Skip to content
New Cholesterol Guidelines
avatar
bobby75703 posted:
Stumbled into this today. Physician blogs on his viewpoint on the new cholesterol guidelines.

http://www.communitycatalyst.org/blog/the-statin-fiasco#.Uwvan_ldWSp
Reply
FirstPrevious12NextLast
 
avatar
iride6606 responded:
Fact based science response, no emotions;

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/new-cholesterol-guidelines/
 
avatar
bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
I thought this doctor was very observant. clearly he noted the contradictions. Emotions has nothing to do with it. Its about exercising discernment and good judgement.
 
avatar
iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
Funny, you should read the Doctor's profile
 
avatar
bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
He makes excellent observations.
 
avatar
iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
Too funny, you still obviously don't read anything I post. SHE is a very interesting person;


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_A._Hall
 
avatar
bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
iride, I was referring to Stephen Smith MD of my original post when I said "he".

Hadn't met a girl named Stephen before.
 
avatar
bobby75703 replied to bobby75703's response:
This thread is about the blog of a physician who gives his observations and opinions of the new cholesterol guidelines.

http://www.communitycatalyst.org/blog/the-statin-fiasco#.UxOta_ldWSq

Dr. Stephen Smith is a he, not a "she" and I can't find anything wrong with his profile.
 
avatar
iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
Pretty sure your we're referring to my post and the blog cited, but we'll go with that. Too bad your doctor Smith can't have the same level of "no emotion"


I hope the next "expert panel" that American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology put together to come up with new guidelines will do a better job to prevent conflicts of interest from casting doubt on their recommendations for improving the quality of patient treatment


Sure sounds like criticism and emotion to me. FYI, check his profile a bit closer and see his affiliations. I though disclosure was important to you, maybe not as much as you have stated previously. I got a good laugh out of it, you may not.
 
avatar
iride6606 replied to iride6606's response:
FYI, he's not even accurate. His statement;


How could a group of such smart cardiologists not have seen what was so evident to me? Maybe the fact that half the cardiologists on the "expert panel" that created these new guidelines received payments from drug companies could have played a role? We know from social science literature that having such financial conflicts of interest can subtly and unconsciously affect judgment.


is wrong. Any member with any possible conflict were not included in the vote. Just a little more research would have caught that.
 
avatar
bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
I was only referring to the blog by Dr. Stephen Smith. Nothing else. Sorry there was a misunderstanding. Have a good one.
 
avatar
bobby75703 replied to bobby75703's response:
Dr. Smith is not the only physician to make these observations.
 
avatar
iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
No, just the one you cited. Did you find his conflict of interest?
 
avatar
bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
Sorry iride, but its not just the Doctor I cited. There are others.

Every time the cholesterol guidelines are revised, it expands the number of people taking statins. At first doctors took this in stride. However with this latest revision which could double the number of people taking statins, there is increased skepticism. More eyebrows are being raised than ever before.


Professor Rita Redberg and Dr. John Abramson have voiced their concerns over the new guidelines, and it was picked up by the media.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the huge conflict of interest in increasing the number of people taking statins. As long as a guy has a pulse and is breathing it should be obvious.

As a result, the new guidelines have stirred up huge controversy.
 
avatar
iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
They have also stirred up a considerable promise is the treatment of high cholesterol.




Why should it be obvious, because a group of doctors say so? Where is this overly obvious conflict of interest? They didn't even allow the doctors on the panel to vote if they ever had ties to a drug company. That could almost be reverse bias.


That alone should make it obvious to anyone with a pulse that there was no conflict in the final decision.


Featuring Experts

There are no Expert stories for this community right now

Helpful Tips

Lower cholesterol without drugs
I also had cholesterol numbers that kept inching higher. At 237 my dr. suggested meds. I don't want to go that route so took a good look at ... More
Was this Helpful?
20 of 22 found this helpful

Related News

There was an error with this newsfeed

Related Drug Reviews

  • Drug Name User Reviews

Report Problems With Your Medications to the FDA

FDAYou are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.