Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Fwd: Ball of Confusion

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:04:58 -0500

HSI - Jenny Thompson

Ball of Confusion

 

Ball of Confusion

 

Health Sciences Institute e-Alert

 

March 23, 2004

 

**************************************************************

 

Dear Reader,

 

Are you rethinking the importance of your HDL level?

 

You might be if you listened to the news reports last week

about the sudden " confusion " surrounding high-density

lipoprotein (HDL), also known as the " good " cholesterol.

 

But guess what? The confusion is completely manufactured.

And why is it manufactured?

 

Do you even have to ask?

 

-----------------------------

Highs and lows

-----------------------------

 

In a nutshell, here's how LDL and HDL work: LDL transports

cholesterol from the liver to the rest of the body, and HDL

returns cholesterol to the liver where it's disposed of.

 

According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the

optimal LDL level is anything less than 100 mg/dL

(milligrams of cholesterol per deciliter of blood).

The " near optimal to above optimal " range is 100-

129. " Borderline high " is 130-159. And anything over 160 is

considered " high. "

 

The NIH guidelines call for HDL cholesterol to be 60 mg/dL

or more in order to help reduce heart disease risk. HDL

lower than 40 is considered dangerous.

 

All of that seems pretty clear. So where does the sudden

confusion about HDL come from? Prepare to be not the least

bit shocked: It comes from high-profile promoters of

cholesterol-lowering statin drugs.

 

-----------------------------

Freeform extrapolating

-----------------------------

 

Last week a New York Times article reported that " some

scientists " point to " new and continuing " studies suggesting

that HDL may not effectively counteract the potentially

harmful effects of elevated LDL. The Times article was

picked up by a number of other newspapers and media outlets.

 

The primary scientist singled out by the Times is Dr. Steven

Nissen - a prominent cardiologist with the Cleveland Clinic,

and an outspoken advocate of statin use. He's also a leading

proponent of the statin-friendly concept that LDL should be

lowered as much as possible - well below the NIH's " optimal "

mark. Last November, the Associated press quoted Dr. Nissen

as saying, " There is no such thing as too low an LDL. "

 

Remarking on the HDL question this past week, he told the

Times that, " There is so much confusion about this that it

is unbelievable. "

 

Dr. Nissen cites a recent study that he headed up - a study

I told you about in the e-Alert " Broken Ground " (3/11/04).

The trial enrolled more than 4,260 subjects, each of whom

had been hospitalized with " an acute coronary syndrome. " In

other words, these were not average Joes who merely had

elevated LDL levels. Subjects were divided into two groups.

For two years, one group took 40 mg daily of a statin drug,

and another group took 80 mg per day of a statin. Results

showed that the higher dosage lowered LDL better than the

lower dosage. The rate of death was also slightly lower in

the high dose group. Dr. Nissen notes that HDL played no

role in plaque growth among subjects in the study. He told

the Times that LDL was the only factor that mattered.

 

But one of several problems with this study is that there

was no control group. Without a control group (that is; a

group not taking statins to compare against the other

subjects who all were), there's no way of knowing if the HDL

and LDL outcomes are really as significant as Dr. Nissen is

convinced they are.

 

-----------------------------

Believability

-----------------------------

 

So when the Times article refers to " some scientists "

pointing to " new and continuing " studies, it's apparently

referring only to Dr. Nissen and this single study of his

that wasn't even designed to examine the effects of LDL vs.

HDL on plaque growth in the first place.

 

The Times article does mention one other trial: the

Framingham Heart Study, which is the ongoing, landmark study

that has included many thousands of subjects since its

inception in 1948. The Times notes that Framingham data

clearly demonstrates how higher levels of HDL are actually

associated with a decreased risk of heart disease.

 

Dr. Nissen described the recent confusion about HDL

as " unbelievable. " I agree completely. I don't believe it.

 

But I believe it WILL help sell statin drugs.

 

-----------------------------

NSPM!

-----------------------------

 

When Dr. Nissen's study was released earlier this month, the

media reported the results with fawning respect for the idea

that " superdoses " of statins should now be considered the

norm in order to drive LDL as low as possible.

 

So with major news outlets getting out the message that

statin superdoses should be used, and then two weeks later

reporting that you can't depend on HDL to help lower heart

disease risk (but you CAN depend on statins), I don't think

it's too much of a stretch to go ahead and officially

declare March as NSPM; " National Statin Promotion Month. "

 

Just imagine how many people will respond to these reports

by asking their physicians to raise their statin dosage. The

doctor on TV said it was a good idea. And the guy on the

morning show said HDL might not even matter anymore.

Imagine! The " good cholesterol " has let us down!

 

Here's the best way to observe NSPM: Ignore the

manufactured " confusion " about HDL, and be deeply suspicious

of the flawed study that encourages millions of people to

start taking large, expensive doses of statins.

 

Because they're both unbelievable.

 

**************************************************************

 

To start receiving your own copy of the HSI e-Alert, visit:

http://www.hsibaltimore.com/ealert/freecopy.html

Or forward this e-mail to a friend so they can sign-up to

receive their own copy of the HSI e-Alert.

 

**************************************************************

 

... and another thing

 

Never say never...

 

A friend sent me an interesting list of quotes this week.

Here are just a few:

 

" The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut

from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon " Sir John

Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-

Extraordinary to Queen Victoria, 1873

 

" Everything that can be invented has been invented. " Charles H.

Duell, Director of US Patent Office, 1899

 

" There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their

home. " Ken Olson, president of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977

 

" There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the

atom. " Robert Miliham, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923

 

" Heavier than air flying machines are impossible. " Lord

Kelvin, President, Royal Society, 1895

 

" Video won't be able to hold on to any market it captures

after the first six months. People will soon get tired of

staring at a plywood box every night. " Daryl F. Zanuck, 20th

Century Fox, commenting on television in 1946

 

" This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously

considered as a means of communication. The device is

inherently of no value to us. " Western Union internal memo,

1876.

 

" Such startling announcements as these should be deprecated

as being unworthy of science and mischievous to its true

progress. " Sir William Siemens, electrical engineer, upon

hearing Edison's announcement of a successful light bulb.

 

" Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction. "

Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology, 1872

 

This list makes me feel hopeful. Just imagine how many

healthcare breakthroughs that seem impossible today will

simply be part of everyday life in 2104. Who knows? The

medical mainstream might even come to recognize the fact

that many natural therapies are safer and more effective

than prescription drugs.

 

Do I REALLY believe the medical mainstream will come around?

I admit, it's a stretch, but never say never.

 

To Your Good Health,

 

Jenny Thompson

Health Sciences Institute

 

**************************************************************

 

Sources:

" Scientists Begin to Question Benefit of 'Good' Cholesterol "

Gina Kolata, The New York Times, 3/15/04, nytimes.com

" Bad Cholesterol Not The Full Story " Robert Bazell, NBC

News, 3/16/04, msnbc.com

" Comparison of Intensive and Moderate Lipid Lowering with

Statins after Acute Coronary Syndromes " New England Journal

of Medicine, 3/8/04, content.nejm.org

 

Copyright ©1997-2004 by www.hsibaltimore.com, L.L.C.

The e-Alert may not be posted on commercial sites without

written permission.

 

 

**************************************************************

Before you hit reply to send us a question or request,

please visit here

http://www.hsibaltimore.com/ealert/questions.html

 

**************************************************************

If you'd like to participate in the HSI Forum, search past

e-Alerts and products or you're an HSI member and would like

to search past articles, visit http://www.hsibaltimore.com

 

**************************************************************

 

 

 

Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...