Sun, Dec-31-06, 00:19
|
|
Senior Member
Posts: 1,162
|
|
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 228/195/188
BF:
Progress: 83%
Location: Erie PA
|
|
Quote:
|
Why do we need multiple versions of statins when one or two versions would be just as ineffective? The research to do that does not benefit the public in any way, and, as readers of this bulletin board are aware, it is highly questionable whether the original research that produced statins did much good, yet we’re paying for it.
|
Haha. ce you slay me!
But you're right, we really are paying for it. In this recent N+M article the researchers determined the prevalence of statin use at Time 1 (FHS T1) which was approximatley 1995, and at Time 2 (FHS T2), approximately 2002, to be 1% and 24%, respectively. This is for US adults aged 20-70.
Quote:
|
In the FHS-T1 there were 0.98% of subjects that used cholesterol lowering drugs and 19.1% that used anti-hypertensive medications. In the FHS-T2 this group broadened to 24.5% that used anti-hyperlipidemics, and to 33.5% that used anti-hypertensive medications.
|
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/3/1/41
1% of US adults is probably about 2 M people, and 24% would be about 50 M. Talk about an effective job of marketing!!!
You also make a lot of other great points, but none more true than this one--
Quote:
|
paying “key opinion leaders” to influence other MDs
|
In my medium sized town, a few specialists service a bunch of family doctors. The cardiologists present some of the "grand rounds" at the hospital on Friday mornings, and discuss the wonders of statins and Plavix etc. to us peons. And how not using them is probably malpractice. Plus they tell my patients the same thing, and when they get them in the hospital they start them on Lipitor, no matter how high their HDL is. I don't know if any of them are on the speaker's bureau of any drug companies, but I know they have all participated in numerous drug trials of various new drugs. (Plus their office staffs haven't had to buy their own in years.)
|