John H Armstrong

Statins: The Modern Wonder Drugs?

Like many of my readers, at least those who are over fifty, I take a statin drug every day. I take a very small dose (10mg) of Lipitor. I have read a great deal about these drugs, as should any consumer who puts anything into their body. I also have the benefit of a brother who is a physician and several other family members who are in medicine and research. Several years ago I had a simple heart scan that suggested one possible blockage problem. I went through a battery of tests with a cardiologist, just to be safe. The prognosis was that I had normal damage. My pipes have mild corrosion from aging, as the cardiologist put it. That, by the way, does help you focus on your mortality and your real age when you are nearing 60 as I am.

But what about statins? There is a lot of hype against statins that I receive nearly every day, especially via conservative Web sites like NewsMax that promote pharmaceutical conspiracies, via pop-up ads that I am sick of frankly. These ads play on the general feeling that most modern medications are the result of "greedy" drug companies who exist only to deceive the general public. Politicians play this same card from one of our two major political parties. (You can guess which one, since they use this kind of populism routinely to appeal to "ordinary" voters.) In addition, there are a number of natural health practitioners who rail on the statin drugs and warn of imminent danger to all who use them. (This multi-billion dollar industry has much in it that is truly good but it is also strongly driven by profits so who is kidding whom here? And it works when people fear drugs and doctors and buy the hype, almost none of which is subject to the kind of testing we use on drugs.) So, what to do?

Well, I for one, take my statin drug every single evening. Why? Real medical research, gained through serious testing, is quite overwhelming in saying that these drugs are great and save lives. (A few people have reactions to statins and cannot take them. I have one such friend.) Last year new tests revealed that people who take statins are less likely to die of influenza and chronic bronchitis. A study of 76,000 people, a most significant number, revealed that those who took them for 90 days had a much lower risk of dying from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Now a new Reuters report from yesterday says statin drugs may reduce cancer risk, especially lung and colon cancer. These hard-working, cholesterol-fighting drugs, may also cut the risk of developing cancer by as much as 25 percent according to new research done in the U.S. Veterans taking statin drugs had a 9.4 percent cancer incidence, compared to 13.2 percent for non-statin users, the researchers reported in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

"Our findings support the hypothesis that statins may reduce the risk of cancer, in particular lung and colorectal cancers," said Dr. Wildon Farwell of the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System, who led the study. "The risk reduction appeared to be around 25 percent," Farwell said in a telephone interview.

Statins---the world's top-selling drugs---have been so effective at lowering low-density lipoprotein or LDL, the so-called "bad" cholesterol, that some doctors have jokingly suggested they should be added to the public water supply. Not only do they significantly cut the risk of heart attack and stroke but they also may reduce the risk of death from pneumonia and smoking.

For their study, Farwell and colleagues looked at the health records of nearly 63,000 veterans in the Veteran Affairs New England Healthcare System between January 1997 and December 2005. The veterans were divided into groups that had used either statin drugs ---including Pfizer Inc.'s Lipitor and Merck & Co. Inc.'s Zocor, now sold generically,---or blood-pressure lowering drugs for at least one year. After adjusting for age, prior cancer screenings, smoking, lung disease and other conditions, the researchers found statin users had a reduced risk of all cancer types compared with those not taking statins.

In all fairness it should be noted that this study did not show why statins seemed to lower the risk of cancer. And the study had a few limitations. Participants were mostly white males, which could skew results. "We don't want to give the impression that this is the definitive study that proves statins reduce the risk of cancer," Farwell said. But he said the findings are compelling enough to warrant further study.

I am old enough to remember several huge drug breakthroughs over the past fifty-plus years. One was the shots to prevent the dreaded disease of polio in children. Another was the vaccination that virtually ended TB in America, which took the life of my grandmother and several others in my family line in that generation. (My parents so feared TB that they wanted me regularly tested for it when I had pneumonia several times over the course of my life.)

My late father was a dentist who labored long and hard to get to get flouride in the water supply of our small town in Tennessee. All kinds of conspiracy theorists suggested, back then in the 1950s, that this was the newest threat of the Communists to destroy us. My dad refused to be stopped and eventually was proven right. I can also remember when Crest became the first toothpaste to use fouride in its compound and then market it openly with the American Dental Society endorsing it. My dad came home from a dental meeting and said "We should buy stock in Crest." (We didn't.)

I asked my rather young cardiologist (40ish) if the nine doctors in his practice used statin drugs. None of them, he told me, was a high risk cholesterol patient but he answered, "Eight of nine doctors here take statins for one reason. We are convinced that it is a great drug that does so many good things in the body that we all take it in low doses because we believe it is truly good for you." As they say, the proof is in the pudding.

In spite of all of this good and convincing research I still meet people who regularly refuse to use the statin drugs. They buy the hype, fear the drug companies, and believe the conspiracy theorists are actually on to something, in spite of all the good and scientific evidence to the contrary.

There is a parable in all of this. Almost every single conspiracy theory I know is wrong! Rarely, if ever, is such a theory actually proven. But in a free society, where people are continually bombarded with constant nonsense and made to fear the next great threat, many otherwise intelligent people buy these theories and not the real science. Is it any wonder that researchers and physicians often think that some forms of religion help to foster such nonsense?

I have been to the Texas Book Depository building in Dallas, where Lee Harvey Oswald fired the bullets that killed President Kennedy. The conspiracy theorists are still on the streets outside that building, forty-three years later, selling their theories to whoever will listen. These kinds of theories are just a part of Americana. I just do not buy any of it. The truth is almost never that complicated. Have we sometimes had drugs that later were found to do bad things? Yes, of course. But the incidents are really very few. We generally have a great system for preventing bad drugs from getting to the market, unless you get them elsewhere. Is our food supply tainted? No, not really. Some might be, now and then, but overall we are safe. Will we be overcome by avian flu? Not in the  immediate future. But multitudes feared it and lived in terror while the media promoted it widely.

Conspiracy theories are a major, multi-million dollar, business in America. Cable television and the Internet feed it day-and-night. I suggest that you save your money and spend your time reading something else. And while I am at it, I really do think statins are the equivalent of a modern "wonder" drug. My friends in the industry, both physicians and researchers, believe that we will continue to find ways that statins help us that we never imagined. Why can't Christians, of all people, "Celebrate and receive this gift with prayer and thanksgiving?" Answer: We are influenced by a cultural terrorism that wants to feed us continual rubbish so we are kept in fear. This is clearly not a very healthy way for people of real faith to live at all.

Could Promising New Stem Cell Research End Culture War Aspect of Debate?

Stem Cell research may be on the verge of a whole new opportunity for advancement that could solve the ethical dilemma faced by harvesting stem cells from human embryos that requires the destruction of human life. New research published this month suggests that there may be an alternative to embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. Stem cells can apparently be taken from Amniotic fluid that surrounds the fetus, as well as from the placenta. These stem cells seem to share the many qualities of embryonic stem cells. If this is true then this new research could point to the end of the hugely controversial culture war over the role of embryonic stem cells.

The White House published a 67-page report on the current state of stem-cell science in order to back up these research developments and to support the President’s firm position against killing human embryos. Meanwhile the new Democratic Congressional majority threatens to force the issue again by a vote last week. The good news is that a veto-proof majority seems impossible.

I have to wonder if certain liberals will welcome this news since they seem so determined to press for this issue regardless of the actual value of the procedure since it is part and parcel of their anti-life thought process. Some want to advance “a brave new world” no matter what the research actually demonstrates. So far, this controversy has been fought over using a line of embryonic stem cells that still do not clearly promise all the miracles that the social left constantly tells the general public will result from this procedure.

What Kind of Stem Cells?

The stem cell debate is going to be even bigger in the 110th Congress. Democrats have promised to  overturn the president's opposition to harvesting embryonic stem cells if possible. This whole issue amazes me, at least on one level. As an issue it is, in microcosm, a picture of our culture and its putting incredible hope in all medical and research processes that can be found to cure any and all problems. Promises are made that have little or no basis in facts and few have the ability to discern the differences.

First, we need to know what stem cells are in order to understand the issue. Stem cells are simply human cells that have no specialized function or structure and thus are believed to have incredible potential to develop into other kinds of cells in the human body. The ability of such cells to adapt and/or develop offers great promise medically. Medical researchers are trying to use stem cells to repair specific tissues and/or to grow human organs. Some positive benefits have already been reaped from using human stem cells. There is no ethical reason whatsoever to oppose the use and develop of adult stem cells. There is also no ethical reason to oppose the use of stem cells taken from the human placenta of a newborn baby or from the blood, bone marrow, or from the other tissues of humans.

Second, embryonic stem cells are the real issue at the center of this present ethical debate. These are stem cells harvested from aborted fetuses or from fertilized eggs. The issue here is the definition of human life and what is the right thing to do with such life in terms of research. Some see in this issue a Pandora's box while others see a gold mine for possible cures to many difficult and life threatening problems. The question, as always, is whether this research will take us further into a brave new world scenario. Given what has already been done with such human stem cells, and the human tendency toward embryonic cloning, caution is surely called for at the present time in human history.

So, Christians should not oppose stem cell use or stem cell research. What they should oppose is embryonic stem cell research becuase of what is involed in getting these stem cells. It is important to understand that there is very little evidence, other than a lot of major hope and hype, that embryonic stem cells really offer the kind of solutions that strong advocates claim for them at the present time.

The next time someone brings this subject up make sure you make these proper distinctions. It always helps when Christians express their concerns with facts, not with prejudice or misinformation.

On May 6, 2007, we will host a Chicago-area ACT 3 Forum on the stem cell debate led by Dr. Charles McGowen. Chuck is a retired professor of internal medicine and family physician, who is a member of our advisory board. Chuck is a clear thinker, a clear speaker, and has devoted a great deal of time and interest to this subject. This forum will allow many to learn and ask questions openly. More information will appear on the Web site in a few weeks.

Life, Bio-Ethics and Our Present Political Climate

Two bio-ethical issues have recently been debated and decided at the federal level in an attempt to create a culture more favorable to human life. The first was the Senate bill to allow federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. As is widely known President Bush vetoed this bill, his first veto in nearly six years in office. Some rather consistently pro-life senators voted for this particular measure, including majority leader Bill Frist, himself a devoutly pro-life Christian physician. (Senator Frist’s dad was my late father’s personal physician in Nashville and thus our family has held highest regard for the Frist family for many years.) Those who favored this measure argued that embryonic stem-cells provide much potential for curing diseases like Parkinson’s, a disease that my father-in-law suffered from for more than a decade prior to his painful death in late 2004. For this reason I confess that I respond to the emotional arguments that surrounded this bill with some real life experience. At the same time I fear, like other social conservatives, that this bill was, in actuality, an ethical “Trojan horse.” It is not clear to me that stem cells harvested from frozen embryos have that much real scientific value. There appears to be no clear consensus on this conclusion within the scientific and medical community. Further, it seems what some researchers really want here is approval to clone new embryos en masse so that they can have a limitless supply of stem cells. The National Review suggested that this particular senate bill was a “half-way measure” to promote the ultimate goal of “fetal farming.” The National Review seems to have gotten this right when it concluded that the federal government should “not be party to the destruction of nascent human lives.”

The most compelling argument I hear is that these embryos are not yet human and thus they are only “potential” life. And, it is further reasoned, they will be destroyed anyway if they are not used for research like this so why not use them for the purpose of saving lives. The argument against this view is that “nascent” human life is sacred because of the value of created human life. And when nascent human life is not respected at one level a door is thereby opened to respect it less at other levels as we go further down this ethically troubled road. I do not expect pro-abortion advocates to accept these kinds of arguments. What is surprising to me is that many pro-life people do not accept it either. I am not convinced that frozen embryos are human in the fullest sense thus the word “nascent” seems to get it about right. We are not seeking to save a blob of cells or some kind of human material here. What we believe, and this is important to bio-ethical understanding, is that these embryos are “nascent human life.”

Another important bill that touches on bio-ethics (at least indirectly) passed the senate last night. This bill holds adults to be guilty of a federal crime if they take minors across state lines to get an abortion without the approval of the girl’s parents. The bill passed the senate by a 65-34 vote and was immediately hailed by President Bush who will quickly sign it. Said Bush, “Transporting minors across state lines to bypass parental consent laws regarding abortion undermines state law and jeopardizes the lives of young women.” Critics accused the majority of playing politics in an election year. (As if neither party plays politics in an election year!) Detractors said the bill would endanger teenage girls who face abusive parents and would criminalize grandparents and clergy who assisted her. Senator Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said, “Our government cannot legislate positive family relationships in every home.” Well, of course it can’t senator. But this bill is not about “positive family values.” It is about a minor getting an abortion with the aid of an adult who is not her parent.

The American public overwhelming believes that parents should be the primary voice in health-care decisions for their minor children. But critics of this decision argued that fathers who committed incest would be able to make the decision about a daughter’s abortion. The irony of this argument is that most fathers who do commit incest, and then discover that their daughter is pregnant, insist they get an abortion. Often they even pressure the girl to have the procedure. A last-minute deal was stuck last evening by the sponsor of the bill and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), an opponent of the measure. This bill, passed by a 98-0 vote, prevents men who have committed incest from suing any individual who takes their daughter to another state for an abortion.

The list of those senators who voted no on this bill is interesting. First, it includes four Republicans. The most striking name is Arlen Specter. Of the 29 Democrats who voted no the names of Clinton, Biden, Durbin and Feingold are not surprising at all. But I had hoped for better from my own Illinois senator, Barack Obama. I watch his every vote these days since he honestly confessed a measure of conflict about these kinds of issues in a recent Christian testimony he gave in association with Jim Wallis and his Sojourners enterprise. I was further surprised that Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.), a morally conservative man of faith, also voted no. Politics is a world of loyalty and constituency. This works on both sides of the aisle. Those who believe, as I do, that these kinds of life issues matter deeply must continue to educate people, pray and hold our elected official accountable for their responses to issues that reflect the value and importance of human life. We should also pray for the day that Roe vs. Wade is reversed by the people through their elected officials. The sooner our courts do not make law the better it will be for everyone. We are one small step closer to such a wonderful day by these two incremental decisions that will surely make waves in the mid-term election season this fall.