Skip to main content

Statin Drugs, and the Congestive Failure of Pharma-centric Medicine

Disclaimer: Don't take medical advice from engineers.

The New York Times has an article out today about the side effects of statin drugs: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/health/fda-warns-of-cholesterol-drugs-side-effects.html. Seems that the more time that goes by, the less clear it is that statins are actually worth taking. I'm not going to claim that statins don't help - if you're interested in that line of thought, read this, for example. But I do think the massive over-prescription of statins endemic in Western medicine is illustrative of the problem of treating symptoms rather than causes.

The line of thinking goes something like this: People with heart disease have been found to have elevated levels of bad cholesterol (LDLs - which incidentally aren't even cholesterol, but instead transport cholesterol). Statins lower LDLs. Thus people should take statins in order to reduce risk of heart disease. The goal, of course, is to go from this logically fallacious argument to then testing whether lowering bad cholesterol via statins actually decreases risk of heart disease. That is, do taking statins make you less likely to get heart disease, and one step further, less likely to die from heart disease? And it's here where the evidence is actually somewhat mixed. The best I've seen is that statins lower risk of cardiac events in people who already have heart disease, but do nothing to lower those risks for people without heart disease. Even more curiously, some scientists think that lower cholesterol levels have nothing to do with the benefit, and it's actually the anti-inflammatory properties of statins that convey their benefit to people already suffering from heart disease. So then why are tens of millions of people in this country alone on a daily regimen of statins?

I'm not writing this as a complete outsider. For some reason, my cholesterol seems to live in the borderline-high range, and when I was 21, my family doctor recommended that I start taking statins. I Googled it, and found that there are some potentially really bad side effects such as muscle degeneration.  At the time I was a competitive gymnast, and the potential for muscle degeneration in my twenties was actually quite horrifying to me. Not only that, but chronic diarrhea, cognitive impairment, and sexual dysfunction. Seriously? I mentioned it to my doctor, and he was basically of the opinion, "Well, statins lower your cholesterol, thus they are good". Having no other risk factors for heart disease, I politely declined. But how many millions of times did that conversation go the other way? Patient blindly trusts doctor, and ends up on a lifelong medication with potentially deleterious side effects and arguable benefits? At what point does prescribing these drugs cross the line from ignorance to negligence to criminal?

Anyway, the real answer to all this, as always, is to follow the money. Statins are a ginormous industry. Pfizer alone made over $12 billion from Lipitor in 2008. And there's nothing that big pharma likes more than finding a lifelong customer for an expensive drug. Once you're on a statin, you're on it for life. Cause the point isn't to actually cure anything (for their part, no drug company claims that statins cure heart disease, because they don't, and that was never the goal). Doctors don't make money prescribing exercise and dietary changes. And we, as healthcare consumers, like to focus on simple things like a number, because it's easier to view our health woes as the direct result of an aberrant metric than as extremely complex diseases with systemic causes and implications.

So, what to do? Exercise more. Eat more vegetables. Find ways to lower your stress. In other words, take responsibility for your health, because there's no miracle drug to do it for you.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Korean Is Hard For Native English Speakers

A couple of days ago, as an experiment, I wrote my first blog post ever in a non-English language. It was an attempt to explain some of the reasons that Korean is hard to learn for native English speakers, so I figured I might as well try to write it in Korean. Those of you who actually read Korean can see how awkward the attempt was =).

In any case, the post came from an email conversation I had with The Korean from Ask a Korean, a fantastically well-written blog about all things Korea from the perspective of a Korean who moved to the United States during high school. Since I tend to geek out on language things, I figured I might as well post part of that conversation. An edited version follows.

---------

Out of the languages that I've attempted to learn so far, Korean has been the hardest. I've done a lot of meta thinking about learning Korean, and I think there are a number of reasons it's difficult for non-Koreans (and especially Westerners) to learn:

1) Obviously, the…

영어가 모국어인 사람들은 왜 한국어를 배우기가 어려운 이유

이 포스트는 내 처음 한국어로 블로그 포스트인데, 한국어에 대하니까 잘 어울린다. =) 자, 시작합시다! 왜 외국사람에게 한국어를 배우기가 어렵다? 난 한국어를 배우고 있는 사람이라서 이 문제에 대해 많이 생각하고 있었다. 여러가지 이유가 있는데 오늘 몇 이유만 논할 것이다.

1. 분명히 한국어 문법은 영어에 비해 너무 많이 다른다. 영어는 “오른쪽으로 분지(分枝)의 언어"라고 하는데 한국어는 “왼쪽으로 분지의 언어"이다. 뜻이 무엇이나요? 예를 보면 이해할 수 있을 것이다. 간단한 문장만 말하면 (외국어를 말하는 남들은 간단한 문장의 수준을 지낼 수가 약간 드물다), 간단한 걸 기억해야 돼: 영어는 “SVO”인데 한국어는 “SOV”이다. “I’m going to school”라고 한국어로는 “저는 학교에 가요"라고 말한다. 영어로 똑바로 번역하면 “I’m school to go”이다. 두 언어 다르는 게 목적어와 동사의 곳을 교환해야 한다. 별로 어렵지 않다. 하지만, 조금 더 어렵게 만들자. “I went to the restaurant that we ate at last week.” 한국어로는 “전 우리 지난 주에 갔던 식당에 또 갔어요"라고 말한다. 영어로 똑바로 번역하면 “I we last week went to restaurant to again went”말이다. 한국어가 왼쪽으로 분지 언어라서 문장 중에 왼쪽으로 확대한다! 이렇게 좀 더 쉽게 볼 수 있다: “전 (우리 지난 주에 갔던 식당)에 또 갔어요”. 주제가 “전"이고 동사가 “갔다"이고 목적어가 “우리 지난 주에 갔던 식당"이다. 영어 문장은 오른쪽으로 확대한다: I (S) went (V) to (the restaurant (that we went to (last week))) (O). 그래서 두 숙어 문장 만들고 싶으면 생각속에서도 순서를 변해야 된다.

2. 첫 째 점이니까 다른 사람을 자기 말을 아라들게 하고 싶으면, 충분히 …

Don't Take Korean Language Advice From Kyopos

I'm not sure why it took me so long to figure this out, but the last people you should take Korean language advice from are kyopos (foreign-born or raised Koreans). That being said, if you do follow their advice, you will get many laughs from Koreans. Some of my personal favorites, all of which actually happened to me:

- When I first got to Korea, I was at some open-air event, and during a break I started talking to one of the hosts. He said he was only a part-time host, so I asked him what his full-time job was, and he said "백수" (which is slang for "unemployed guy"). I asked him what that was, and he replied, "Comedian". So then the next few people I met, I proudly told I was a baeksu. (Edit: Actually, this guy was Korean Korean, not kyopo.)

- Next, a kyopo who lived in the apartment I moved into back in 2010 asked me what I was doing in Korea, and I told him I was starting a company, and asked how to say that in Korean in case people ask. He told me…