Charlie Rose

IRISH  11/21/2008 09:18 PM Report

The benefits of taking Crestor (in the study) are relative risk reductions. In addition are the results as "dramatic" as purported? In fact the NEJM editorial 120 people in the study needed to be treated with a statin for two years to see a benefit in just one person.Too often the benefits are highly touted while the risks are discounted.

SteveK  11/21/2008 11:38 AM Report

Charlie is always very diligent about pointing out whether he has a potential conflict with the person he is interviewing, e.g., in his interview with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes, Charlie disclosed that he sometimes contributes to 60 Minutes.

Unfortunately, that same diligence was probably not applied to this cardiologist panel and the subject of statins. It would be much more intellectually honest if we knew whether any of these doctors had any potential conflicts, specifically:

Do any of these doctors receive funding (personal or professional research, speaking, etc.) from any statin producing drug companies (regardless of whether it is related to this study)?

Who funded the research that was the subject of this show?

Did any drug company participate in determining the methodology and results reporting? If so, how?

Do any of the universities/institutions with which these doctors are associated receive any funds from statin producing drug companies?

Do any of the universities/institutions have investments (e.g., own stock) in any statin producing drug companies?

The audience deserves to have these questions answered since the impression is that this was a totally unbiased study. If there are no conflicts, that also should be explicitly stated.

Given the concerns expressed by many mainstream doctors as to the objectivity and reliability of current medical research, Charlie should be very sensitive to this issue. In fact, Charlie should have a show on the state of medical research and include Dr. Marcia Angell (former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine), Dr. Catherine DeAngelis (Editor in Chief of JAMA) and Dr. Phil Fontanarosa (Executive Deputy Editor of JAMA).

Dixiechick  11/20/2008 12:46 AM Report

Fascinated by the subject of inflammation finally making it into mainstream notice and validated by so many studies. Sadly, the only "solution" presented isn't really a solution at all but just another symptom treatment labeled and monetized by the pharmaceutical industry.

My doctors have known about this issue for over 7 years and have treated my systemic inflammation through dietary changes. The source of my inflammation: a wide variety of food intolerances /allergies. And this inflammation isn't only the cause of heart disease, but also a major contributor to cancer, diabetes and many auto-immune conditions. A field of medicine that's been around for about 5 years is called functional medicine and it's about metabolic balancing. One of the greatest issues we face in this country is a totally corrupted food supply with very little nutrition left in it and who knows how many GMOs (thank you Monsanto). The medical industrial complex is not about cure but about maintenance.

hrc  11/19/2008 08:47 PM Report

A potentially interesting show. Lori Mosca held ground well against the two wonder-druggies. Another very unbalanced show, and not a show at all really, just another show segment.

I often wonder if the charlie rose show is under new producership more and more lately.