Aa
Angiogenesis a bypass
My father has blocked arteries, but it appears there is adequate blood flow around a completely blocked left-side large vessel.of the heart. I'm concerned and interested because this may happen to me so I have done some reading on the subject. I read angiogenesis is the process and posts on this forum indicate the process is collateral vessel? Thank you in advance.:)
COMMUNITY LEADER
Well, we're not going to agree. It is till just conjecture to make statements concerning a corrupted medical community. All companies selling a product spend money promoting their products and with all the different statin meds on the market it is not surprising see money spent to do the same thing. To look at those dollars and link it to a corruption of the system is a little bit of a leap. It's easy to look at JUPITER and say it was flawed, but please prove that point to me, show me it's flawed. Don't tell me about the participants and say because they are tied to pharmas it must be the result of improper protocol due to corrupt interests. It's simple, just show me, don't make vague statements that mean nothing to the data collected. Show me where the NIH has mismanaged the study and how. Anything, something........ it's never there.
My other issue with these conversations is that anti statin activists are quick to point out problems concerning statin use but slow to recognize those that benefit from them, like me. I had high cholesterol and even after losing a significant amount of weight and changing my lifestyle including diet an exercise, I still could not lower my cholesterol. After a few months on a simple statin my numbers are way down and over 5 years I have experienced no side effects and there are many just like me.
I can quote you article for article, study for study and we won't change either of our opinions. When is comes down to it, for me it's simple. No matter what other mechanisms are involved with CAD, cholesterol will play a part and less is better, just that simple. If it's inflammation in the arteries causing cholesterol to be trapped, less is better. What ever the mechanism, plaque is made up of cholesterol and the less I have the better. Until someone can prove otherwise with hard data from a well managed study, I'll stick to my thinking.
It's ok to disagree.
Jon
My other issue with these conversations is that anti statin activists are quick to point out problems concerning statin use but slow to recognize those that benefit from them, like me. I had high cholesterol and even after losing a significant amount of weight and changing my lifestyle including diet an exercise, I still could not lower my cholesterol. After a few months on a simple statin my numbers are way down and over 5 years I have experienced no side effects and there are many just like me.
I can quote you article for article, study for study and we won't change either of our opinions. When is comes down to it, for me it's simple. No matter what other mechanisms are involved with CAD, cholesterol will play a part and less is better, just that simple. If it's inflammation in the arteries causing cholesterol to be trapped, less is better. What ever the mechanism, plaque is made up of cholesterol and the less I have the better. Until someone can prove otherwise with hard data from a well managed study, I'll stick to my thinking.
It's ok to disagree.
Jon
Well, we've certainly got an interesting exchange going. Jon, it's obvious to me that you're a supporter of the medical establishment, and can see no conspiracy in the drug-medicine relationship. I don't see a conspiracy, but I believe much of the medical establishment simply acquiesces to the blandishments of the pharmaceutical industry. The FDA is underfunded and inept, with ties to the pharmaceutical companies, and the NIH is reluctant to fund meaningful studies, ceding that task to the drug industry, which is why things are as they are today.
It's a fact that the pharmaceutical industry spent $19 billion -- yes, billion -- in its attempt to influence physicians and health institutions in 2006, the last year for which I could find a number. This was printed in US News & World report in 2008, and I have a copy of that article. This expenditure included everything from free luncheon buffets to junkets to resort areas for conventions. To doubt that there's any quid pro quo is to be credulous indeed.
It's a fact that every physician, with one exception, involved in the JUPITER study had ties to, and had been paid by, the pharmaceutical industry. In addition Dr. Ridker, who initiated the study, held the patent on the CRP test, along with the hospital involved, Brigham and Women's. This study purported to prove the efficacy of statins, but actually only proved that they seem to work for a small group. And other statin studies have resulted in lowering cholesterol (I never doubted that), and lowering inflammation, but not a longer life -- and at the possible cost of muscle pain and weakness, liver damage, sexual dysfunction, diabetes and dementia. Not to mention the scores of billions in cost every year. And this is the medical-pharmaceutical complex that brought you Vioxx, hormone replacement therapy, and scores of lesser-known drugs that did their damage and were then discontinued, all the way back to thalidomide. And many studies that fail to prove what their backers intended to prove are never published, or the results are misstated or misinterpreted, a la JUPITER. "(T)here is no evidence that statins provide any benefit in terms of decreased overall mortality to females of any age or to men over the age of 65 regardless of their state of health. The only group that statins has shown to provide any benefit for in terms of decreased all-cause mortality (the only statistic that really counts) is men under the age of 65 who have been diagnosed with heart disease. Even in that group, benefit is so small as to be questionable." - from the blog of Dr. Michael Eades, 11/6/09.
The JUPITER study was flawed in several respects. It used the much-absued "intention-to-treat" protocal, wherein dropouts are presumed to have completed the study. It screened its candidates, limiting participation to patients whose cholesterol levels were below accepted limits, but whose CRP was 2.0 or greater. Two major drug manufacturers (Pfizer and Bayer) passed on it before AstraZenika decided to conduct it, along with Siemens, the company that does CRP testing. And while statins unquestionably lower LDL and inflammation, there is some evidence that low LDL causes or contributes to Parkinson's disease. Statins also affect Vitamin D levels negatively. And in JUPITER, deaths from fatal myocardial infarctions were higher in the statin-treated group, although you won't find that stated explicitly, for obvious reasons. There were 9 fatal myocardial infarcs in the Crestor group and 6 in the placebo group -- a jaw-dropping 50% more for the statin group.
And with the increasing evidence that cholesterol is not the cause of coronary artery disease, the benefits of statins are even more questionable. Lowering LDL doesn't necessarily lower the risk of CAD; more relevant factors are the density of the LDL, the presence of inflammation in the arteries, and probably stress. This has been proven beyond question, I believe, yet many billions of dollars continue to be spent on statins. Nicotinic acid (niacin, niacinimide) has actually been shown to halt, and sometimes reduce, plaque, but since it's a vitamin and unpatentable you'll never know it unless you seek out the information (Effects of High-Dose Modified-Release Nicotinic Acid on Atherosclerosis and Vascular Function, JACC, 11/3/09) As opposed to statins, the side effects are minimal (possible flushing for a few minutes) to non-existent, and it's cheap. For those who don't care to seek out the article, here's the authors' summary:
"In the NA-treated [niacin-treated] group, mean HDL-C increased by 23% and LDL-C was reduced by 19% at 12 months. Triglycerides, apolipoprotein B, and lipoprotein(a) were significantly decreased by NA compared with placebo. CRP was decreased by NA compared with placebo (p = 0.03 at 6 months, p = 0.1 at 12 months). Adiponectin was significantly increased at both 6 and at 12 months (p 3× the upper limit of normal for 2 weeks) were observed in any subjects. Fasting glucose did not change significantly, but glycated hemoglobin showed a small increase in the NA group versus placebo (p = 0.02 at 6 months, p = 0.07 at 12 months). Blood pressure and body mass index did not change significantly in either group." Both groups were on statins. This was a small study, but the results were startling to statin advocates, to say the least.
But most physicians continue to push statins, and when I became sufficiently convinced of the potential harm versus the limited benefits (if any) of taking them, and experienced some of the side effects, I stopped taking them. My internist of 25 years and I then parted company, as she didn't want a patient who took charge of his health. I also discontinued Januvia, a drug that was insufficiently tested (in my opinion) and rushed to market to treat diabetes. Many studies have shown that Type 2 diabetes can be controlled by diet and exercise, period, and that's what I'm doing.
I know there are many prescription drugs that are beneficial to mankind. But there are many others that are harmful on balance because of their side effects, and in many instances there are natural substances that accomplish the same result without doing concomitant harm, such as niacin. But the pharmaceutical industry has such a stranglehold on medicine that the vast majority of physicians' response to most problems is to write prescriptions and hurry on to the next patient. And when you're being guided by an industry that is continually being sanctioned for abuses (see. Pfizer's recent $2.3 billion fine in 2009, Merck's $650 million fine in 2008 and scores of others), it isn't hard to understand what's happening.
The long-term damage of regular statin use isn't yet known, but several companies were forced to discontinue their versions because of adverse effects. And the sad truth is that virtually all coronary problems can be addressed without the use of drugs, but few people are willing to make the lifestyle changes required.
Sorry to have run on so long, but I feel very strongly about these issues. And I'm sure there will be many who disagree. That's what forums are about.
It's a fact that the pharmaceutical industry spent $19 billion -- yes, billion -- in its attempt to influence physicians and health institutions in 2006, the last year for which I could find a number. This was printed in US News & World report in 2008, and I have a copy of that article. This expenditure included everything from free luncheon buffets to junkets to resort areas for conventions. To doubt that there's any quid pro quo is to be credulous indeed.
It's a fact that every physician, with one exception, involved in the JUPITER study had ties to, and had been paid by, the pharmaceutical industry. In addition Dr. Ridker, who initiated the study, held the patent on the CRP test, along with the hospital involved, Brigham and Women's. This study purported to prove the efficacy of statins, but actually only proved that they seem to work for a small group. And other statin studies have resulted in lowering cholesterol (I never doubted that), and lowering inflammation, but not a longer life -- and at the possible cost of muscle pain and weakness, liver damage, sexual dysfunction, diabetes and dementia. Not to mention the scores of billions in cost every year. And this is the medical-pharmaceutical complex that brought you Vioxx, hormone replacement therapy, and scores of lesser-known drugs that did their damage and were then discontinued, all the way back to thalidomide. And many studies that fail to prove what their backers intended to prove are never published, or the results are misstated or misinterpreted, a la JUPITER. "(T)here is no evidence that statins provide any benefit in terms of decreased overall mortality to females of any age or to men over the age of 65 regardless of their state of health. The only group that statins has shown to provide any benefit for in terms of decreased all-cause mortality (the only statistic that really counts) is men under the age of 65 who have been diagnosed with heart disease. Even in that group, benefit is so small as to be questionable." - from the blog of Dr. Michael Eades, 11/6/09.
The JUPITER study was flawed in several respects. It used the much-absued "intention-to-treat" protocal, wherein dropouts are presumed to have completed the study. It screened its candidates, limiting participation to patients whose cholesterol levels were below accepted limits, but whose CRP was 2.0 or greater. Two major drug manufacturers (Pfizer and Bayer) passed on it before AstraZenika decided to conduct it, along with Siemens, the company that does CRP testing. And while statins unquestionably lower LDL and inflammation, there is some evidence that low LDL causes or contributes to Parkinson's disease. Statins also affect Vitamin D levels negatively. And in JUPITER, deaths from fatal myocardial infarctions were higher in the statin-treated group, although you won't find that stated explicitly, for obvious reasons. There were 9 fatal myocardial infarcs in the Crestor group and 6 in the placebo group -- a jaw-dropping 50% more for the statin group.
And with the increasing evidence that cholesterol is not the cause of coronary artery disease, the benefits of statins are even more questionable. Lowering LDL doesn't necessarily lower the risk of CAD; more relevant factors are the density of the LDL, the presence of inflammation in the arteries, and probably stress. This has been proven beyond question, I believe, yet many billions of dollars continue to be spent on statins. Nicotinic acid (niacin, niacinimide) has actually been shown to halt, and sometimes reduce, plaque, but since it's a vitamin and unpatentable you'll never know it unless you seek out the information (Effects of High-Dose Modified-Release Nicotinic Acid on Atherosclerosis and Vascular Function, JACC, 11/3/09) As opposed to statins, the side effects are minimal (possible flushing for a few minutes) to non-existent, and it's cheap. For those who don't care to seek out the article, here's the authors' summary:
"In the NA-treated [niacin-treated] group, mean HDL-C increased by 23% and LDL-C was reduced by 19% at 12 months. Triglycerides, apolipoprotein B, and lipoprotein(a) were significantly decreased by NA compared with placebo. CRP was decreased by NA compared with placebo (p = 0.03 at 6 months, p = 0.1 at 12 months). Adiponectin was significantly increased at both 6 and at 12 months (p 3× the upper limit of normal for 2 weeks) were observed in any subjects. Fasting glucose did not change significantly, but glycated hemoglobin showed a small increase in the NA group versus placebo (p = 0.02 at 6 months, p = 0.07 at 12 months). Blood pressure and body mass index did not change significantly in either group." Both groups were on statins. This was a small study, but the results were startling to statin advocates, to say the least.
But most physicians continue to push statins, and when I became sufficiently convinced of the potential harm versus the limited benefits (if any) of taking them, and experienced some of the side effects, I stopped taking them. My internist of 25 years and I then parted company, as she didn't want a patient who took charge of his health. I also discontinued Januvia, a drug that was insufficiently tested (in my opinion) and rushed to market to treat diabetes. Many studies have shown that Type 2 diabetes can be controlled by diet and exercise, period, and that's what I'm doing.
I know there are many prescription drugs that are beneficial to mankind. But there are many others that are harmful on balance because of their side effects, and in many instances there are natural substances that accomplish the same result without doing concomitant harm, such as niacin. But the pharmaceutical industry has such a stranglehold on medicine that the vast majority of physicians' response to most problems is to write prescriptions and hurry on to the next patient. And when you're being guided by an industry that is continually being sanctioned for abuses (see. Pfizer's recent $2.3 billion fine in 2009, Merck's $650 million fine in 2008 and scores of others), it isn't hard to understand what's happening.
The long-term damage of regular statin use isn't yet known, but several companies were forced to discontinue their versions because of adverse effects. And the sad truth is that virtually all coronary problems can be addressed without the use of drugs, but few people are willing to make the lifestyle changes required.
Sorry to have run on so long, but I feel very strongly about these issues. And I'm sure there will be many who disagree. That's what forums are about.
It's the same here too and it's only recently when people are begining to do something about it. Unfortunately it'll take quite a while to just scratch the surface of all the corruption. Some of it is right out in the open and there are people who encourage it, so again, it'll take quite some time to get rid of it if at all.
I know this has nothing to do with drug companies, but who can you trust if you cannot trust your own governnent, the body of people you vote in that promise to run the country in a way that will benefit you. I'm sure you have seen in the news about ministers in our government spending public taxes on their own properties etc. Hundreds have purchased second homes, hired cleaners and home helps, £500 lunches, long stays in top star hotels etc etc. This was all with public money which is supposed to be used to make our country a better place. While money was being cut in public sectors, and taxes were being increased, ministers were living a life of luxury on our money. One minister leaked this to the media and then all hell broke loose. Now most of them have to pay most of it back. It has been going on for years, estimated 25million pounds a year.
Some ministers have been forced to resign for taking bribes from companies and business associates, this has always happened and probably always will. This has made us more careful and very watchful and most of the british people have lost faith in any government system now. It's a real mess.
Perhaps Obama should run for prime minister :)
Some ministers have been forced to resign for taking bribes from companies and business associates, this has always happened and probably always will. This has made us more careful and very watchful and most of the british people have lost faith in any government system now. It's a real mess.
Perhaps Obama should run for prime minister :)
The main reason I keep an open mind is that you can't look at the companies as a whole. Each has departments and each has people who make the decisions and sign the paperwork. At the top of any organisation there are only a few people who have control. Budget or no budget, that money is not in their own bank accounts for them to spend, they get a salary to pay a mortgage etc like anyone else. Yes they get lots of money but the more money people get, the more they live above their means. Look how many millionaires go bankrupt, it's incredible. If each person was offered enough money to ensure a good retirement, then I'm sure for their families sakes, they would put pen to paper. By the time anything is found to be a problem, they will be long retired or even dead of old age, so why worry. So, again, I keep an open mind because corruption is very very easy.
COMMUNITY LEADER
I too am open minded about the possibility of other treatment options. Where I draw the line though is at statements made from pure conjecture or personal opinion. Everyone certainly has a right to their opinion, but when people make accusations that they don't or can't back up I can't take them seriously.
I don't know how things work in the UK so I can't comment, but here you would have to include the FDA and more specifically, the National Institute of Health, a government agency that controls the FDA, in this conspiracy theory. The Fed's just don't have anything to gain by allowing false or incorrect data to be passed along to the medical community. The NIH is responsible for the auditing of all studies along with the data provided. It is the NIH that proposes action to the FDA. The part that doesn't make sense is why the Fed's would be involved, for what purpose? I hear about kick backs by big pharma companies (let's face it, with the size of the federal budget any kick backs would be as insignificant as a single grain of sand on the beach), so show me. The kind of dollars that get alleged would have to have some sort of paper trail, but no one can ever find it. I understand that the government collects taxes on the profits of these firms, but they would do so on any drugs being sold so that argument doesn't hold water either.
Can anyone give me any reason that the government would want to keep new treatments from those that need them? Or even why the government would participate or allow other influences to stop research? Can anyone prove this? I would love to see the back up if it exists but no one can ever provide more than conjecture.
I also don't see any evidence of the big pharma companies corrupting doctors so don't go there. I am around many and I have never seen any evidence of it. Do the reps try to sell their drug over another company's product? Of course, that's free enterprise (remember that). I'm sure there is a doctor or two out there that can be bought, but it's the same in any market. Lawyers can be bought, contractors cut corners to make more profit even the police can be influenced, why always pick o the medical profession?
Again, if you don't like a treatment option being offered, don't use it. No one is forcing anyone to do anything they don't feel comfortable doing.
Just my opinion.........
Jon
I don't know how things work in the UK so I can't comment, but here you would have to include the FDA and more specifically, the National Institute of Health, a government agency that controls the FDA, in this conspiracy theory. The Fed's just don't have anything to gain by allowing false or incorrect data to be passed along to the medical community. The NIH is responsible for the auditing of all studies along with the data provided. It is the NIH that proposes action to the FDA. The part that doesn't make sense is why the Fed's would be involved, for what purpose? I hear about kick backs by big pharma companies (let's face it, with the size of the federal budget any kick backs would be as insignificant as a single grain of sand on the beach), so show me. The kind of dollars that get alleged would have to have some sort of paper trail, but no one can ever find it. I understand that the government collects taxes on the profits of these firms, but they would do so on any drugs being sold so that argument doesn't hold water either.
Can anyone give me any reason that the government would want to keep new treatments from those that need them? Or even why the government would participate or allow other influences to stop research? Can anyone prove this? I would love to see the back up if it exists but no one can ever provide more than conjecture.
I also don't see any evidence of the big pharma companies corrupting doctors so don't go there. I am around many and I have never seen any evidence of it. Do the reps try to sell their drug over another company's product? Of course, that's free enterprise (remember that). I'm sure there is a doctor or two out there that can be bought, but it's the same in any market. Lawyers can be bought, contractors cut corners to make more profit even the police can be influenced, why always pick o the medical profession?
Again, if you don't like a treatment option being offered, don't use it. No one is forcing anyone to do anything they don't feel comfortable doing.
Just my opinion.........
Jon
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the Heart Disease Community
Is a low-fat diet really that heart healthy after all? James D. Nicolantonio, PharmD, urges us to reconsider decades-long dietary guidelines.
Can depression and anxiety cause heart disease? Get the facts in this Missouri Medicine report.
Fish oil, folic acid, vitamin C. Find out if these supplements are heart-healthy or overhyped.
Learn what happens before, during and after a heart attack occurs.
What are the pros and cons of taking fish oil for heart health? Find out in this article from Missouri Medicine.
How to lower your heart attack risk.
