As if their dietary advice isn't bad enough...

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticl...42&section=news

"Think About Statins for Every Diabetic -Group
Thu 3 June, 2004 23:31

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Almost everyone with diabetes should consider taking a statin drug to lower cholesterol, even if they already have low cholesterol levels, the American Diabetes Association advised on Thursday.

Diabetes patients are at such high risk of heart disease that the statins almost certainly will do them some good, the group said in its latest treatment guidelines.

People with diabetes should all consider taking a daily aspirin, too, the new guidelines say.

"It may well be that everybody with diabetes should be on a statin," said Dr. Nathaniel Clark, vice-president for clinical affairs for the group.

"We know that statins lower low-density cholesterol but they may also have some other qualities that have not been tested," Clark said in a telephone interview.

An estimated 18 million Americans have diabetes, 90 to 95 percent of them type-2 diabetes. This once was called adult-onset diabetes but it is showing up in children more often now.

Type-1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease caused when the body mistakenly destroys insulin-producing pancreas cells.

Type-2 diabetes is strongly associated with being overweight and sedentary. It greatly raises the risk for heart disease, stroke and heart attack and can also lead to blindness and limb loss.

Clark said the Association decided to add statins to the guidelines after seeing the results of a British study, published earlier this year in the Lancet medical journal, that showed people who took statins had a one-third lower risk of stroke.

Their study included adults over the age of 40 whose total cholesterol levels were as low as 135 -- considered extremely low by most standards. Among normal healthy people, doctors do not usually consider giving drugs to lower cholesterol until total levels hit 200.

But Clark said diabetics are a special case.

"It is now a consensus that having diabetes is the equivalent in terms of cardiovascular risk of already having had a heart attack," Clark said.

"We are talking about what we would consider a high-risk group."

Statins are becoming more and more popular with doctors as study after study finds they can lower the risk of a range of heart conditions and may also help patients with multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer's disease.

Worldwide, 25 million people take statins, but up to 200 million could be eligible.

The drugs are not cheap, however. The United States already spending $12.5 billion on statin drugs, more than any other type of medicine, and the drugs can cause a rare type of side-effect called rhabdomyolysis, which damages muscles."

For a slightly more sane point of view;
http://www.theomnivore.com/statin_madness.html
http://www.theomnivore.com/Statins_..._for_women.html

Cheers,

Malcolm

Hmmmmmm....payola? I wonder how much $$$ it cost the pharmaceutical companies to get the ADA to say that?

Holy cr~p !!

That is just mind bogling. It's like saying to smokers....well smoke all you want, just take drugs to counter the negative effects of your addiction. It's crazy

I agree with GrlyGrl. I think this is just a ploy by the drug companies to make more money. It has already been demonstrated that the drug companies are spending more of their resources on drugs that lower cholesterol because patients have to pay more for them and most will take them for the remainder of their lives.

Of course, I also wonder at people who will blindly take drugs without question, just because a doctor tells them to without offering any other sort of alternative.

I mentioned this to Anthony Colpo who tells me he is starting a new site devoted to this subject;

http://www.statinalert.org/

Cheers,

Malcolm

As a diabetic, I have to say that I'm already being pressured by my doctor to go on statins despite the fact that my last A1C was 5.3. Yes, my cholesterol levels are slightly elevated (220) as is my LDL but I have yet to be convinced that the potential benefit of going on a statin drug outweighs the potential detriments. I had a thallium stress test 18 months ago that revealed absolutely no problems (although they should have a doctor present when they presesnt you with the bill for that! ) and all my kidney function tests to date have been well within normal limits. I have a dilated eye exam yearly..no sign of problems.
I have an appointment next week and I have a feeling that it's going to wind up slightly confrontational. Last month he put me on an antihypertensive even though my blood pressure was 118/84 (he wants my diastolic closer to 70 he says) and it wound up dropping my BP to 96/68 and I felt like cr**. Needless to say, I don't feel that it's benefitting me. My BP has been like this since I was a teenager...it's normal for me! I'm starting to develop the opinion that even if these drugs might (and there's certainly no guarantees) get me a few more years of life, I'd rather live a possibly slightly shorter life feeling good than a slightly longer one feeling terrible. So far, every drug he's put me on with the exception of Metformin has made me feel terrible.
Besides...the only thing that studies have shown conclusively to date is that those who have the most birthdays tend to live the longest.

I heard a report on statins on the radio the other day -- the results of some study in Europe -- and one of the study's authors basically said that it would be a Good Thing if statins were introduced into the drinking water supply, to dose everyone regardless of his or her health profile. And I don't think that he was totally joking ....

While I applaud his desire to help folks struggling with cardiac health issues, I am appalled by this sort of attitude. For me, this willingness to dose entire populations (not neccessarily entire cities, of course ) is eerily worrisome. Anyone remember the thalidomide tragedy, or any number of other well-meant treatments that turned out to be preventable nightmares for those involved? And let's not even mention George Orwell, and his dystopian vision of the future ...

"it would be a Good Thing if statins were introduced into the drinking water supply,"

I've been saying this was coming for a long time. It's like flouride, it benefits a large amount of people (or they think it does) so they give everyone a dose with every sip. Even tho it can cause problems with some, the good of the many may outweigh the effect on the few.

I figure in our lifetime we're going to see at least one serious proposal to add statins to drinking water. I think at this point statins are still too new to worry about this.....but once the patents start expiring, watch out!

Heck, once the patents start expiring, there will be no money in statins, and therefore no reason to push the 'cholesterol' bogeyman. It will go away.

Only to replaced by some other blood value number that we can lower with some expensive drug taken for the rest of our lives.

why try to fix something that isnt broken yet?alot of these doctors anymore are pill pushers take this pill and you will be well if that one doesnt work well find another to try on you and if by chance that causes something in your body to go bad we will give you this drug to help that problem.
what is this world coming to its to full of quick fixes...Aprilellen

Has it even been conclusively shown that total cholesterol is a half-decent measure of coronary risk? Seems to me that there are other measures that work better, like total/HDL ratio, CRP, or homocysteine.

You're correct, VickiR. Total cholesterol has never been shown to be a good indicator of cardiac risk. Quite the oppposite, in fact, since more than half of those that have cardiac events have normal cholesterol levels (below 200). It's now thought that the ratios as well as triglyceride levels and c-reactive protein and homocysteine levels are better indicators but even those are not foolproof.
It seems that the more scientists try to prove the fat/cholesterol/heart disease theory, the more they come up scratching their heads but still maintain it must be valid.

I think there is too much invested in this theory ... reputations, careers, money, lives .... they will never let go of it unless unrefutable proof comes along that it's wrong.

I think there will be gradual change, in such small steps that these scientists never really admit they were wrong at all!

Take a look at the Harvard food pyramid - sure it is half baked and they still carry on about saturated fat (red meat has its own section!) but it is a slight improvement on the old Agriculture Deparment pyramid.

Cheers,

Malcolm

Gee, do you think maybe the drug companies are invested in maintaining the old food pyramid???? Maybe wheat and corn producers, such as Kellogg et al, too?

Or am I just cynical?