Lipitor Lowers Risk Of Heart Attack By 36%

[ZZZ]

Pfizer claims that Lipitor will lower your risk for a fatal or non fatal heart attack by 36%

This sounds very good, until you look at how they derived this figure.

In a large sample group half the people were given Lipitor and the other half were given a placebo.

In the Lipitor group 2% suffered heart attack, in the placebo group the number was 3%.

This means that Lipitor was 1% better than taking nothing!!!

The 36% then claimed by Pfizer was derived from the fact that 2% is 36% better than 3%

Another way of relating the result of this research is that in a group of 100 people taking Lipitor only one will be saved from having a hear attack, 99 people will just waste there money and suffer from all sorts of complications from the side effects, there must be better and cheaper ways of avoiding a heart attack.

[churchill]

Any other ways to reduce Cholesterol apart from exercise and diet , neither of which have any effect on reducing for me .

[awakened]

Churchill. Whenever there is a health scare or fad of any kind, I tend to enter the 'disease' followed by 'scam' or 'hoax' into google or similar. So I just entered 'cholesterol scam' and this was the first article that came up. http://www.treelight.com/health/healing/Cholesterol.html

Please always verify to your own satisfaction anything you read online, especially when they are trying to sell you something.

I think doctors are also in a difficult position. How can they trust the information THEY are being given?

'Most Science Studies Appear to Be Tainted By Sloppy Analysis'

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118...3557627104.html

'Dr. Ioannidis 2005 essay "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" remains the most downloaded technical paper that the journal PLoS Medicine has ever published'

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/...d4dbd850f97e5e8

'Merck wrote drug studies for doctors.'

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/16/business/16vioxx.php

'The drug maker Merck drafted dozens of research studies for a best-selling drug, then lined up prestigious doctors to put their names on the reports before publication'.

"It almost calls into question all legitimate research that's been conducted by the pharmaceutical industry with the academic physician," said Ross, whose article, written with colleagues, was published Wednesday in JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association, and posted Tuesday on the journal's Web site."http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/299/15/1800

Also from the Tribune - 'Cigarette company paid for lung cancer study in U.S.'

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/26/hea...ence/26lung.php

A new book Trust Us- We're Experts also highlights this problem. The jacket says...

Giant corporations employ sophisticated psychiatric techniques, unscrupulous public figures, junk science, tainted studies and clever PR mercenaries in a relentless effort to market products that routinely kill, maim, deform and poison consumers and our environment.

'Academic Research Tainted by Commercial Funding. Medical Tests Skewed, Study Finds'

http://www.mindfully.org/Health/2003/Acade...cial22jan03.htm

Pfizer claims that Lipitor will lower your risk for a fatal or non fatal heart attack by 36%

This sounds very good, until you look at how they derived this figure.

In a large sample group half the people were given Lipitor and the other half were given a placebo.

In the Lipitor group 2% suffered heart attack, in the placebo group the number was 3%.

This means that Lipitor was 1% better than taking nothing!!!

The 36% then claimed by Pfizer was derived from the fact that 2% is 36% better than 3%

Another way of relating the result of this research is that in a group of 100 people taking Lipitor only one will be saved from having a hear attack, 99 people will just waste there money and suffer from all sorts of complications from the side effects, there must be better and cheaper ways of avoiding a heart attack.

[Bagwan]

Any other ways to reduce Cholesterol apart from exercise and diet , neither of which have any effect on reducing for me .

As little as 10% of cholesterol directly comes from food intake, dairy products and eggs being the primary offenders. The liver makes all the other cholestrerol from a very wide range of foods and this is a natural and desirable function since it is an important constituent of body cells and in the formation of hormones and bile salts.

Lipitor is one of a group of medications known as statins. It takes about a week for the medicine to start to take effect and about three months before maximum effect. As with most medications there may be side effects, liver malfunction being the prime concern. Lipitor is the strongest statin but has the worst reputation for causing bodily imbalances. It is produced by a manufacturing process whereas Simvastin (local name Zimmex) is produced by culture and said to be of a more gentle nature.

I take Zimmex 20mg per day and a child strength Aspirin to thin the blood thus avoiding clotting. I have experienced no side effects after 4 years and my cholesterol level is at the lower end of the acceptable range of readings. BTW the results of testing for cholesterol levels is notoriously inaccurate (as is PSA testing for prostate cancer) even when carried out in a laboratory.

[awakened]

Any other ways to reduce Cholesterol apart from exercise and diet , neither of which have any effect on reducing for me .

I take Zimmex 20mg per day and a child strength Aspirin to thin the blood thus avoiding clotting. I have experienced no side effects after 4 years and my cholesterol level is at the lower end of the acceptable range of readings. BTW the results of testing for cholesterol levels is notoriously inaccurate (as is PSA testing for prostate cancer) even when carried out in a laboratory.

That's interesting. If testing is inaccurate you could believe you have a problem when you don't. How do you confirm? Take a mean average over a set period?

I looked up Lipitor. Wow. Lipitor amassed $10.9 billion in sales in a single year, 2004. Then there are all the other drugs, plus the huge low-fat food industry. The profits are staggering.

I went to the Merck site to see what Zimmex is. If you scroll to the bottom of this link page there are many different trade names for simvastatin. http://www.merck.com/mmpe/lexicomp/simvastatin.html

Wonder why they do that? Probably for marketing purposes or tracking country-specific data.

This link suggests some issues with simvastatin, although it was mostly gobble-degook to me. What struck me was the statement about using these drugs with a cholesterol reducing diet and exercise. How do they know whether the diet and exercise is producing the purported benefits and not the drugs?

I'm extremely skeptical when it comes to anything which is making money for the pharmaceuticals. IMO they are totally corrupt.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles....aspx?source=nl

Clearly they have been coining it in for years with the cholesterol theory. Have heart disease outcomes improved with all this effort? I have a book 'A Thai Herbal'. No mention whatsoever of cholesterol. Why? I see Thais eat fat gobbets of pork and thrive. This author claims its a scam and sites peer reviewed studies to support his case. (you can click here to view this research). http://www.thegreatcholesterolcon.com/.

There are many natural ways to thin the blood why choose drugs with potentially harmful side effects? How about Gingko Biloba? It is often mixed with Gotu Kola. Ginseng is also a heart tonic amongst other benefits.

I doubt if there are comparison studies between natural non-toxic methods and simvastatin and if there are they would be slanted towards the industry, since you cannot patent natural medicine and therefore guarantee the profits from having a monopoly.

Revealing insights whichever side of the fence you sit on.

[lopburi3]

I believe the best selling local version of Simvastatin is now Bestatin and its use does greatly lower lipid levels for me and wife (have used over 10 years with three month testing).

[Crushdepth]

In the Lipitor group 2% suffered heart attack, in the placebo group the number was 3%.

This means that Lipitor was 1% better than taking nothing!!!

The 36% then claimed by Pfizer was derived from the fact that 2% is 36% better than 3% ohmy.gif

Yeah but even if Lipitor gave 100% protection from heart attacks, it would only have made a 3% difference. The stats are ok - its just that the risk of heart attack over the study period was actually quite low to begin with. If you are in a high risk group a 36% reduction is pretty good news really.

Very similar figures have been published for the protective effects of aspirin.

[awakened]

I believe the best selling local version of Simvastatin is now Bestatin and its use does greatly lower lipid levels for me and wife (have used over 10 years with three month testing).

It must be a worry constantly having to check to see if you are at risk.

I recently read 'The China Study' which claims to be the most comprehensive study of nutrition ever conducted. Over 800,000 people. I highly recommend reading it since T.Colin Campbell has an impressive pedigree and he covers all the modern illnesses of the day, including heart disease. He is also courageous in revealing some of the systemic problems plaguing the U.S. medical industry.

Many western studies are basically comparing like with like, i.e. people on bad diets, with people on slightly less bad diets. When you conduct comparisons with populations who derive their protein from plant-based diets, the contrast in health is stark. Yes, there are diseases of affluence and diseases of poverty. Overall, though, those who eat more than 10% animal protein in their diets are walking ATMs for the industry and heading for the knackers yard.

Dietary recommendations in the U.S. don't help. They are generally watered down to satisfy demands from the powerful meat and dairy industry and therefore mislead.

Campbell cites results being achieved by Dr. Cladwell B. Esselstyn at the Cleveland Clinic. In one group he eliminated heart events completely. 49 to 0 coronary events in his group after switching to a whole-foods plant based diet.

He also praises Dr. Dean Ornish, who also espouses a whole foods, plant-based diet. As does the director of the Framingham Heart Study, Dr.William Castelli, a cornerstone of heart disease research.

Why take cholesterol reducing drugs for life if it's unnecessary? Although I've tied myself in knots at times over conflicting dietary advice, I have been able to exclude all the troublemakers simply by buying fresh food from local farmers markets and staying away from supermarkets. It didn't take long for my taste buds to adjust. Burgers, sodas, pizzas, chocolate, etc just don't taste as good as they used to. It was easy to drop them. The last time I ate a Big Mac, fries and coke, I felt unwell for 3 days.

One snippet worthy of mention, 35% of Americans have heart attacks between 150 and 200 mg/dL, therefore

'a truly safe cholesterol level is under 150mg/dL'.

[ZZZ]

In the Lipitor group 2% suffered heart attack, in the placebo group the number was 3%.

This means that Lipitor was 1% better than taking nothing!!!

The 36% then claimed by Pfizer was derived from the fact that 2% is 36% better than 3% ohmy.gif

Yeah but even if Lipitor gave 100% protection from heart attacks, it would only have made a 3% difference. The stats are ok - its just that the risk of heart attack over the study period was actually quite low to begin with. If you are in a high risk group a 36% reduction is pretty good news really.

Very similar figures have been published for the protective effects of aspirin.

My point was that an objective release of the outcome of this survey should have been:

Lipitor will lower your risk for a fatal or non fatal heart attack from 3% to 2% (or by 1%)

IF Lipitor had an actual 100% protection they could advertise that or say that it will lower your risk for a heart attack from 3% to 0%.

"Very similar figures have been published for the protective effects of aspirin." Well, many wrongs does not make it right. Most pharmaceutical marketing is done like this, deliberately misleading the public.

To advertise "that Lipitor will lower your risk for a fatal or non fatal heart attack by 36%" is just misleading as most people will think that you actually lower your risk of a heart attack by 36%. There is only one reason to advertise like this and that is to sell more by making the public demand these medicines from their doctors.

Pharmaceutical companies should not be allowed to advertise their products to the public, that is the way it is in most industrialized countries except for USA. This marketing has put a huge pressure on doctors to subscribe medicines marketed in a clever way to a public with no medical knowledge who then demand these medicines based on this marketing.

[lopburi3]

I believe most people understand that the percentage is based on the number of people who would have had an attack (3.x%) and the number that have if taking medication (2.x%). So you a 33 or 36% better chance of avoiding that heart attack using medication than not using it if you are among the 3% group (and the basis of taking the medication is based on your possibility of being in that group - or at least a group much higher than the general population).

[ZZZ]

I believe most people understand that the percentage is based on the number of people who would have had an attack (3.x%) and the number that have if taking medication (2.x%). So you a 33 or 36% better chance of avoiding that heart attack using medication than not using it if you are among the 3% group (and the basis of taking the medication is based on your possibility of being in that group - or at least a group much higher than the general population).

I don't think most people would have got that as "Lipitor will lower your risk for a fatal or non fatal heart attack by 36%" was in bold print covering the add and the 2% 3% explanation was in microscopic print as a footnote.

Anyway, if they did understand it their conclusion would have been incorrect as the 1% difference was well outside the accuracy of the trial and the numbers could just as well had been the opposite, in witch case you would have never heard of the trial

[cloudhopper]

My cholesterol is 132 but because the HDL is only 25 of that the doc wanted to put me on Lipitor over 10 years ago. Only for the rest of my life while getting my liver tested every 3 months. Sure doc...

[toptuan]

Any other ways to reduce Cholesterol apart from exercise and diet , neither of which have any effect on reducing for me .

Google "oral chelation"

[Crushdepth]

To advertise "that Lipitor will lower your risk for a fatal or non fatal heart attack by 36%" is just misleading as most people will think that you actually lower your risk of a heart attack by 36%. There is only one reason to advertise like this and that is to sell more by making the public demand these medicines from their doctors.

It's not misleading, it does actually risk of heart attack for a presumably 'average' group of people by 36%!!! It's just that 'average' people don't die of heart attacks that often, so 36% of 3% is not very much.

If you are fat, old, smoke, drink, have a cholesterol problem, eat deep fried pork fat thrice daily and don't exercise a 36% reduction of risk could be considerably higher. Risk probably varies a lot between different groups of people so expressing risk reduction as a percentage is ok (assuming that the risk reduction is consistent across groups, I suppose).

Edited June 1, 2008 by Crushdepth

[Pakboong]

There is significant science suggesting that the build up of plaque in one's arteries is more due to dietary calcium than dietary cholesterol.

Consider the Japanese whose daily dietary cholesterol intake is about one third more than an Americanm But, the American is about 300% more likely than a Japanese to suffer a heart attack. Average American consumption of dietary calcium is about 30% higher per day than his Japanese counterpart.

http://www.doctorsaredangerous.com/articles/statin.htm

[ZZZ]

There is significant science suggesting that the build up of plaque in one's arteries is more due to dietary calcium than dietary cholesterol.

Consider the Japanese whose daily dietary cholesterol intake is about one third more than an Americanm But, the American is about 300% more likely than a Japanese to suffer a heart attack. Average American consumption of dietary calcium is about 30% higher per day than his Japanese counterpart.

http://www.doctorsaredangerous.com/articles/statin.htm

That makes a lot of sense. I guess most of this dietary calcium is from milk, something Japanese don't normally drink that much.

What makes no sense at all is to drink milk. No other mammal in nature drinks milk except for the first few months of their life, no other mammals drink another animals milk.

Lactose intolerance is probably the normal condition telling us not to drink milk, it's lactose tolerance that is the abnormality.

Additionally, the milk available for consumption is pasteurized, this destroys most enzymes necessary to break down the components of milk. It is also homogenized witch splits the fat into very small parts that are easily absorbed into the blood stream causing all sorts of problems.

If you take the milk from a cow with a calf and run this milk trough the normal dairy process and then feed it to the calf the calf will soon die, that should give you some idea how bad milk is for you.

[cloudhopper]

There is significant science suggesting that the build up of plaque in one's arteries is more due to dietary calcium than dietary cholesterol.

Consider the Japanese whose daily dietary cholesterol intake is about one third more than an Americanm But, the American is about 300% more likely than a Japanese to suffer a heart attack. Average American consumption of dietary calcium is about 30% higher per day than his Japanese counterpart.

http://www.doctorsaredangerous.com/articles/statin.htm

That makes a lot of sense. I guess most of this dietary calcium is from milk, something Japanese don't normally drink that much.

What makes no sense at all is to drink milk. No other mammal in nature drinks milk except for the first few months of their life, no other mammals drink another animals milk.

Lactose intolerance is probably the normal condition telling us not to drink milk, it's lactose tolerance that is the abnormality.

Additionally, the milk available for consumption is pasteurized, this destroys most enzymes necessary to break down the components of milk. It is also homogenized witch splits the fat into very small parts that are easily absorbed into the blood stream causing all sorts of problems.

If you take the milk from a cow with a calf and run this milk trough the normal dairy process and then feed it to the calf the calf will soon die, that should give you some idea how bad milk is for you.

Wow I'm surprised I'm not dead!

I don't work for the milk advisory council, but lack of calcium can be a real issue and this link of cardiac disease to dietary calcium is bogus IMO...just like chelation "therapy".

[Sheryl]

I am not aware of any evidence linking dietary calcium intake with this.

Also not so sure that the Japanese diet is all that low in calcium. Soy products are a rich source of calcium.

Milk and milk products are consumed by a wide range of cultures, not all of them Western, and among these we find very different rates of heart disease. There is nothing to suggest that milk intake is in anyway unhealthy for persons who are not lactose intolerant.

The development of the ability to digest lactose appears to have been an evolutionary adaptation that greatly improved nutrition and growth.

That doesn't mean, of course, that one has to eat dairy products to be healthy. It is perfectly possible to get an adequate diet without dairy as long as you eat the right things.

[ZZZ]

I am not aware of any evidence linking dietary calcium intake with this.

Also not so sure that the Japanese diet is all that low in calcium. Soy products are a rich source of calcium.

Milk and milk products are consumed by a wide range of cultures, not all of them Western, and among these we find very different rates of heart disease. There is nothing to suggest that milk intake is in anyway unhealthy for persons who are not lactose intolerant.

The development of the ability to digest lactose appears to have been an evolutionary adaptation that greatly improved nutrition and growth.

That doesn't mean, of course, that one has to eat dairy products to be healthy. It is perfectly possible to get an adequate diet without dairy as long as you eat the right things.

Just do a search on milk and dangerous and take your pick, that should make you aware. There is an enormous amount of data out there explaining just how dangerous milk is. This is of course never heard of as farmers are one of the most influential lobbying groups there is.

Sure, Japanese and other Asians eat a lot of calcium but in the form of vegetables. These contain all the other substances necessary for proper utilization of calcium.

Humans drinking milk is a very recent phenomena, this only started with industrialization and pasteurization. Prior to this milk was normally very dangerous to drink due to hygienic reasons.

Yes, some cultures like the Mongolians drink a lot of milk but there are two major differences between their milk and ours, the milk is raw, not pasteurized or homogenized and they only milk each animal for 4-5 month a year. Western cows are milked around 300 days a year, that means late into pregnancy. The result of this is very high levels of estrogen that is linked to many forms of cancer. Testicular cancer has been linked to eating cheese and is much more common in big cheese eating countries like Denmark and Switzerland.

So misleading ads isnot a only a problem from pharmaceuticals.

Got Milk

[Crushdepth]

There is an enormous amount of data out there explaining just how dangerous milk is. This is of course never heard of as farmers are one of the most influential lobbying groups there is.

I take it that the Evil Farmers in the great milk lobby coverup are different from the Responsible Farmers that grow your vegetables?

[Sheryl]

There are no scientifically valid studies showing milk per se to be dangerous. Yes, there are websites claiming otherwise. There are also many websites claiming Elvis is alive.

Drinking milk and milk products is thousands of years old and most definitely did not begin with industrialization.

Pasteurization of milk began in the 1800's when it was discovered that boiling could kill bacteria. Prior to that, infection with the bovine strain of tuberculosis was common due to ingestion of infected milk.

The "cheese + testicular cancer" thing comes out of a Canadian study which found that men with testicular cancer consumed on average more dairy products (and in partuclalr, more cheese) than did men without testicular cancer. This does not in any way prove that the cheese consumption caused the cancer, a great deal more research is needed before anything like that can be inferred. Corellation is not the same as causation.

Which is not to say that estrogen content in milk is of no concern. Estrogen and estrogen-like (phytoestrogens) substances are indeed present not only in milk but also all forms of meat as a result of feeding steroids to animals. It has been theorized (theorized, not yet proven) that this may be contributing to the drop in sperm count seen in men in developed countries, and also (likewise, only a theory) that it may be contributing to hormonal problems such as PMS/PMD in women.

For some reason milk and milk products have become a favorite target of fringe group websites who freely claim the existance of studies and data that either do not in fact exist or do not show what they claim they show.

By all means, avoid milk if you like, but please do not post inaccurate and misleading information that may unncessarily alarm readers.

[tartempion]

Whatever it is with Lipitor, I had a severe myocardial infarct 7 years ago, take Lipitor 20mg since, Cholesterol down from 240 to 129 (last test april 2008)

HDL 47 and LDL 62. Eating mostly thai food might help, no burgers on my plate for me.

[cloudhopper]

I wish I had your numbers, but the question whether this will result in a longer life for you remains, IMO, unanswered as yet.

I once knew a guy at Cal Tech whose field was, in his words, experimental pathology and after our many conversations I came to realize that it was really just a matter of what gets you first. If all cancers and vessel disease were cured overnight the average lifespan would increase only a year or two. So I'm told anyway.

[Sheryl]

Average life span across the entire population is one thing, life expectancy for a specific individual is another.

There are some people for whom these drugs will significantly extend their natural life expectancy. Some people, not all.

Of course it's a matter of what gets you first! We all die. The question is, when and of what...and also with what qulaity of life.

A person who is at comparatively high risk of heart attack or stroke and who is unable to get their lipids with healthy range through lifestyle changes alone stands a good chance of living significantly longer and avoiding the debilitating effects of a stroke through medications such as lipitor provided they do not have any conditions which make them unusually at risk for serious side effects of same. Note that there are 3 separatae provisos here. Of course, an unlucky few in this category will fail to realize that benefit because they'll be hit by car crossing the street or the like. It happens. The very best these drugs can do is reduce (not eliminate, just reduce) the risks of heart attack and stoke; they do not make you immortal nor confirm an advatage against unbrelated health rpoblems (e.g. cvancer and the like). But odds are in favor of a person who meets these particular criteria of benefitting from the therapy, assuming they have no contraindications to the drugs.