NIH on Abbott Labs - "They lied"

Bruce Krasting's picture
If you watch TV you’ve seen these ads. They’re lies.

Abbott Lab's cholesterol drug, Niaspan, got a patent way back in 1997.
The folks at Abbott have been selling a ton of this crap ever since. It
is in the Top 50 of all drug sales. I don’t have the total
cumulative sales, but in 2009 global revenue came to $717,000,000, in
2010 it was more than $900mm. Over the life of the drug, total sales are
in the tens of billions. The stuff is worthless. It might even be bad for you.

The National Institute of Health did a five-year study. The conclusion:

"The lack of effect on cardiovascular events is unexpected and a striking contrast to the results of previous trials and observational studies," said Jeffrey Probstfield, M.D.

NPR had this guy (another expert) on air to discuss the findings. When
asked to comment on the results of the NIH study he had this to say:

"The drug did not change the health outcome at all."

"We’re not as smart as we thought we were."

The Congressional Budget Office did a write up
about this last week. The CBO found that in 2008 spending for drug
promotion came to $21 billion in just the US. Of that ¼ was spent on ads
to consumers. The CBO raises the very legitimate question of whether
this promotional effort by the drug companies is actually educating the
public or just manipulating the public to buy drugs that are either not
needed or simply don’t work at all.

I bitch and moan about the banks, the Fed, Treasury, the SEC and the
other financial players that seem to be lying and cheating us on a
regular basis. Add to that list the drug companies. The big pharmas are
the same as the banks. They don’t really care about their customers.
They just want to sell pills and make profits. They have the FDA in
their pocket. As usual, the average citizen gets thrown under a bus.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
baboran's picture


 I do not disagree with your premise. We do not need to tie up the board going back and forth on this. An acute myocardial infarction (heart attack) is indeed caused by inflammation resulting in plaque rupture, platelet deposition etc. And it is not necessarily the most severe plaques that are most prone to rupture. And much of the beneficial effects of statins are related to the anti-inflammatory properties. All true. But that does not change the fact that lowering the LDL does indeed retard the rate of plaque progression and that other anti-inflammatory drugs (aspirin, ibuprofen, even prednisone) do not affect cardiovascular morbidity and mortality to the same extent as the statins.

I appreciate your reply and do not want to start a medical debate. My pirpose was simply to refute some of the "way out there" comments above us on the board. And to hope that the comments on financial and political events that affect our lives are more fact based and soundly reasoned than the anecdotes about bad medicines and homeopathic cures.




baboran's picture

I am now worried-very worried. I have followed the posting of many contributers with interest-under the assumption that many ZH contributers are more informed and wiser than the lemmings who follow MSM and the doctrine espoused by politicos. And while some are "way out there" most of you are clearly intelligent and well read. But after  reviewing the comments on this posting I have my doubts.

 I am a physician who treats patients with coronary artery disease and lipid abnormalities so I know more than a little about this topic. This study being stopped early is very big news- because it runs contrary to the "common knowledge" and therefore has extremely important implications for patient care. I am certainly no apologist for big pharma and therefore I am in no way debating the criticisms leveled at the indusrty. And for those homeopaths among you who are debating the evil "drugs" please note that Niacin is a naturally occurring vitamin (B3).

 The facts are as followyou who care about facts- rather than anecdotal stories of what healed your buddy, neighbor or long lost aunt) :

1- Low HDL is bad. This is the "good" cholesterol and if you are genetically inclined to have low levels you are definately at increased risk of developing ASVD (atherosclerotic vascular disease).

2- Niacin can increase the HDL level in a patient.

 Now those are the facts. And note that there are very few things that can increase a patients HDL level and none as much as Niacin. An assumption was made that because low HDL levels are associated with an increased risk of ASVD and because niacin can increase HDL levels that niacin would decrease the risk of ASVD and the clinical sequelae of myocardial infarction and stroke. That is what failed to be demonstrated in this study. The group who got a statin (one of those evil "drugs") and niacin did no better than those who got the statin alone. Many studies have demonstrated beyond any doubt that patients with high LDL (bad cholesterol) do much better when treated with a statin than when not treated with that particular class of "evil drugs". Ergo it would appear that the low HDL in patients is a genetic harbinger of increased risk of ASVD and while reducing the LDL with a statin may improve CV prognosis increasing the HDL with niacin will not.

This is why medicine must be based on science not voodoo and anecdote. Develop a hypothesis, test it and proceed in accordance with the data. The hypothesis that by increasing HDL levels niacin will bestow a reduced risk of cardiovascular events has failed to be proven. Hence there is no reason for it to be prescribed as an adjunct to proper diet and exercise and a statin drug in patients with ASVD.


bjennings's picture

Hey Doc:

If someone wanted niacin, what's wrong with broccoli, carrots, avocados, sweet potatoes and peanut butter?  What doctors can't seem to grasp is that when it comes to nature there are no short cuts withouts nasty side effects.

I know you, as a member of this profession, would prefer that we the public just dummy up and take you at your every word.  How stupid would that be when it comes to our health?

We all can  agree that niacin is an essential vitamin but how could it have become essential without us evolving with it incorporated into our diet?

Ok so let's say Niaspan (which by your own admission is simply Niacin) is ok to take.  What cocktail of additional medicines would you need to take to counter the negative side effects?  What happens when your body gets too much niacin?  I know we can play the six degrees of Kevin Bacon but in this case I bet we could play the six degrees of benzodiezapene.  How many additional drugs would we need before the patient says they are depressed and the doc starts you on Tamazapam, lorazapam, xanax, etc... and then you can kiss your normal life good bye.



Orly's picture

With all due respect, doctor, it seems that we are not exploring the true root cause of atherosclerotic plaquing and the relationship to coronary artery disease.

One can lower the LDLs all day long and hike the HDL at the same time (in other words, not just the ratio...) and there would still be sclerotic plaque build-up.  This is because it is an inflammatory disease and not one related to hyperlipidemia and hypercholesterolemia in particular.

It is kind of like saying that the reason there are so many strip-malls on I-45 is because they make too much concrete.  We are confusing the mortar with the process and that is just not correct.

Statin drugs work because they have a high propensity for controlling the effects of inflammation.  By concentrating on solely having a greater HDL/LDL ratio, we are looking in the wrong place and giving people liver disease in the meantime.

"The hypothesis that by increasing HDL levels niacin will bestow a reduced risk of cardiovascular events has failed to be proven."

Now you know why.

For what its worth.


falak pema's picture

when you buy into a system you live and die with owns you and grows on a hundred headed hydra...we are there now...lets hope we find a Hercules to slay the beasts of world corporatocracy...its a formidable and 'non identifiable' it has all government and notational, even multilateral agencies, aligned behind it...Ave Caesar!

Dburn's picture

Read an article on a new drug for MS.

250,000 Patients a year with MS, and the drug market to treat the patients is 40B. One of the analysts had high hopes for the company if the drug passes final testing especially if they raise their prices on their other drugs.

40B a year. That is mind boggling.

Dburn's picture

A little more detail. Wonder whose gonna step up and take responsibility for the 3.4 Billion spent in 2006?


Abbott paid $3.4 billion for Kos Pharmaceuticals in 2006 to acquire Niaspan, a version of niacin that has led a new wave of heart drugs to raise good cholesterol, as Bloomberg notes. The findings may also jeopardize medicines in that group being developed by Merck, Eli Lilly and Roche, the news service adds.

Read more: Abbott down after NIH halts Niaspan study - FiercePharma
geekgrrl's picture

My thanks to Bruce for posting this, and also to the many folks who have commented. Especially the alternative and naturopathy oriented folks.

I first became aware of the lies of the pharma companies around a decade ago. I was researching endocrine disruping chemicals, and learned that one of the earliest examples of the lies of pharma was a drug called diethylstilbestrol (DES). Discovered by Sir Charles Dodds in 1938 as a synthetic estrogen, it was soon produced initially by Eli Lilly, and then followed by hundreds of other knock-offs. Promoted to prevent miscarraige and stillbirth, it was prescribed to 4-8 million pregnant women in the US alone from around 1940-1971. By the late '50s, it was promoted to "prevent abortion, miscarriage, and premature labor," and was "recommended for routine prophylaxis in ALL pregnancies." Promotional material produced by the Grant chemical company in 1957 in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology went so far as to claim that DES would result in "bigger and stronger babies, too." (See

But by 1971, problems were emerging; some daughters born to women treated with DES in pregnancy were developing a very rare cancer, clear-cell adenocarcinoma of the vagina. A famous paper was published by Herbst and colleages in the New England Journal of Medicine: Herbst AL, Poskanzer DC, Robboy SJ, Friedlander L, Scully RE. Prenatal exposure to stilbestrol: a prospective comparison of exposed female offspring with unexposed controls. N Engl J Med 1975;292:334-9. Since that time, there have been thousands of published studies on DES, but I would be willing to bet only a handfull of zh'ers has ever even heard of DES. For a partial list of references, see:

The whole DES fiasco has been written about in many books, but one of the best histories is in the book "Worse than the Disease: Pitfalls of Medical Progress," by Diana B. Dutton, that looked at the history of DES and the profound manipulation of the regulatory process and many other elements of this story. Readers might be interested to know that one of the earliest researchers, Karl J. Karnasky, who adminstered the drug to dogs to see what would happen is quoted as saying "the dang dogs were dying like flies." But officials from E.R. Squibb and Sons urged him to try DES on women (humans) instead. Low and behold, it didn't kill them, and in fact stopped cases of uterine bleeding. Thus began the massive human experiment whose lessons, I am afraid, have not only not been learned, but which are instead being repeated over and over again in every new drug marketed to the public.

The real irony is that it had been observed that if DES were fed to poultry and livestock, the feed-conversion ratio increased significantly. Meaning that less feed was necessary to achieve a given final weight. Use in agricultural applications began in 1942, soon after FDA approval in human pregnancy. In 1972, FDA Commisioner Charles Edwards is quoted as saying: "Common sense tells us that when we find from one-half to two parts of diethystilbestrol per billion of beef liver, it probably doesn't mean a heck of a lot." The irony here is that more recent evidence has shown that levels on the order of parts per trillion are significant, and in fact, DES is now considered to be one of the "gold standards" when it comes to chemicals that can mimic estrogen. But the bottom line is that most people alive today have been fed DES in their meats, and have been over a long period of time been exposed to an extremely potent estrogen. One 2003 paper talks about these effects on the mechanistic level, using DES as a positive estrogenic control:;jsession...

Anyway, sorry for the rambly post, but I'm not surprised that that pharma companies lied about Niaspan. They have been doing this same song and dance successfully for over 70 years, and I don't see any signs that they will stop. The only solution I see is to avoid pharma drugs as much as possible, and only in cases of life and death: mainly antibiotics and cancer treatment drugs. But both have downstream effects and at some point, we will lose this battle of technology over nature. The real solution is to provide the body with the means to heal itself, which is what alternative and naturopathic medicine is all about.

Alpha Monkey's picture

I'd say if we can get more countries doing things like this, the tide may turn.



Bruce Krasting's picture

Tks for your input Geek. Not a ramble at all. I would say informative.


Crab Cake's picture

I would like to add marijuana to the list of useful non big pharma remedies. I don't know of any better antinausea or anti anxiety remedy. This country has become strictly about power and profit. People can't even do what they want with their own bodies. Freedom? A state by and for the people? If we aren't free, then we live under a tyranny; it is our duty to revolt. Time to do something, anything, you can to resist.

cranky-old-geezer's picture

Thanks for posting this Bruce.

The most intense area of government fascism and tyranny these days might well be medicine. Medical tyranny makes TSA look like cub scouts. 

And guess what.  They have the worst performance record of any occupation, any industry, any profession, anywhere on the planet. 

If curing is the yardstick of success, not treating, not controlling, CURING, they're pretty close to ZERO.

ANY other industry or profession with such a horrible performance record wouldn't be in business very long.

The best thing Obamacare could do is set strict performance standards for doctors.  If you wana get paid you better CURE.  Not treat.  Not control.  CURE. 

The best question you can ask a doctor is how long is it going to take and how much is it going to cost to CURE this illness?  Not treat it, not control it, CURE it.

Wait for an answer.  See what they say.

After all, they're professionals aren't they?

DriveByLurker's picture

I agree with the general trend of the comments, that one should have a healthy skepticism regarding mainstream medical thinking, and should be mindful of alternative models and treatments.

That being said, I have had remarkable results from this Big Pharma product and I commend it to you all:

Dburn's picture


Still laughing. Now cracking up.,

Here is a link that works as the site unfortunately has come down.

Buck Johnson's picture

This is what happens when we have an economy of winner takes all.  They lie, cheat and steal.  If nobody is watching and making them pay, then they will continue to do it.  Heck, I'll be willing to do 2 years or pay 40 million in fines if I take home 300 million, thats just plain good business.

onlooker's picture

Bruce, great reading on a Sunday evening.


Food sources, Beef.

I raise beef cattle in East Texas, not for profit but more for the agriculture tax break. There are no known to me rules or restrictions besides not selling a diseased cow at auction. I can chemical and feed about anything I want. Here is what we don’t do—


we don’t use toxic fly killer chemicals on the backs of our cows. I bought some, read the instructions and found that I needed to be covered and masked to use it. If I got it on my skin, I needed to wash immediately. So how do you use it on the cow with a calf and then sell it for meat consumption?? Well, kinda like weed killer, say Graze On. You spray it and it kills weeds but the cows can graze on it. Not good to get it on your skin or inhale, but let the cows eat it. Chemical fertilizer of the pellet type is ok cause the cows don’t eat it but it melts and run off into the water supply. Spray fertilizer, that the cows eat, has unknown results.


We do not use bulking feeds or growth chemicals, and we are going to stop using fertilizer and weed kill.


WHY do cow boys use weed kill and fertilizer? The imported grasses like Costal Bermuda are high production high protein producing grasses. Much more so than native grasses. But native grasses are less dependent on fertilizer and weed kill to survive. Better grass makes more fatter cows per acre.


We are going back to native grasses like Blue Stem starting with seeding this year. We will reduce our cattle growing capacity by at least 50% and more likely 65%. The reduced cost of no fertilizer and weed kill will also be reduced. Instead of furnishing 20 or so calves a year to the meat market, it may be 5 or 6. However they will be no chemical at all beef.


We went to see the government man about this and I think we will get about $300 to buy the seed (from the Government). I think they said it is funded by the Clean Air Act. I suspect that the clean water is more the goal. Stop the chemical run off of thousands of small farms if they can convert us to native grass and no fertilizer. Unfortunately this is not an aggressive Government program, you gotta stumble on to it.

Bruce Krasting's picture

Tks for this input. Always good to hear from a farmer. A real expert this time. Wish you well.


majia's picture

Thank you onlooker!!! I appreciate your dedication to healthy food.

We just found a local, grass-grown, organic beef rancher. We are so happy with the quality of the meat. It costs more, but is worth every penny!

minsky4ever's picture

The first time I saw a Niaspan ad I didn't pay too much attention to it. However, it was the lead ad in the next break and I realized this thing was more than two minutes long. Two minutes dedicated to one drug. As soon as I saw that I knew the drug was a scam. Just like Chantix before it which spent almost two minutes on how effective it was at helping people to quit smoking. Except those ads disappeared pretty quickly two years ago only to resurface recently with a plethora of things to look out for such as suicidal ideations, anger outbursts, mood swings, you know a few of the things when you get when you try to quit any drug cold turkey except this one was supposed to help.

Now I see ads for Cymbalta which claim to help people with lower back and joint pain. But if you listen to the requisite spiel you hear that all anti-depressants can cause problems! WTF? Off-label prescribing of an anti-depressant for back pain? Did you ever think you'd hear a warning about thoughts of suicide when you went to the doctor for something for lower back pain? How about just telling these people to exercise more and lose some of the fucking weight they're dragging around with them putting strain on their lumbar vertebrae?

And the ads from the HFCS people saying the body can't distinguish between corn sugar and other sugar. Oh, really? Then why do we need high fructose corn syrup leading to obesity in children, early onset diabetes, and more of our scarce tax dollars going to Archer Daniels Midland and other corporate thieves in the form of subsidies? We're paying this criminals to poison our families.

SilverFocker's picture

Aint no money in the cure, the money is in the treatment.........So we treat everything and make up shit as we go.

Hephasteus's picture

The fail it's everywhere.

Hollywood is not breaking even. They've generated a huge number of stars that they promise the moon to but can't deliver.

You can find similar fail in gaming industry, computer industry, drug industry, medical, etc etc. But the problem is it's all papered over. You never see it. Because the system is corrupt and has full faith and support of the taxpayer.

Microsoft has had to replace 2 and 3 xboxes for every one shipped. They simply make up xbox game sales numbers to generate buzz which never pans out. They lose 2.5 billion on internet presence in that last few years. They can't post a return on investment in just about anything.  Yet they are never forced to tell the truth and never run out of money. Though david einhorn has his eye on destroying them.

Same with facebook. They are stuck in willingess divergance. Anything popular is not profitable anything profitable is not popular.

Same with apple. They put out products cannabilze their market, rarely get new converts yet they facade like a growing expanding entity. The only inroads they've made is japan and those guys are dead and apple gets shot back in time to 1999 with 1999 market share and 158 billion market cap.

AMD is 6 billion market cap makes tons of cpus and gpu's and ARM is 14 billion market cap and simply sells licenses for their crappy cpu's.

Nothing makes sense because it's all lies. 60 percent of what's alive is dead and 40 percent of what's dead can never come to life.

The old addage of fake it till you make it is becoming fake it till you break it.

Vic Vinegar's picture

Hollywood is not breaking even.  They are raking in beaucoup bucks.  They can have 100 failures, but all it takes is one "Hangover 2" to make things right again.

Speaking of Hollywood, weren't Big Pharma's lies exposed in the Jake Gyllenhaal/Anne Hathaway film "Love and Other Drugs"? :O

Holistic medicine is where it's at.

Hephasteus's picture

No they are not. Bernie Madoff devastated hundreds of actors and actresses financially. Not hurt. DEVASTED. MGM lost 1.5 bllion last quarter alone. If by raking in beaucoup bucks you mean hemoraging cash then yes.

Hollywood is dying. Sony 3d projectors that cost 5 million a piece that can't display 2d movies right without changing the lense. The system so laden with film theft prevention code that if you try to touch it, it shuts itself off. Movie theaters are dying, BlueRay sales are dying. Cable subcription rates are dying, films that tank at box office hoping to make it up in HBO and dvd sales are dying.

Con artists don't tell the truth. Stars drunk smashing into cars yelling at people saying you are trying to steal from me. It's reached a toxicity level that assures it's destruction. It will entirely implode. It's understating it's failure and overstating it's success just like nearly every other corporation out there.

Things test and trend and then never happen.

This will trend this will not pop.

Bollywood tanks an american movie, hollywood tanks a swedish movie. They do not know the lines have been drawn and you shall not pass over them.

That song is a part of the collective concious and it will not be hijacked.


Vic Vinegar's picture

1) I almost took a job at MGM right about the time their financial troubles were coming to light. I was promised that if I got laid off, that I'd have six months severance. Pretty tempting, eh?  I decided against it as I'm not that much of a leech.

2) Stars did get devistated by Madoff. Did you year Kevin Bacon on Stern this week?

My point is perhaps we should just agree to disagree. Hollywood is a fucked up, crazy place. Stars are going to get drunk and crash into people. That's what they do.

But the big studios are doing just fine. And their management teams are just ruthless enough to see them through any Mad Max scenarios anyone can envision.

Speaking of Mad Max, who brought us that? :-)

Hephasteus's picture

Agreed good conversation.

There are other problems lurking under the surface that will affect hollywood but other people even more.

Vic Vinegar's picture

I just got back from watching Hangover 2.  It was a nice flick.

Heph, you have been dropping dimes on this site a long time.  Good luck to you and yours.


Orly's picture

It's always a good day when you show up around here.


uOptOut's picture

Don't blame Abbott! They were duped by KOS Pharma!

Actually I made good money on the long side when Abbott bought them out. KOS management must have known at the time when they were selling themselves that their vitamin had limited efficacy. Wonder how much it cost them to get the trial results they needed? Guess the shorts really did know best. Feel sorry for them. NOT!

Coldfire's picture

Everything good that the state touches withers and dies. Medicine is a prime example.

Misean's picture

Of course, were I to try and sell a Vitamin C routine as essentially beneficial to your long term health, I'd be put in jail.

Rusty_Shackleford's picture

Come on. 

This is just how science works people.  Sometimes your hypothesis is proven WRONG

You acknowledge, and move on.  This is what seperates science from politics.


The human body and it's biochemistry is unbelievably complex.  We know that people with high levels of HDL have less myocardial infarctions than people with low HDL.  High doses of Niacin is known to raise HDL, however, most people can't stand taking the stuff because it causes severe flushing at the doses needed to actually have an effect on HDL levels.  So, Abbott Labs comes up with a novel slow release mechanism that helps to reduce the flushing effects.  It patents it, and sells it so people can hopefully have less heart attacks.  However, as time goes by, and we get more data, it turns out that increasing HDL levels on their own does not actually decrease your primary endpoint (cardiovascular death).

What exactly is so nefarious about that?  It's how science works.

You acknowledge, and move on.


I'm not saying that the whole FDA/Big Pharma concept isn't corrupt, but that's more of a problem of the ridiculous concept of the State having the power to tell you what you can and can't put in your own body.  ( )


Believe me, there's plenty going on all around us whose only solution is a lot of boiled manila hemp cordage. 

But the normal progression of science aint one of em'.

Nobody "lied".  Their hypothesis was proven incorrect.


OldTrooper's picture

Nobody "lied".  Their hypothesis was proven incorrect.

Uh, no.  That's not what I see happened at all, Rusty.

They did not present a hypothesis to the FDA.  This drug was not approved based on a hypothesis.  They didn't sell nearly a billion dollars worth of this useless crap every year based on a fucking hypothesis!  They did this based on (allegedly) scientific studies and trials.

This is either a willful, blatant fraud or a case of complete incompetence in all things 'scientific'.  Take your pick.  Either way this company has been grossly negligent - and that's being charitable - in my opinion.

Misean's picture

"This is what seperates science from politics."


What a tool! The ONLY reason this shit sells is because of the medical cartel/guild and the bloody empire's stamp of "official non-biased peer reviewed bureaucratic" approval. FROM POLITICS! BWAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHHAAHAHA!

I can't believe someone claiming to be sentient could write such drivel.

Rusty_Shackleford's picture



Well played.  I mean, who could argue with that. 


Listen, I'm 100% on board with the "Misean" view.  Modern medicine is a state protected cartel.  Agreed.  That's why I linked to a great LRC essay.  We're not talking about that though.  We're talking about the fact that every once in a while, science comes around and smacks everyone in the face and says, "Just because something seems to make sense and can be logically inferred from known facts, still doesn't make it true.  Deal with it."


The difference between this and politics is that Niaspan will now immediately be discontinued by millions of patients and will be tossed on the trash heap of other things that "seemed like they should work". 

If it were a purely political issue, Niaspan would be getting it's budget increased.

disabledvet's picture

"the only competitive threat to the Doctor Cartel is the Drug Cartel."

Bruce Krasting's picture

The good folks at Abbot and no clue about this "surprise" development?

I'm not buying that.

Rusty_Shackleford's picture

I'm not saying there is even one single "good" person at Abbott Labs.  They're probably all douches.


But, I am fairly confident that none of them can travel forward in time and then come back with the benefit of hindsight to be used in the present. 


Think of it this way.  If Abbott never sold Niaspan, and a story came out that a major drug company knew they had a relatively cheap, safe, and effective drug that they knew raised HDL, but it decided not to sell it because they wanted to be 100% sure that it actually reduced cardiovascular death, people would be bitching about that too.  You can't win.

disabledvet's picture

they did advertise it.  this wasn't always legal--and i think many drug companies preferred it staying illegal myself.

ThirdCoastSurfer's picture

If you want to create, maintain and expand a $14 trillion dollar annual economy you're gonna have to create a lot of false demand.

Beyond advertising, here is an interesting article:

"Prescription drugs kill some 200,000 Americans every year. Will that number go up, now that most clinical trials are conducted overseas—on sick Russians, homeless Poles, and slum-dwelling Chinese—in places where regulation is virtually nonexistent, the F.D.A. doesn’t reach, and “mistakes” can end up in pauper’s graves?"


malek's picture

I will never buy a drug for which I see several ads in magazines or on tv.

The fact that they have to advertise to the end-user already speaks volumes on the drug itself.

dolly madison's picture

Welcome to the war of the People vs. the corporations.

The FDA is pretty much owned by the corporations.  They have let through many drugs that have been killing people in recent years.  I knew someone who died of a heart attack while taking Avandia, which was known to cause heart disease.  He went to his doctor when it hit the news that Avandia did this, and his doctor said to keep taking it.

The food supply is crap too.  European countries have limits on how much additives can be in the food, but not the US.  Here, the FDA lets em slow poison the hell out of us.

Watch some of the protests around the world, then start looking at the people around you at social gatherings.  The other people around the world look a hell of a lot more healthy than we do.  It's not just fat.  People here are starting to look really unhealthy.

If you want to avoid heart disease and probably diabetes too, it is my opinion that your best shot at that is to avoid what I call non-food.  That is only eat food that when you read it's ingredient label it is only made out of ingredients you could buy in a grocery store.  Heart disease was non-existent before  the advent of transfats, but transfats probably aren't the only cause any more because there is so much non-food in the pre-made food now.

I gave up non-foods just under a year ago, and I feel so much better for it.

Cathartes Aura's picture

very few people realise how thoroughly GMO & irradiated corporate-fud have infiltrated amrkn markets - mostly because there are no laws that require LABELing this, so as to allow for "consumer" choice.

also, it's getting increasingly difficult to source even organic foods, as cross-pollination, aerosoling of heavy metals & toxins under the guise of "weather modifications" and increasing radioactive fallout means even the rainwater & air is poisonous.


dolly madison's picture

Yeah, the GMO foods are a problem too.  I usually focus on the additives though, because avoiding them is doable.  It's a lot tougher to avoid the GMO foods.

tslv50's picture

I had a doctor tell me to take beta blockers because I had high blood pressure. I am 22, and beta blockers are a quick death setence. She did not even understand what she was doing, but I did. I lowered my own blood pressure in a few days by taking ginseng and eating less than a huge steak and a bottle of wine for every meal, which shocked her because she said it was a genetic problem, not a health problem. I thought to myself, that woman is a killer, just think what she has done to infants.

Attitude_Check's picture

100 years ago medicine was applied Biology, now it is applied Pharmacology.