Talk about health

Apologies for missing a week, but I was away for a few days visiting a relative so didn't have the time to fit everything in despite the best of intentions - sorry!

There are so many things I could write about, sometimes my head spins. Anyway, I help occasionally in a local charity shop and one of the other volunteers gave me an article she had cut from a national newspaper. It had the headline 'Statins are safe and they do work, major study finds'.

Knowing I had written a booklet on this very subject, she wanted to know what I thought of this latest piece of medical journalism. So, here goes ...

Bascially, this piece was reporting on the work done by a doctor. The research was not an original work but merely drew together some of the research findings over a 20-year period. These were simply that statin drugs lower cholesterol effectively and consistently. And that statin drugs have few side effects. The conclusion declared grandly that ' statins seem to be a remarkably safe group of drugs when used at their usual doses'.

Well, that just fine, isn't it? Statins are safe and effective. Hooray!

On reading this article several things crossed my mind. (Not what I was having for lunch!)

The first thing is that I agree that statins certainly lower cholesterol efficiently. Every study seems to show that. No argument there.

Unfortunatey, that is the only thing I can accept. What this doctor has done is take the results of a number of trials and add them together to come up with her "new" findings. Really what she has done is assume all these trials were properly conducted over a long timescale by independent researchers. This is a very dangerous path to take, since many trials are flawed and few use the same techniques.

Drug companies finance and conduct clinical trials of their own drugs to 'prove' how wonderful their products are and influence the prescribing doctors of the efficacy of their drugs. And if they don't do the trials in-house, the frequently pay so-called 'independent' researchers to do it for them.

The result is that many trials are biased and under the influence of the manufacturers. This point makes such trials open to the accusation of ignoring bad results and enlarging on good results. There are cases of drug companies suppressing bad results just to enable sales to go ahead.

Next is the time factor. Some drugs are intended to be taken for a limited time. Antibiotics are usually prescribed for seven to fourteen days for example. While others are expected to be taken for the rest of the patients life. Insulin for diabetics is an obvious one. Statins also fall into this category. They may lower cholesterol but they do that only for the duration of taking them. If you stop, your cholesterol is bound to creep up again. Unless of course you have also been changing your lifestyle along the way as well!

Clinical trials are meant to reflect this timescale, but rarely do they really do this. Most trials have a limited scope of perhaps several months or a year. The hope is that such trials will throw up side effects and potential problems well within that time. But, who is to say that is always the case.

What if side effects don't happen until someone has taken the drug for say 18 months or more? Who is checking for this and reporting back? Certainly not the drug companies if it could affect their bottom line profit outcomes.

SO, when looking at such reports in the papers just reflect on the original trials and the limitations that are conveniently ignored by the researcher. Statins seem to be implicated in many worrying side effects, especially with long-term use.

The drug companies and independent researchers are at odds concerning the frequency of side effects. The companies say few if any problems, researchers say many and frequently, sometimes dangerous. I know where my money is - with the independents. I have at least two friends who have had to reduce or stop takins statins because of side effects, and a doctor-friend who refused to take them in the first place because he had seen what statins can do to his own patients. Hardly a ringing endorsement of their safety!!!

And can we know who is funding this latest piece of published work? I think we should be entitled to find out whether it is truly independent or if this doctor is in the employ of a drug company. It might have a significant effect on the headlines.

Just to end on a different note. Who says cholesterol needs to be lowered to the level that statins can achieve? From what I've read, we all need a fair amount of cholesterol to protect us and make the body work properly. SO, when you can control cholesterol by a few simple lifestyle adjustments, why take a statin at all? You tell me ...

If you want to know more about cholesterol, what it does and how to regulate it without drugs. or if you wonder what statins can do and their side effects and doses, then why not get a copy of my booklet 'Cholesterol- villain or saviour'. Its available through my site at http://www.healthexplored.co.uk for instant download or print copy.

Wishing you the very best of health.