I came across this fantastic letter, written by a UK based GP, on the use of statins. It is great to know there are these kinds of people in the UK system. A lot of what I read is US based information with MDs in America looking at things critically and going against the grain. Being in the UK there is an almost unwritten rule to be sceptical of 'these' people due to the monetary gains that might play a factor in what they are voicing….. Well, if there was ever a critical thinker, it is Arnold Jenkins.
A friend of mine recently told me he has been on Statins for a long time and I voiced my concerns… naughty me meddling in stuff I’m not qualified to give advice on… but my excuse is, I did not give prescriptive advice and simply advised further research into a couple of specific areas, one being Co Q10. If you don't know, statins are the drug of choice to reduce cholesterol in the blood. Unfortunately they are not without some serious side effects but are now used as a first line of defense! This is yet another down fall of the medical profession, when simple dietary modifications can literally 'cure/normalise' dyslipidemia (messed up blood lipids/cholesterol). Anyway, it is a big area of discussion at the minute and clearly has been for a long time. So, have a read of this letter sent by Jenkins to the Editor of BMJ. Makes you wonder how much control drug companies have over our NHS system? Also interesting that I’ve had clients told that they are going to be put on statins in 3 months and in that time, have come to see me and with very small changes to their diet, have come out clear in their follow up blood test… If you've been to one of my corporate lectures you will have heard the story of the vegetarian lady who was eating 3 eggs per week (before working with me) and post Mac-Nutrition she was having on average 27 eggs per week… Guess what? She completely normalised her blood cholesterol in 14 weeks and I'll add… didn't exercise a whole lot either! This is not to mention the fact that, statins may not even work for some people!? I'll tell you one thing… good nutrition works for EVERYONE!
Let food be your medicine and medicine be your food - Hippocrates Arnold J Jenkins (2003) Might money spent on statins be better spent? BMJ. 327(7420): 933. Editor—As Abbasi argues in his Editor's choice, the benefits of publishing negative findings should be obvious. As a general practitioner I wonder how many million pounds sterling the NHS could save if the Medical Research Council, the British Heart Foundation, and the Lancet shared this view. An example is in the prescribing of statins. They are a major cost in my practice, as I am sure they are to many practitioners. Even in general practice I recognised the Scandinavian simvastatin survival study as a seminal paper on the benefits of statins, and as we used to be taught to evaluate evidence (as opposed to stick to protocols) I read it. I was surprised to learn that more women died in the treated group than in the control group. On discussion with cardiology colleagues I was assured that as the numbers were small it was a statistical anomaly, resolvable by larger studies. Imagine my delight when I heard of the large heart protection study showing clear benefits in the use of statins for women. On reading this study I was therefore disappointed to find the total mortality data for women missing. I now understand that the total mortality benefit for women did not reach significance and therefore was not published (Louise Bowman, personal communication, 2002). I do not understand why the censors of this paper do not realise two things. Firstly, any meta analyses based on this study are likely to be skewed. Secondly, in such long term studies total mortality, not improvement in the condition, should be the gold standard for evaluation (euthanasia, for example, provides 100% cure of headache but should be ruled out on the mortality data).
[WHAT AN ANALOGY! THIS GUY IS GREAT!]
I have yet to find a paper showing a significant reduction in mortality in women for groups treated with statins. It therefore seems that any benefit, if found, will be minimal. Yet we are almost compelled by protocols such as the national service framework for coronary heart disease and local prescribing incentives to prescribe for this subgroup. Also the supporting documentation to the new general medical services contract indicates that such statin prescribing may become a quality indicator. I wonder whether the money could be better spent or if we should abandon the little evidence based medicine we currently have?
You can find the full text HERE
