# FDA Reverses Its Position on Daily Aspirin for Heart Health



## SeaBreeze (Aug 6, 2014)

Here we go again! Luckily I always knew that taking aspirin frequently was not a good idea, and chose natural alternatives. Here's the latest from our trusty FDA. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Quote:

If you haven't had a heart attack, step away from the aspirin bottle... If you are one of the 40 million Americans who take an aspirin every day, you may want to heed the latest warning from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

After many decades of promoting aspirin, the FDA now says that if you have not experienced a heart problem, you should not be taking a daily aspirin—even if you have a family history of heart disease. 

This represents a significant departure from FDA's prior position on aspirin for the prevention of heart attacks.

On its website, the FDA now says:1, 2

"FDA has concluded that the data do not support the use of aspirin as a preventive medication by people who have not had a heart attack, stroke or cardiovascular problems, a use that is called 'primary prevention.' 

In such people, the benefit has not been established but risks — such as dangerous bleeding into the brain or stomach — are still present."

Read full story here:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...e-effects.aspx


----------



## SifuPhil (Aug 6, 2014)

ROFL - thank you so much for yet another example of why I rarely listen to "the experts" ...


----------



## Mrs. Robinson (Aug 6, 2014)

My doctors have been telling me for years to take one a day. I never remember. Guess that`s a good thing LOL.


----------



## WhatInThe (Aug 6, 2014)

They can spin and/or twist data to back any theory they want. You have to look at what something has actually done for someone else or what it might do for you-your homework.


----------



## Capt Lightning (Aug 7, 2014)

No, they've got it all wrong.  Yesterday on the news in the UK .....

An aspirin a day could dramatically cut people's chances of getting and dying from common cancers, according to the most detailed review yet of the cheap drug's ability to stem disease.
More  than 130,000 deaths would be avoided over a 20-year period if Britain's  50- to 64-year-olds took a daily aspirin for 10 years, because the  beneficial effects continue even when the aspirin is stopped, the  authors say.
A research team led by Professor Jack Cuzick, head of the centre for cancer prevention at Queen Mary University of London,  concluded that people between 50 and 65 should consider regularly taking the 75mg low-dosage tablets..............................

However, to obtain the newfound benefits of the drug, people would have  to take aspirin for at least five years and probably 10, the review said.


----------



## JustBonee (Aug 7, 2014)

I personally have my doubts about the FDA ...  their opinions follow the money trail.  
No one is looking over them. 



_"The pharmaceutical industry's influence gets exerted in a number of ways. 
One, *starting 10 years ago [with the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA)], the influence was exerted by their directly funding, paying cash right up front, for FDA review. *So in many ways, the FDA started looking upon the industry as their client, instead of the public and the public health, which should be the client.

A second way in which the industry influence occurs is by having leaders in the drug division who are spineless and gutless, and who don't like controversy. I have heard over and over again, directly from these people, "Why can't this be settled on a scientific and medical basis?" They don't like to take on the very awesome forces of the drug industry and a lot of its indentured servants, so to speak, in academic medicine. So the attitude by the leaders there [is], "avoid conflict" -- and avoiding conflict means doing what the industry wants.

A third way in which *the industry's influence has been allowed to grow considerably is the absence of congressional oversight. Up until 12 years ago, whenever the FDA would make a mistake -- such as the series of mistakes they've made in the late 1990s -- there would be a congressional hearing. They would have to explain to the legislative branch of the government what went wrong.* They would be -- properly, and in the best public health sense -- on the defensive to try and explain what went wrong."

_
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/prescription/hazard/independent.html


----------



## oldman (Aug 7, 2014)

My doctor put me on an 81mgs. of aspirin daily about 6-7 years ago. Earlier this year, I stopped taking the little yellow pill because I read from a Cleveland Clinic medical journal on-line that although they suggested taking the "baby aspirin" daily if you were over 50, had cholesterol issues or heart problems, but that it may cause bruising to the skin, (which I was getting), and also if you were to get a cut, you may bleed freely because aspirin prevents the normal formation of platelets in the blood, which there is a sticky substance in platelets that causes the blood to clot. When you cut yourself, the platelets come together to form a clot and that's what stops the bleeding. This is also true with internal bleeding from the stomach or intestines. I know that black stools are a sign of internal bleeding, but may not occur in everybody. 

I also read an article from the U.K that states the pros and cons and the conclusion that I have drawn from that article is that we each have to decide for ourselves. However, in my case, because I was diagnosed with anemia recently and some forms of anemia may be caused by bleeding, I have decided to stop taking the little aspirin until I have the next blood workup done and if my numbers return to normal, I will discuss this further with my doctor. 

I thought the U.K. information was more helpful because it discussed the issue in layman's terms and allowed me to better understand the article and it's principles.

Check it out here: http://www.patient.co.uk/health/aspirin-and-other-antiplatelet-medicines


----------



## Newly Old (Aug 8, 2014)

I read the FDA's statements on their website and reviewed the information.  My interpretation is that the concluding statement is the most important.  People should check with their doctor if aspirin may be advisable and the doctor should determine what dose should be taken to minimize the chance of side effects.

Furthermore, the FDA said that their are large scale studies that are looking at whether daily aspirin is of benefit.  The FDA is monitoring the studies to see if the large studies do show a benefit.

I suggest that people go to the website themselves and read the details.

Newly Old


----------



## SeaBreeze (Aug 8, 2014)

I have no trust in the FDA, and would not take anything on their site seriously.  I agree that people should check with their doctors about taking anything, then it is up to the individual on what they choose to do with their bodies.  Personally, I'd rather use less harmful and more natural things in its place, like fish oil, vitamin E, etc.  This is my opinion of course, and everyone must do what is best for themselves, and weigh the pros and cons of anything they may be encouraged to use.  http://www.naturalnews.com/033866_aspiring_heart_attacks.html#ixzz1atgFIhZB

The FDA denied Bayer's request to put on their labels that aspiring prevented heart attacks.  Last year Bayer made 1.27 billion dollars in aspirin sales alone, they're loving this trend.


----------



## d0ug (Aug 9, 2014)

Bayer is the same people who ran and funded the prison camps in Germany in the second world war. They are thinking of your best interest. A lot of medical dogma is now being changed cholesterol, salt, aspirin, and genetics are all falling by the way side. All these myths that the doctors have been telling us as we get sicker and suffer from their lies. How can you believe anything from a person that makes his living from you being sick.


----------



## Newly Old (Aug 9, 2014)

All these myths that the doctors have been telling us as we get sicker and suffer from their lies. How can you believe anything from a person that makes his living from you being sick.[/QUOTE]

I am a doctor, so that is how I can believe these myths.  I tell patients what I know to be true, and what is not known or is not true. 

I get treated by doctors, too.  So do my kids and all my relatives.  While there may be a few dishonest ones, the ones I know REALLY DO want to help people and are not happy when a patient is ill.

I love doing preventive care and get torn apart emotionally when on of my patients develops a serious condition.  And the insurance companies pay us FAR MORE for a well visit than for a sick visit.

>>>a lot of medical dogma is being changed<<<

Yes, because DOCTORS are doing research.  Are the doctors who did the original research dishonest and the ones who are doing studies showing different results dishonest?  By your logic, the doctors who did the research saying aspirin is not helpful could be saying it because they want people to stop a beneficial preventative so that they will develop heart disease and strokes!

Researchers and even doctors who teach at conferences have to disclose all financial support and other affiliations that can be considered a possible conflict of interest.

Is everything perfect?  Of course not.  Is there dishonesty?  There will always be some.  Is there bias in journals?  I am sure there is.  

But I think you are mistaken if you think doctors in general are giving wrong information because they want patients to be sick.  

So, who do you believe is telling the truth?  The articles in magazines that sell the wellness supplements, vitamins, alternative treatments?  The websites that sell you on the latest "discovery" that will help your memory, mood, energy, sleep, sex life, repair joints, remove toxins, etc, etc?

And when people say fish oil and Vitamin E help, how do you know they are not just promoting it for profit?  How do you know that the doses you take are not harmful?  Are you having your kidney and liver function monitored?  Your platelet levels?  Or do you just "know" that natural means safe and effective?

In my opinion, you have to read the research papers and understand what the statistics mean to see if you believe the conclusions.  Don't trust others' interpretations.

BTW, if a study shows "no statistical difference" in the amount of side effects of something, it may just mean they used too few subjects and ANY results would have to be "no statistical difference"  because statistical difference is mathematical and needs a certain number in each arm of the study.  Want to prove their is no statistical difference in you supplement than in a prescription medicine?  Just include too few people.  The results, no matter what they are MUST be " no statistical difference"

(If you are not trained in statistics or how to interpret research results,  who do you trust to do the interpretation and tell you what they mean?  Perhaps your doctor who is trained to evaluate the medical literature?? )

Newly Old


----------



## d0ug (Aug 9, 2014)

Three of my best friends are doctors and we have many discussion on health. Many times when their family needs help they come and talk to me. I am not against doctors but they are the tip of the spear of medical practice. They are educated in drug oriented medicine and not holistic. Drugs for some things is the only way to go and they work good. The drugs listed in the PRD if you take out antibiotics all the others only manage symptoms and cure nothing. I spend many hours a day reading the publish medical literature.


----------



## Newly Old (Aug 9, 2014)

d0ug said:


> Three of my best friends are doctors and we have many discussion on health. Many times when their family needs help they come and talk to me. I am not against doctors but they are the tip of the spear of medical practice. They are educated in drug oriented medicine and not holistic. Drugs for some things is the only way to go and they work good. The drugs listed in the PRD if you take out antibiotics all the others only manage symptoms and cure nothing. I spend many hours a day reading the publish medical literature.




I assume you mean the PDR (Physicians Drug Reference).   That is not the source of information for doctors in this day and age.  The PDR is a list of the drug makers package inserts.  There was a time, maybe 30 years ago, where this was the most convenient place to look up the dosage of a medicine that was being prescribed.  We don't have every dose of every medicine memorized, so we need to look it up.  We don't memorize which medicine comes in 50mg, 75 mg and 200 mg pills, and which only come as 125 or 250 mg.  The PDR has never been a place for doctors to learn about medicines.  We were taught in medical school that manufacturers paid to list their products.  You might not be aware of what the PDR is, but doctors are. Nowadays, doctors use electronic sources of drug information such as Epocrates.

Drugs manage symptoms and cure nothing?  Do you want to tell that to my patients who were cured of leukemia? How about the ones who were cured for Hodgkin's disease?  How about the patient who had a condition that caused infertility in 100% of the men who were born with the condition.  Through a series of medicines to stimulate cells to produce sperm, and a surgical extraction technique to isolate those cells, he is now a father of 2 healthy children.  I call that a cure of his infertility.  

By the way, managing symptoms is not a bad thing.  Ask my patients with diabetes, seizure disorders, heart conditions which cause death if not treated with medications,  kidney diseases,  bleeding disorders such as hemophilia and ITP, cystic fibrosis kids who live healthy lives instead of being crippled with an inability to breathe until they would die at a young age.

Many conditions can only have symptoms treated because we have not yet found medicines to cure them.  Leukemia used to be one of those.  We kept the symptoms in check the best we could with the types of chemo we had in those days.  Now we cure it.

This by no means is saying that doctors only use medicines for patients' well-being.  I am spending most of my day explaining to patients who are requesting or even demanding a prescription for an antibiotic why they do not need it.

Drugs have a place in certain instances.  The best doctors know when to use them and when not to.

Just because we can't cure a lot of things, does not mean we cannot help in significant ways.

Doctors receive training in alternative treatments also.  A large amount of education is on wellness, and I do not mean drugs.  Unfortunately, your best friends do not sound like the type of "best doctors" I am familiar with.  

Newly Old


----------



## d0ug (Aug 10, 2014)

I think we are getting off topic of the original thread I am partly to blame.
But if someone would like to start another on this topic I would be glad to participate.


----------



## Newly Old (Aug 10, 2014)

And I followed you!  Time for me to go.  See you at some future thread.

Newly Old


----------

