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) Obvi

Stuttering in Korea

I had given up on English. It's my native language, but I figured after 30 some-odd years of disfluent speech, it was time to try something else. So I signed up for language classes in Korean, rationalizing that if I was going to try to teach myself how to speak, I might as well learn a new language along the way. This might seem completely insane, but when the prevailing theme of your conscious thoughts for multiple decades is some variant of "Why can't I say what I want to say?", you come up with lots of crazy ideas. For background, I've been a person who stutters for my entire life. I wrote about it on this blog a few years ago, so I think it's time for a followup. I've learned a lot since then, about myself and about stuttering, but in this post I simply want to give some insight into what it's actually like to stutter, and how my speech has changed over time. After the last stuttering post, the predominant reaction I got from friends was ei

Is It Worth It To Learn Korean?

Learning Korean as a non-Asian foreigner is an exercise in masochism. Note that I specify "non-Asian". Why does that make a difference? Simply because Koreans possess a deeply-ingrained belief that non-Asians are incapable of speaking Korean. The self-fulfilling prophecy of it is that since Koreans expect you to be incapable of speaking Korean, due to this mental block, they are likely to not understand you regardless of your proficiency level. Additionally, they won't respond to you with normal Korean like they would respond to an Asian person, because they assume you couldn't possibly understand. You will rarely ever have an opportunity to hear natural Korean, because Koreans simply won't speak it with you unless 1) they are open-minded and awesome (meaning they have probably lived abroad - thank you to all of you), or 2) they have known you long enough that they've gotten past the odd sight of a foreigner speaking Korean. In short, nearly every time you o