|
medpundit |
||
 |
 |
|
Monday, September 27, 2004'There is strong evidence to suggest that an objective, independent reevaluation of the scientific evidence from the five new studies of statin therapy would lead to different conclusions than those presented by the current NCEP,' reads the CSPI letter, signed by 35 cardiologists, nutritionists and other health professionals. 'The studies cited do not demonstrate that statins benefit women of any age or men over 70 who do not already have heart disease,' said John Abramson, a clinical instructor in primary care at Harvard Medical School, who signed the letter. 'Furthermore, we are concerned about the findings from one of the five cited studies showing that statin therapy significantly increases the risk of cancer in the elderly.' The Center for Science in the Public Interest is a nutritional advocacy group, which is, unlike the AHA, open about their funding. Here's their letter, which actually makes a good case against the new cholesterol-lowering guidelines. Like Rathergate, this is long overdue. Like Rathergate, for too long we've been handed down guidelines by people who have personal and financial interest in presenting them - from prostate cancer screening to mammograms in young women, to the use of anti-depressants for such ills as "social anxiety," with very little scrutiny. But, like Rathergate, it probably won't make much difference in how things are done. UPDATE: Meanwhile, there's a movement afoot to make statins over the counter in the U.S., as they are in Britain. posted by Sydney on 9/27/2004 07:53:00 AM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|
