attacks. You may read my posting, "Statins (Crestor) for Everyone? Or Could Diet and Nutritional Supplements Do the Job Better?", here.
Dr. Dach’s comment was eye-opening. He wrote:
“It appears that journalists have a short memory.
“Only four year ago, Dr. David Graham, associate director in the FDA's Office of Drug Safety gave senate testimony that Crestor was one of five drugs with safety concerns. The drug causes muscle breakdown and renal failure.”
Dr. Dach then pointed my readers to an article he posted on his own website, about the same AstraZeneca-financed JUPITER study, but -– probably because the link was long -- it didn’t show up in its entirety in the space provided in my comments section.
I am reproducing the entire link here; I urge you to read Dr. Dach’s posting. Like most of the information on his blog, it is well worth reading.
http://jeffreydach.com/2008/11/14/crestor-jupitor-crp-and-heart-attack--by-jefffrey-dach-md.aspx
Dr. Dach’s Comment Reminded Me
I am very grateful to Dr. Dach because, while I had read about Dr. Graham’s November, 2004, testimony that Crestor was a dangerous drug, I had not included it in my posting. Thanks to Dr. Dach, you can now read about it.
But Dr. Dach’s comment reminded me that there is more information that I didn’t include in my posting, and it has to do with AstraZeneca’s ethics.
On February 14, 2007, there was news all over the Internet that AstraZeneca had pledged $10 million to the American Cancer Society. The gift was hailed as “one of the largest gifts in the organization's history — to help provide one-on-one support for cancer patients in U.S. hospitals.” (Here is the press announcement, as it appears on the Fox News site.)
The wording of this article was exactly the same on numerous sites throughout the world -- a dead giveaway that the “news” of AstraZeneca’s largesse was most probably company-generated, via a press release sent out on the wire. You may find this “news,” with this exact wording on several sites. Here is one example, but there are many others:
“ATLANTA -- A drug company is pledging $10 million to The American Cancer Society - one of the largest gifts in the organization's history - to help provide one-on-one support for cancer patients in U.S. hospitals, the organization announced Wednesday.
“The unusual gift is from AstraZeneca PLC, an international pharmaceutical company.”
When I read this “news,” my researcher’s/investigator’s nose -- as well as my public relations professional's nose -- told me that something was a bit “off.” So I did some research. What I found was mind-boggling. I found that the timing of this gift was, indeed, suspicious. I set out to find out why.
As it turns out, there had been at least three instances -– all reported in the media between November 3, 2006 and February 14, 2007 (a 13 week period) -- where AstraZeneca desperately needed to address its public relations disasters:
1) On January 22, 2007, just three weeks before AstraZeneca decided to exhibit its huge gift to the Cancer Society, the New York Times had revealed that the FDA had send the pharmaceutical company a letter 2 years earlier ordering AstraZeneca (to quote the NY Times) to “‘immediately cease’” a ‘misleading superiority claim’ in a 2005 TV commercial.” The NY Times article continued: The ad said AstraZeneca’s Crestor was ‘clearly the best’ in a ‘head to head’ test with the three largest-selling cholesterol drugs.”
See the New York Times article, “Showdown Looms in Congress Over Drug Advertising on TV.”
Not the greatest PR for the drug company. But I looked further, and there was more:
2) On December 28, 2006, less than a month before the NY Times exposé – and a mere six weeks before the Cancer Society gift -- Bloomberg News had announced that:
“London-based AstraZeneca Plc, the maker of the third-best-selling antipsychotic, Seroquel, stands accused in more than 200 federal and state lawsuits of concealing the diabetes risk faced by users. AstraZeneca is ‘vigorously defending’ the cases, said spokesman Jim Minnick in an e-mailed statement.”
To read the entire article, go to the Bloomberg website.
And yes, there was even more.
3) Yet again, another PR fire for AstraZeneca to put out -– this time, from a November 3rd, 2006 story, which was sent out on several newswires:
“PHILADELPHIA -- California's top law-enforcement official is investigating drug makers' marketing practices for blockbuster anti-psychotic medications. At least three pharmaceutical companies, AstraZeneca PLC, Eli Lilly & Co. and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., have disclosed they received subpoenas from the California attorney general's office seeking information about their respective anti-psychotics. The drugs are approved to treat bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.”
You may read the entire article, “California investigates anti-psychotics,” on the Boston.com site.
(I would like to thank the indefatigable Vera Sharav. All three references cited here are from her Alliance for Human Research Protection blog.)
I want to make clear that I am not saying with certainty that AstraZeneca’s largesse was entirely a response to bad PR. I am saying that it seems suspicious to me.
So, as you can see, I agree with Dr. Dach: He is absolutely right to be wary. I am, too. Thank goodness there are other people out there online, who are dedicated to getting the truth to the public! Thank you, Dr. Dach!
Facts Believed to be Associated With All Statin Medications:
Statins are a class of medications specifically prescribed to lower LDL- one of five lipid parameters of a person’s lipid profile. There are 6 available statins to choose- with three that are combination drugs that have a statin as a component of these medications. There are other classes of medications for lipid management, such as bile acid sequestrants and nicotinic acid, which is known as niacin. Yet the side effect profile is more unfavorable of these classes of medications compared with the statin class.
One’s cholesterol level is primarily due to how they produce cholesterol in their liver, which is overall genetically determined. This level is also determined by one’s lifestyle and diet as well. If a person has too much cholesterol in their blood, it can lead to hardening and narrowing of their arteries, which can lead to cardiovascular events.
To measure one’s cholesterol, a blood test called a lipid profile is obtained from a person after they have fasted for at least 12 hours. The test should also be performed only if the person is free of any acute illness, as this may affect true lipid measures. If the results prove to be abnormal, lipid lowering therapy may be initiated, according to the discretion of the person’s health care provider. This therapy usually involves a statin medication.
Adverse events associated with the statin class of pharmaceuticals are thought to occur more often than they are reported- with high doses of statins prescribed to patients in particular at times that may not be necessary to control their dyslipidemia based on their lipid profile. However, since this class of drugs has existed for use for over 20 years, statins are considered safe and effective for enhancing the clearance of LDL noted to be elevated in the lipid profiles of patients. Also, they have proven to reduce cardiovascular mortality with one who is treated with a statin that has dyslipidemia. In addition to lowering LDL by up to 60 percent- depending on the statin- this class of drugs also raises HDL and lowers triglycerides, which are two other lipid parameters. Both of these effects from taking a statin drug are beneficial for the patient on a statin drug for lipid management.
Statin therapy is also recommended for those patients who have a greater than twenty percent risk of developing cardiovascular disease, or those patients that have clinical evidence of this disease
Additionally, there appears to be no comparable reduction in cardiovascular morbidity or mortality, as well as a difference in the increase of one’s lifespan, if one is on any particular statin medication for their lipid management over another, others have concluded. So caution should perhaps be considered if one chooses to prescribe a statin for a patient if they are absent of, or have only mild dyslipidemia to a significant degree. Furthermore, research should be done by the health care provider if they are under the belief that one statin medication provides a greater cardiovascular benefit over another. In other words, the health care provider should be assured that any choice of statin therapy for their patients is considered reasonable and necessary if the LDL in their patients need to be reduced, and the statin selection should be determined by the results that have been shown with a particular statin.
Abstract etiologies for those who choose to prescribe statin drugs on occasion for reasons not indicated by these statin drugs- such as reducing CRP levels, or for Alzheimer’s treatment, or anything else not involved with LDL reduction with prevention if not delaying the progression of cardiovascular disease, should be thoroughly evaluated by the health care provider. As statin therapy for such patients may not be considered appropriate prophylaxis at this point for any patient who does not have the indications for which statins are approved for and treat with patients. All other benefits that appear to have favorable effects in such areas are speculative at this point due to minimal research in other areas aside from lipid management, and require further research for these disease states aside from dyslipidemia, according to many.
Statins as a particular class of drugs that seem to in fact decrease the risk of cardiovascular events significantly, it has been proven. Statins also decrease thrombus formation as well as modulate inflammatory responses (CRP) as additional benefits of the medication. For those patients with dyslipidemia who are placed on a statin, the effects of that statin on reducing a patient’s LDL level can be measured after about five weeks of therapy on a particular statin drug.
Liver Function blood tests are recommended for those patients on continued statin therapy, and most are chronically taking statins for the rest of their lives to manage their lipid profile in regards to maintaining the suitable LDL level for a particular patient presently. Patients should be made aware of potential additional side effects as well, such as muscular issues.
Yet some have said that about half of all strokes and heart attacks that do occur are not because of increased cholesterol levels of these patients. Others believe that it is oxidized cholesterol that causes vulnerable plaques to form on coronary arterial walls, which is the catalyst for a heart attack, and that there is no medicinal treatment for the formation or stabilization of these plaques to prevent heart attacks or strokes. Others who promote and support statin medicinal therapy claim that these drugs, do, in fact, stabilize these plaques, and therefore are beneficial.
As stated previously, in regards to other uses of statins besides just primarily LDL reduction, there is some evidence to suggest that statins have other benefits besides lowering LDL. These other disease states include aside from what has been stated already, those patients with dementia or Parkinson's disease, as well as those patients who may have certain types of cancer or even cataracts. Yet again, these other roles for statin therapy have only been minimally explored, comparatively speaking. Because of the limited evidence regarding additional benefits of statin medications, the drug should again be prescribed for those with dyslipidemia only at this time involving elevated LDL levels as detected in the patient’s bloodstream.
Yet overall, the existing cholesterol lowering recommendations or guidelines should possibly be re-evaluated, as they may be over-exaggerated upon tacit suggestions from the makers of statins to those who create these current lipid lowering guidelines. This is notable if one chooses to compare these cholesterol guidelines with others in the past. The cholesterol guidelines that exist now are considered by many health care providers and experts to be rather unreasonable, unnecessary, and possibly detrimental to a patient’s health, according to others. Yet statins are beneficial medications for those many people that exist with elevated LDL levels that can cause cardiovascular events to occur because of this abnormality. What that ideal LDL level is may have yet to be empirically determined.
Finally, a focus on children and their lifestyles should be amplified so their arteries do not become those of one who is middle-aged, and this may prevent them from being candidates for statin therapy now and in the future, regarding the high cholesterol issue. Treating children with a statin drug for dyslipidemia is controversial presently.
Dietary management should be the first consideration in regards to correcting lipid dysfunctions that may exist in patients,
Dan Abshear
Posted by: Dan | January 21, 2009 at 09:51 PM
Mercury(and toxic metals)commonly from dental amalgam fillings exposure is documented in the literature to cause(be major factor) in over 30 chronic health problems. www.flcv.com/indexa.html
Medical studies and clinical experience have documented that many thousands have recovered or significantly improved after amalgam replacement and detoxification. www.flcv.com/hgremove.html
Detoxification has been documented to be the most effective treatment for many conditions including autism (www.autism.com) and many other conditions
www.flcv.com/hgrecovp.html
Toxic exposures cause oxidative damage, inflammation, hormone imbalances, and most of the types of damage that cause neurological, cardiovascular, and endocrine conditions. This field should be well represented on the panel.
Posted by: Bernie Windham | April 06, 2009 at 11:27 PM