What these bozos have done is make the wild assed assumption that if you use measures used in adults for secondary prevention of CVD in children it will prevent future CVD without shred of evidence that the proposed strategy has more benefit than harm. All of the evidence cited in their report was either from studies on adults or children with FH (genetic familial hypercholesterolemia) and none on norml healthy children.

Primary prevention strategies in adults haven’t proven very successful so - what the hell - let’s try it on our children anyway?

The people who wrote these guidelines are nuts, and any doc that follows them is braindead.

Note that I specifically stated “statins currently on the market.” Except, perhaps, for Crestor, all statins on the have long term safety records worldwide. Certainly Bayer did its best to hide data, but the product was still relatively new to the market when it became evident to outsiders that something was amiss. The other products have been scrutinize by many, many 3rd parties which have continued to demonstrate broad general safety.

Atlex

So, while I would not generalize to statins as a whole, there are clearly instances that support Lilli’s contention that “truth and honesty” really do make a difference, and all those studies are _not_ enough - in themselves - to keep us/docs informed.

They make a helluva difference if your life happens to be part of someone else’s “cost of doing business.”

There is absolutely no data to support your position. The supposed lack of physician reporting doesn’t make a difference. There are many long-term clinical and, probably more important, numerous retrospective analyses that of very large patient databases that demonstrate the general safety of statins and the significant benefits of treatment. One might be able to argue about which patients types are appropriate for treatment, but there is no doubt about the general safety of the statins currently on the market, particularly when compared to their benefits.

Atlex

“To be frank, I’m embarrassed for the A.A.P. today,” said Dr. Lawrence Rosen of Hackensack University Medical Center in New Jersey, vice chairman of an academy panel on traditional and alternative medicine. He added: “Treatment with medications in the absence of any clear data? I hope they’re ready for the public backlash.”

In general, my sense is that response to it has been a kind of Rorschach re: assumptions about the industry more generally. Even with all the reminders that the recs are not mainly about drug tx, that (as Atlex notes) name brands would probably not play a central role, the “conspiracy narrative” arises.

I genuinely doubt that this would have happened even twelve years ago (pre-97). If anything, the stories would have been greeted as interesting, and potentially important, good news.

Times, indeed, have changed.