11 March 2010

But weren't we told that statins didn't have side effects?

Supports Chapter 1: Trick to Treat

This short article was published in the Daily Mail today. It's a long time since I blogged, so I thought I'd include it for your enjoyment.

The statin manufacturers have always denied that their products have side effects. They have been so convincing that many doctors have simply refused to hear their patient's complaints.

Now there is a new cholesterol-lowering drug in the offing. I don't propose to discuss the merits or otherwise of lowering cholesterol; I'm sure you kmnow my feelings on that. I just want to show you how this new drug is being promoted: "free of the side-effects associated with statins."

So after denying that statins had side effects, the fact that they have is going to be used to launch this new drug.

I wonder what side effects this new drug will have. There are always some.

Here' the article:

11/03/2010
Daily Mail
By: Presswatch
New 'statin' without the side effects
Cholesterol levels declined by a third in patients taking eprotirome tablets, according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The drug was free of the side-effects associated with statins, including muscle and liver problems, depression, loss of libido and difficulty sleeping. Eprotirome, which is still several years away from the market, is unlikely to replace statins. But it could be given to the hundreds of thousands who cannot tolerate the drugs. It also lowers levels of other harmful blood fats that are not combated by statins, but are known to raise the risk of heart disease.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

What a very misleading article. Eprotirome is being developed as an enhancement drug to be added to statin treatment - not to replace it.

No side effects? It reduces thyroid hormone levels.

Barry Groves said...

Hi Anon

As you say, Eprotirome lowers thyroid hormone levels. Yet low thyroid was known as long ago as the 1930s to increase cholesterol levels! I have published a fuller article about the new drug, Eprotirome, on my website here.

Barry

ET said...

In all the articles I've read, I've yet to see any mention of its effect on HDL. However, if it did raise HDL I'm sure they would have included that fact in the announcement. Since it lowers total cholesterol more than LDL, I can only assume it lowers HDL too.

Barry Groves said...

Good point, ET. I wonder how they will get around that one. Could be that HDL will become a 'baddie'.

Barry

Anonymous said...

Thank you for another great article. Published at

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/204627-Novel-Thyroid-Hormone-Analogue-Makes-Statins-More-Effective

Getting to be a fan of yours. I've been with THINCS for years and yet only recently found your website.

Regards

Alan S said...

Hi Barry,

I would just like to say thank you for providing a great website full of information and links that have completely changed my view on how I should view food. You have changed my life. I bought and read two of your books and have thoroughly enjoyed them. I have converted my family too and they have fully embraced your findings.

One a side note...your info on AGW led me to question what I thought was fact and I did a bit of digging myself on the 'skeptics' side of the argument and was amazed at how much media spin and unscientific 'facts' on AGW have been shoved in our faces these past few years.

Thanks for everything and keep up the good work.

Alan

Anonymous said...

What upsets me about the GW fiasco is the way it has affected our attempts to reduce pollution and use sources of renewable energy.
Many years ago before we'd even heard of GW, we all wanted to stop using oil asap and increase the use of solar, tidal energy etc. We were thinking of the future, our children, a clean planet, oil and gas running out etc.
Now of course, the waters are musddied and many are starting to associate increased use of alternative energy with the GW scaremongers. This is so very sad!

Steve

Matthew Shipton said...

Hey Barry,

Found an article that may or may not interest you:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18700873

Regardless of my dismay at using the term "low-carb/high protein," more salient is the fact that a government is finally admitting that "more research is needed" to compare the effects of a low-carb diet.

And are likely to do nothing about it.

Last I heard some diabetes association (be it American or National or whatever they want to call it) was conducting a long-term (decade-long) study on the effect of a low-fat diet on diabetes. What a perfect opportunity that could have been to test the historically proven ketogenic approach to the same topic.

But in any event, should the government conduct such a test, it would still be muddied by their religious doctrine against fat, and would only include a 'limited amount of healthy fat.' I suppose it would still be a stepping stone, but the last thing we want is force-feeding soy and vegetable fats to diabetics for ten years.

Even then, it's not like there isn't precedence, especially the Stefansson/Andersen episode of the 20s and 30s. So even existing evidence is, of course, insufficient. Ignorance is truly their most powerful weapon. I personally can't recall how many times I've been told I'll die if I don't eat fruits and vegetables - moments after mentioning I have barely touched them in almost a year now.

I would like to thank you as your website has basically singlehandedly taken me from an ongoing struggle with obesity, where I had the choice to either get fat, or be endlessly hungry and run on a treadmill every day. It has been a singularly life altering realization, and I wish you the best in your crusade for people's health.

Barry Groves said...

Thank you, Matthew, for the reference. I had seen it.

There have been no end of studies going right back to the beginning of the 20th century. They all show that low-carb, high fat is far superior to the usual 'eat less, exercise more' approach. Yet modern reviews such as this one all end with the recommnedation that "More evidence and longer-term studies are needed . . .!"

It's as if they can't, or don't want to, believe what they are finding; that they are going to continue doing studies until one goes the way it 'should'.

And, as you rightly say, that study will probably not use healthy animal fats, but some processed concoction which they can then call 'saturated fat' to further vilify healthy animal fats and tropical oils.

Thank you for your kind comments.

Barry

Luddite_Jean said...

Some good news - hubby and I started eating a la Groves about two months ago. Today he went for his diabetes consult, and has found that his weight has dropped, his blood pressure has dropped and best of all, his sugar control has improved - which is all the more remarkable as he tailed off the dose of his glimeperide until he wasn't taking any at all for the last month. Next month he's going to work on reducing his rosiglitazone. The diabetic nurse said he must be doing something right (he just said he was eating a healthier diet!) as they don't get many 62-year old diabetics who reduce their meds so drastically, but improve in health.

Thank you, Barry, for writing Trick and Treat!

Barry Groves said...

Hi Jean

Well done, hubby. I'm just delighted to have been of help.

Barry

Matthew Shipton said...

Hey Barry,

It's me once again. I keep hearing that meat increases the risk of bowel cancer - so far the big two that come to mind are an article in the Daily Mail regarding the English breakfast and how researchers have connected the sausage and bacon to a "63% increase in risk in bowel cancer," and another claim by the World Cancer Research Fund that they have "strong evidence that red meat ... are causes of bowel cancer."

Where are they getting this bunk from?

No doubt you've seen it already but the Daily Mail link is here - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1049142/Traditional-English-fry-raise-risk-bowel-cancer-63-cent.html .

Barry Groves said...

Hi matthew

I have no idea where they get these silly ideas. It looks as if this article is not reporting a new study, but merely parroting dogma emanating from the WCRF.

That said, what they actually indict, if you look carefully, is processed meat products - sausages and other foods whch are laden with a cocktail of chemicals and soy or carbohydrate-based fillers. As far as these are concerned, they might have a case.

Barry

Sue said...

Hi Barry, I have been following your advice since the middle of January and have already lost a stone the arthritis in my thumbs/wrists has vanished. Thank-you so much for your efforts. I bought the dvd and the Trick and Treat book and have read through that twice, if only I knew all this years ago. I've been pointing every-one in the direction of your website. Did you see this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7543507/Fried-breakfast-is-healthiest-start-to-day-say-scientists.html
I'll say so, I feel great.
Thanks
Sue

Barry Groves said...

Hi Sue

Glad to have been of help.

Yes, I did see the Telegraph's article. I've only been saying this since I started to give a talk called "The Fat of the Land" in 1971.

They had to catch up one day!

Barry

leah said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I have noticed a marked decline in my mother's health since she started on statins. She is eighty eight years old and the sad thing is that people of this generation are usually in awe of doctors and credit them with superhuman knowledge. I've tried to explain to her that statins may not be the beneficial drug she thinks they are but to no avail. To her, doctor is God and doctor knows best!