Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
1 byte added ,  14:45, August 24, 2016
Spelling/Grammar Check, typos fixed: Therefore → Therefore,, supress → suppress
Line 13: Line 13:  
''Statins do much more than helping protecting against cholesterol-plaque build-up in arteries and from heart attacks: they reduce inflamation in veins, reduce fracture risk in osteoporosis, slow down progression of Alzheimer's disease and congestive heart failure, and may help acceptance of transplanted organs, and produce anti-inflammatory effects, antioxidant effects and antithrombotic effects.''
 
''Statins do much more than helping protecting against cholesterol-plaque build-up in arteries and from heart attacks: they reduce inflamation in veins, reduce fracture risk in osteoporosis, slow down progression of Alzheimer's disease and congestive heart failure, and may help acceptance of transplanted organs, and produce anti-inflammatory effects, antioxidant effects and antithrombotic effects.''
   −
- and  from yet another reliable article:<ref>Chronic kidney disease (CKD) Management and General Practice, The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners), April 13, 2012</ref>
+
- and  from yet another reliable article:<ref>Chronic kidney disease (CKD) Management and General Practice, The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, April 13, 2012</ref>
    
''Statins slightly improve functioning of kidneys and slows down deterioration of kidneys caused by aging.
 
''Statins slightly improve functioning of kidneys and slows down deterioration of kidneys caused by aging.
Line 33: Line 33:  
==THE CAUSES OF THE CONTROVERSY==
 
==THE CAUSES OF THE CONTROVERSY==
   −
The use of statins is highly controversial, which has roots in the controversy about [[atherosclerosis]] and about [[cholesterol]] whom statins supposedly supress. It is true that [[atherosclerosis]] is a real medical problem, and it is also true that the imperative to use statins was unjustifiably imposed on US government, on American doctors and on American public, without prior scientific proof (see article [[Cholesterol]]).
+
The use of statins is highly controversial, which has roots in the controversy about [[atherosclerosis]] and about [[cholesterol]] whom statins supposedly suppress. It is true that [[atherosclerosis]] is a real medical problem, and it is also true that the imperative to use statins was unjustifiably imposed on US government, on American doctors and on American public, without prior scientific proof (see article [[Cholesterol]]).
   −
The second cause of the great controversy about statins is the enormous amount of money involved in statins. The price of some statins, one-month supply, is more than 500 dollars; multiplied by millions of user, the profits are likely to be monumental. Pharmaceutical companies are commonly accused of greed, but they rebuke that accusation, blaming the excessive government regulations that impose on them such procedures, that it takes average twenty years from developing a new drug to the final approval by the US Government. That is true, but in Canada the regulations are about the same, yet the before-the-insurance prices of drugs are only a half of the American ones. Therefore consumer organizations blame the powerful pharmaceutical lobbying in USA, so powerful that both American insurance companies and the Government, accept prices twice higher than those in Canada. So who deserves the blame? The greedy manufacturers, the regulations, the lobbying, the lenient health-insurance organizations, or the US Government organizations and the lawmakers? Deservedly, “'''All the above.'''”
+
The second cause of the great controversy about statins is the enormous amount of money involved in statins. The price of some statins, one-month supply, is more than 500 dollars; multiplied by millions of user, the profits are likely to be monumental. Pharmaceutical companies are commonly accused of greed, but they rebuke that accusation, blaming the excessive government regulations that impose on them such procedures, that it takes average twenty years from developing a new drug to the final approval by the US Government. That is true, but in Canada the regulations are about the same, yet the before-the-insurance prices of drugs are only a half of the American ones. Therefore, consumer organizations blame the powerful pharmaceutical lobbying in USA, so powerful that both American insurance companies and the Government, accept prices twice higher than those in Canada. So who deserves the blame? The greedy manufacturers, the regulations, the lobbying, the lenient health-insurance organizations, or the US Government organizations and the lawmakers? Deservedly, “'''All the above.'''”
    
The third source of the confusion is the corrupting link between pharmaceutical manufacturers and universities and other research organizations. At most of American universities, research is funded predominantly by grants. This often presents university professors a difficult choice: to produce honest research data, and risk severing connection with the grantor, or “stretch” the data and continue with the research grants. That is especially evident in the case of statin research, e.g. five large studies have been conducted on comparison of health benefits of statins vs. their cost. Each of those studies “scientifically proved” that their sponsor’s product was the most health/cost effective. That is clearly a moral prostitution with grave effects on health and well-being of people who trust university professors.
 
The third source of the confusion is the corrupting link between pharmaceutical manufacturers and universities and other research organizations. At most of American universities, research is funded predominantly by grants. This often presents university professors a difficult choice: to produce honest research data, and risk severing connection with the grantor, or “stretch” the data and continue with the research grants. That is especially evident in the case of statin research, e.g. five large studies have been conducted on comparison of health benefits of statins vs. their cost. Each of those studies “scientifically proved” that their sponsor’s product was the most health/cost effective. That is clearly a moral prostitution with grave effects on health and well-being of people who trust university professors.
Block, SkipCaptcha, apieditor, Automoderated users, Bots, edit, ratelimit-exempt
58,183

edits

Navigation menu