The Ugly Side of Statins. Systemic Appraisal of the Contemporary Un-Known Unknowns

Cardio-vascular specialists have witnessed and actively participated in the revolutionary developments that have occurred in their field of specialization over the last few years. Cutting-edge technologies have led to dramatic improvements in life-expectancy and quality of life. An open-mind and pioneering attitude are necessary when exploring new frontiers to improve our patients’ health. However, naive indiscriminate acceptance of novel mainstream therapies is not always advisable and prudence is required in unearthing harmful, covert side effects. An objective review of contemporary vascular research was performed and industrial bias was sifted out for a fresh prospective on how to promote primary cardiovascular prevention with attainable lifestyle adjustments [1]. A comprehensive review of Pubmed, EM-BASE and Cochrane review databases was undertaken for articles relating to cardiovascular primary prevention and statin side effects with the aim of harmonising their roles within contemporary clinic practice. Particular attention was paid to large-scale randomised controlled trials on contemporary cardiovascular pharmacotherapies and their specific adverse effects on metabolic pathways which feature prominently in cardiovascular primary prevention and regenerative programmes. There is a categorical lack of clinical evidence to support the use of statin therapy in primary prevention. Not only is there a dearth of evidence for primary cardiovascular protection, there is ample evidence to show that statins actually augment cardiovascular risk in women, patients with Diabetes Mellitus and in the young. Furthermore statins are associated with triple the risk of coronary artery and aortic artery calcification. Cardiovascular primary prevention and regeneration programmes, through life style changes and abstaining from tobacco use have enhanced clinical efficacy and quality of life over any pharmaceutical or other conventional intervention.

 The PDF can be downloaded here:
         http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=34065

More on this article:
Galway surgeons claim drugs to prevent stroke increase risk
Consultant vascular and endovascular surgeons at University Hospital Galway, Sherif Sultan and Niamh Hynes carried out the research.

The consultants' paper, called 'The Ugly Side of Statins' is published in the Journal of Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases.

The research states that statins, which are one of the world's most prescribed drugs, could increase the risk of diabetes and cataracts in young people.

It says the drugs can also cause an increased risk of cancer in elderly people.

They add that there has 'actually been active discouragement to publish any negative studies on statins', which is a 20-billion a year industry.

http://www.connachttribune.ie/breaking-news/23954-galway-surgeons-claim-drugs-to-prevent-stroke-increase-risk

Graham
read more "The Ugly Side of Statins. Systemic Appraisal of the Contemporary Un-Known Unknowns"
0 comments

Rapid Rise in Hypertension and Nephropathy in Youth With Type 2 Diabetes - The TODAY clinical trial.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Among adolescents with type 2 diabetes, there is limited information regarding incidence and progression of hypertension and microalbuminuria. Hypertension and microalbuminuria assessments made during the TODAY clinical trial were analyzed for effect of treatment, glycemic control, sex, and race/ethnicity.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A cohort of 699 adolescents, 10–17 years of age, <2 years duration of type 2 diabetes, BMI ≥85%, HbA1c ≤8% on metformin therapy, controlled blood pressure (BP), and calculated creatinine clearance >70 mL/min, were randomized to metformin, metformin plus rosiglitazone, or metformin plus intensive lifestyle intervention. Primary study outcome was loss of glycemic control for 6 months or sustained metabolic decompensation requiring insulin. Hypertension and microalbuminuria were managed aggressively with standardized therapy to maintain BP <130/80 or <95th percentile for age, sex, and height and microalbuminuria <30 μg/mg.
RESULTS In this cohort, 319 (45.6%) reached primary study outcome, and 11.6% were hypertensive at baseline and 33.8% by end of study (average follow-up 3.9 years). Male sex and higher BMI significantly increased the risk for hypertension. Microalbuminuria was found in 6.3% at baseline and rose to 16.6% by end of study. Diagnosis of microalbuminuria was not significantly different between treatment arms, sex, or race/ethnicity, but higher levels of HbA1c were significantly related to risk of developing microalbuminuria.
CONCLUSIONS Prevalence of hypertension and microalbuminuria increased over time among adolescents with type 2 diabetes regardless of diabetes treatment. The greatest risk for hypertension was male sex and higher BMI. The risk for microalbuminuria was more closely related to glycemic control.
So  young to have type 2 makes you wonder what the future hold for them.
Graham

read more "Rapid Rise in Hypertension and Nephropathy in Youth With Type 2 Diabetes - The TODAY clinical trial."
0 comments

Conflict of Interest : The TRUTH about the Food Industry and Nutrition Education

I've posted this as a follow on to Eddie's  Blast from the past ! post, most of it's covering the same ground apart from a revelation about The British Dietetic Association:
US and UK Dietiticans are educated that a low fat, low calorie diet is the answer to the obesity epidemic. It isn’t. They are also educated that you will lose 1lb fat for every deficit of 3,500 cals. You won’t. They are also educated that energy in = energy out. It doesn’t. So why is the media and the national educational curriculum for our Dieticians and Nutritionists so wrong??
Question EVERYTHING and don’t believe the media – EVER.
These ‘facts’ are part of their curriculum. But I have spent years studying the data, publications and scientific research. Because I HAVE to know where information comes from. So I look at the sources. And then I look at the sources of the sources. And then I look at the SPONSORS of the sources of the sources.

And this is what I find:
1)      Coca-Cola are a major sponsor of the American Dietetic Association
2)      They were also sponsors of the UK Association for the Study of Obesity
3)       Currently Kellogg’s is a Sponsor for the UK Association for the study of Obesity along with low calorie diet organisations such as Lighter Life, the pharmaceutical industry and a company that specialises in gastric surgery.
4)      Coca-cola is also a sustaining member of the British Nutrition Foundation
5)      The UK Eatwell plate (which I call the Eat HELL plate) was originally BRANDED by Kellogg’s, Coca-Cola, Nestle and Premier Foods. Currently the brands have been removed but you will still find a packet of cornflakes in the 30% segment and a can of cola in the 8% segment. I read the guidelines from the NHS website on the EatHELL plate and had to stop as my blood started boiling…..
6)      This month, the World Health Organisation took £230,000 from Coca-cola, Ben and Jerry’s, Nestle and Unilever to fill profit gaps and as a result have been relying on such food companies for advice on how to fight obesity. Call me presumptious, but I doubt the advice would have anything to do with the avoidance of sugar and processed foods. So they probably desperately latch onto the “animal fats will kill you” bandwagon.
7)      Abbot Nutrition is a sponsor of Diabetes UK and the UK Association for the Study of Obesity. A little bit about Abbott:
A subsidiary of pharmaceutical giant Abbott Laboratories, they are one of the world’s largest infant formula producers. They manufacture an infant formula containing cane sugar and sucrose known to be unsuitable for newborns. These additives are banned from infant formulas in Europe. Abbott have marketing strategies so aggressive that they breach WHO legislation on the marketing of baby formulas.
8)      Abbott Nutrition also sponsor Education Courses for the BDA (so for our Country’s Registered Dieticians and Nutritionists) as do the pharmaceutical industry and Coca-Cola. I was horrified to read Abbott’s dietary guidelines about managing diabetes on their Diabetes Care website which places emphasis on avoiding saturated fats and ABSOLUTELY NO RECOMMENDATIONS about avoiding sugar or high sugar processed foods whatsoever.
9)      The British Dietetic Association flatly DENIES that eating too much sugar causes Diabetes. This is stated clearly on their Sugar Factsheet. Their sugar fact sheet suggests that the only health issues with too much sugar is tooth decay. It is nothing short of shocking.
10)  The Sponsors of the British Dietetic Association are kept securely under wraps and this information is only available to its members. However we do know that one of them is the Sugar Bureau. Of course it is.
11)    The BDA annual report Profit and Loss Accounts showed a turnover of just under £2.5 million and profits of just under £2 million without detailing the sources of this revenue. This information is only available to its members.
12)   Unilever is one of the sustaining members of the British Nutrition Foundation. So is Danone, Kellogg’s, the HCGA (the cereals divisions of the Agriculture Development Board) and DairyCo. The HCGA and DairyCo are levying bodies sponsored by Defra (the government’s Food and Agriculture Department). So they have a vested interest in implementing promotional campaigns to encourage the consumption of grains and dairy products for government subsidies. ALL of these organisations implemented food education initiatives in schools last year through teacher training and pupil involvement. They were HUGE education programmes. THEY ARE STARTING THEM YOUNG. No prizes for guessing Kellogg’s recommendations in the “Healthy Breakfast” initiative. Your children attend these schools.
13)   Other member companies include: British Sugar Plc, Mars, Macdonald’s, Greggs, Pepsico, Nestle Coca-Cola and the list goes on and on….it’s available to read on their Annual Report. A recent survey identified that the majority of Reistered Dietitians considered Coca-Cola, Pepsico and Mars to be “unacceptable” sponsors. I can’t think why.
14)   Nestle have sponsored a large IT programme for the British Nutrition Foundation which delivers online courses for training on food and nutrition.
15)   NABIM represents virtually 100% of the UK’s flour and wheat industry. They are major investors in the British Nutrition Foundation.
16)   I’d hate to think who the BNF Scientific Advisory Committee and Educational Working Group Members work for, but you can guess can’t you.
17)   The Heart Truth is an American initiaitive launched in 2002 and is still ongoing, to make women more aware of the dangers of heart disease. Two of its sponsors are Cheerios and Diet Coke. If you google images on this campaign the irony is so in your face it just seems utterly absurd.
Conclusions:
So what are we supposed to do with this information? These are revelations that tell you the truth about how the food industry works and how our children and “Nutritional Experts” are being educated about food and health. When the promotional messages we read seem to be from credible sources, it is so very hard not to be misled.  But that is why we have an obesity epidemic and a nation of confused and deeply disappointed individuals desperately trying to lose weight.
Well there is always the common sense approach with food. If it’s as nature intended, and you’re keeping portions realistic, then you’re doing OK. If it comes in a box or a package, READ the ingredients. You have that responsibility to your own body. But I would urge you to consider the following because we have a global problem and it’s starting with your children at school:
The NHS, BDA, Nutrition Society and BNF are behind most of the media’s messages on food and health as well as local government campaigns in schools and other establishments. They are also responsible for health initiatives in schools. Start to question some of these messages, or at least be aware that the ultimate message comes from huge, sugar-dependent corporations with aggressive, legislatively dubious marketing campaigns with no interest in health but an unshakeable allegiance to their shareholders.
Another related post from Dietitians for Professional Integrity:

 The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics' Big Food Controversy


Graham


read more "Conflict of Interest : The TRUTH about the Food Industry and Nutrition Education"
0 comments
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)