Readers of our July 28 cover story on the new cholesterol-lowering drugs were wary. Suggested one: “We should change our diets and exercise.” Another warned that “the cure could be worse than the disease.” A cynic huffed, “A pill for every ill? Please!”
THE SKINNY ON CHOLESTEROL
Your July 28 cover story shows again that we’ve created an overmedicated society (“You Want Statins With That?”). Until we wake up to the understanding that the majority of cardiovascular-related deaths are preventable, we will continue to sanction a “pill for every ill” mentality. As you state, someone with perfectly normal blood cholesterol can still be at risk for type 2 diabetes. We must stop encouraging unbalanced solutions. Highlighting separate inventions (drugs and special therapies) without emphasizing prevention as the best way to tackle today’s health crisis makes great headlines, but ensures fulfillment of the saying “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
Bernard E. Bulwer, M.D.
Lown Cardiovascular Center
Brookline, Massachusetts
I try to educate my patients and my children on the necessity of wellness care: diet, exercise and mind-body medicine. But you seem to promote the idea that overweight people can eat like there’s no tomorrow because there is a pill that can lower cholesterol. We may reduce heart disease, but it will only be replaced by diabetes and a host of other weight-related diseases.
Denise Chranowski, M.D.
Langhorne, Pennsylvania
Many of us cannot take statins because of the harmful side effects. Rhabdomyolysis, which causes muscle pain, is one such effect. Bayer took its statin drug, Baycol, off the market because of deaths resulting from its use. One drug doesn’t fit all.
Michael R. Greenwood
Corea, Maine
That statins can help slow down Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis and osteoporosis is wonderful news. For me, however, statins caused so many side effects that I had to stop taking them. I have found something better to lower my very high cholesterol: I stopped loading up on carbohydrates. No one seems to advertise the fact that cutting out a lot of sugar and flour products can lower cholesterol count. Mine dropped 60 points, and I’m not the only one to whom this has happened. I followed the high-protein, low-carbohydrate Atkins diet to lose weight, and found that it also lowered my cholesterol level—what a great side effect.
Mary Lou Bjornaas
Prescott, Arizona
I am 60 years old, with a less than ideal lipid profile and a family history of heart disease. It is disconcerting that you didn’t mention the use of niacin, a much cheaper and, in some ways, more effective way to control lipid levels than either statin drugs or strict diets. Statins lower cholesterol by lowering LDL (the “bad” cholesterol), but they do not raise HDL (the “good” cholesterol). And let’s not forget the huge profits large pharmaceutical companies stand to make. Niacin will raise HDL.
Caroline Bliss-Kandel, R.N., M.S.N.
Englewood, Colorado
I am a 53-year-old Asian male, 5 feet 8 inches tall and 160 pounds. I have never smoked, drunk or used drugs. I run, I lift weights seven days a week and am also a vegetarian—yet I suffer from both high blood pressure and high cholesterol. I am on four different medications to keep the numbers down. Even though you try your hardest to stay healthy, sometimes you just cannot win.
Ryoichi Morita
Coarsegold, California
A front-page ad for costly statins and no mention of inexpensive vitamins that can reduce heart disease. No wonder Americans are relying more on pricey pharmaceuticals—and creating a health-care crisis. For example, only last year doctors at the University of California, San Diego, found that inexpensive supplements of folic acid and vitamins B6 and B12 can work wonders against heart disease.
Gina Pea
San Mateo, California
Statins are a class of drugs that have a huge impact now, and even greater potential. Physicians are continually finding new types of patients who benefit from this cholesterol-lowering therapy, as was shown in the various individuals you featured (most of them Mayo Clinic patients). Preliminary research by Dr. Maurice Sarano, a Mayo Clinic cardiologist, suggests that statins could be a new treatment for aortic-valve disease. Sarano is now planning a larger, double-blinded trial to confirm his findings, which could lead to using statins to eliminate the need for valve-replacement surgery in many patients.
Lee Aase
Communications Consultant, Mayo Clinic
Rochester, Minnesota
I’m sure your cover photo of a slice of juicy steak was meant to evoke the medical horrors of cholesterol, but I bet it had the opposite effect on many of your readers. It did for me. I ran straight out to the supermarket to buy a thick, juicy sirloin.
Stacey Oziel
San Francisco, California
Thank you for the information on statins. Your article said that they help reduce cholesterol. But I don’t want to rely on drugs from the beginning. I believe regular exercise is effective not only in reducing cholesterol, but also for improving physical strength and tolerance. Besides, how can we be sure that statins don’t have side effects when they are taken over a long period?
Shinji Nakano
Ichikawa, Japan
Your feature on statin drugs was informative and comprehensive. But, as a cardiologist, I’m bothered by your seeming encouragement for people to continue munching fat- or cholesterol-rich foods as long as they take such drugs. Just because a “fix” is available, it should not be an excuse to perpetuate the burger-and-fries culture. High blood cholesterol is often associated with obesity, whose incidence is on the rise, and all the other complications that come with it. Although statins may bring down your cholesterol, they won’t bring down your weight. And weight loss is just as important in preventing heart disease as lowering blood cholesterol. Unfortunately, weight reduction is something that cannot be achieved by popping a pill just yet. Until then, better watch that scale as well.
Roberto A. Palileo, M.D.
Makati City, Philippines
InsertArt(2004324) I appreciated your in-depth cover package on statin drugs and cholesterol, and am especially delighted that the story alerted the public about noteworthy studies by shedding light on the role of cholesterol in severe neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease and multiple sclerosis. However, one issue neglected in your coverage was the risk of statin-induced complications. A recent study led by researchers from Denmark and Spain concluded that “long-term exposure to statins may substantially increase the risk of polyneuropathy.”
Alexei R. Koudinov, M.D.
Managing Editor, Neurobiology of Lipids
Rehovot, Israel
What a show of blind optimism, promising a plethora of benefits on the basis of ifs, buts and maybes. The evidence that statins may have protective effects against Alzheimer’s or bone loss is sketchy at best. In the real world, even the cardiovascular benefits of statins haven’t lived up to the promise shown in clinical trials.
Michael Woodhead
Sydney, Australia
A GUERRILLA WAR IN IRAQ
How come our leader doesn’t even realize that our armed forces are at war (“Still Fighting Saddam,” July 21)? And are we still at war in Afghanistan, or did he declare the war against terrorism over? The only reports on casualties or combat come out of Iraq, none from Afghanistan. Did we win or lose that war? Or will Al Qaeda’s next attack on our homeland determine that? The Taliban is undefeated and regrouping. So where’s Osama bin Laden? And where is Saddam Hussein?
L. D. Mattox
Columbus, Ohio
Americans were quick to support the Iraq war on scant evidence of WMD, giving the benefit of the doubt to an arrogant and intemperate president who is more inclined to juvenile boasting than to checking facts or understanding criticism. They ridiculed those who raised questions, foolishly dismissing contradictory evidence and opinion. Now they line up behind the excuse “we were misled.” How unconvincing. America started this war, and its people must bear the consequences of arrogance and unquestioning belief in their president. A polite suggestion: next time, look, listen, question and think a little more. Given your own WMD and recent actions, the world has reason to mistrust your simple-mindedness.
C. B. Katzko
Shanghai, China
With distastefully gung-ho, flag-waving behavior, America has already started its bullying tactics with Iran, Syria and North Korea, pointing its WMD finger at Iraq—where none have been found. Iraq was invaded to free it from a dictator? Many countries have oppressive regimes; what was so different about Iraq? America enters into wars to protect its own interests: putting this dictator here, taking that one out there. Even Saddam was supported at one time by America. Now who’s going to replace him? Bush needs to grow up, and talk with those dreaded antiwar Europeans who had valid concerns (about alienating the Muslim world and inciting countless acts of terrorism) and who were exercising real democracy.
Stefan Raymondsson
Reykjavik, Iceland
A GUERRILLA WAR IN IRAQ
How come our leader doesn’t even realize that our armed forces are at war (“Still Fighting Saddam,” July 21)? And are we still at war in Afghanistan, or did he declare the war against terrorism over? The only reports on casualties or combat come out of Iraq, none from Afghanistan. Did we win or lose that war? Or will Al Qaeda’s next attack on our homeland determine that? The Taliban is undefeated and regrouping. So where’s Osama bin Laden? And where is Saddam Hussein?
L. D. Mattox
Columbus, Ohio
Americans were quick to support the Iraq war on scant evidence of WMD, giving the benefit of the doubt to an arrogant and intemperate president who is more inclined to juvenile boasting than to checking facts or understanding criticism. They ridiculed those who raised questions, foolishly dismissing contradictory evidence and opinion. Now they line up behind the excuse “we were misled.” How unconvincing. America started this war, and its people must bear the consequences of arrogance and unquestioning belief in their president. A polite suggestion: next time, look, listen, question and think a little more. Given your own WMD and recent actions, the world has reason to mistrust your simple-mindedness.
C. B. Katzko
Shanghai, China
With distastefully gung-ho, flag-waving behavior, America has already started its bullying tactics with Iran, Syria and North Korea, pointing its WMD finger at Iraq—where none have been found. Iraq was invaded to free it from a dictator? Many countries have oppressive regimes; what was so different about Iraq? America enters into wars to protect its own interests: putting this dictator here, taking that one out there. Even Saddam was supported at one time by America. Now who’s going to replace him? Bush needs to grow up, and talk with those dreaded antiwar Europeans who had valid concerns (about alienating the Muslim world and inciting countless acts of terrorism) and who were exercising real democracy.
Stefan Raymondsson
Reykjavik, Iceland
DON’T FISH THE FISH!
We are so greedy. We can’t seem to have enough fish, even though they are almost depleted (“Are the Oceans Dying?” July 14). I wonder if in the future, when the fish have disappeared, we will end up having to eat plankton or holographic sashimi. There is still time for us to do something. But once the fish are gone, there will be no way to replace them.
Erika Tiu
San Juan, Philippines
AN UNDERGROUND AQUIFER?
In your article “Sky High” (“Inventions That Will Change the World,” June 30/July 7), you attribute the following sinister-sounding sentence to inventor Stephen Salter: “The Israelis take 40 percent of their water from the occupied territories, and that means they can never give them up.” The truth is, there is an underground aquifer that is half under the occupied territories and half under Israel. Israel pumps 40 percent of its water from the underground aquifer only from wells within Israel.
Hank Nussbacher
Ginot Shomron, Israel
AN OCCUPATION BY ANY NAME...
I’d like to know which independent source helped you figure out that the Iraqi resistance originated in the Baath Party (“How to Make Friends in Iraq,” June 23). Isn’t it just as likely that any Iraqi could react adversely to the U.S. occupation when even America’s straw man Ahmad Chalabi is seriously upset? Your article sounds to me like propaganda. You are right, however, in saying that the occupation lacks legitimacy.
Caminati Franco
Brussels, Belgium
NOT MUSLIM, NOT ANTI-AMERICAN
Nigeria, like so many other nations, was right in voicing its objections to the Coalition’s war in Iraq. But does that by itself make Nigeria anti-American (“Welcome to the Real World,” June 23)? After all, where is the sense in killing and maiming innocent Iraqis—what Americans euphemistically call “collateral damage”? It may not be evident now, but the Arab psyche is daily being underestimated by America’s policy wonks. Wait and see: the Iraqi adventure will turn into another major quagmire. Furthermore, I love your magazine but I must point out that, contrary to what you claim, Nigeria is not a Muslim country; it is a secular nation.
Mike Ogbonna
via internet
© 2003 Newsweek, Inc.
