Vitamin B3 beats Big Pharma's Zetia cholesterol drug

Tuesday, March 30, 2010
by Mike Adams, the Health Range

(NaturalNews) The utter worthlessness of Big Pharma's cholesterol drugs was demonstrated recently by a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine which showed that niacin (a low-cost B vitamin) out-performs Merck's drug Zetia for preventing the build-up of arterial plaque, a symptom of cardiovascular disease.

As the study reveals, Zetia failed miserably. Patients taking niacin showed a "significant shrinkage" in artery wall thickness, while those on Zetia showed no such improvement. At the same time, the rate of "cardiovascular events" in the niacin group was only one-fifth that in the Zetia group, demonstrating that niacin is far more effective at preventing heart attacks and other similar events than Zetia.

But curiously, as soon as niacin started to show a real benefit over Zetia, researchers cancelled the study. The premature ending of the clinical trial stopped the process by which even more useful information about the benefits of niacin might have been learned.

5,800% higher price than niacin

Merck, the maker of Zetia, was likely horrified to learn that a low-cost B vitamin out-performed its blockbuster drug. Sales of its Zetia drug are reportedly over $5 billion. It's no wonder: Zetia sells for as much as $3.89 per pill.

Niacin, on the other hand, costs as little as 6.7 cents per pill, even in a "no-flush" time-release formula from a quality source like the NSI brand from Vitacost: http://www.vitacost.com/NSI-No-Flus...

These price differences make Zetia 5,800% more expensive than niacin. And yet niacin works better.

So if niacin works better, and if modern medicine claims to be serving patients instead of profits, why don't doctors recommend B vitamins instead of expensive cholesterol drugs? As you have already guessed, the reason is because Zetia earns all kinds of ridiculous profits for Big Pharma and B vitamins don't.

The fact that doctors continue to prescribe Zetia, in fact, demonstrates how thoroughly our modern medical system has failed to recognize and embrace things that work to help patients rather than things that make the most money for powerful drug companies. If our modern system were actually based on what works, doctors would be prescribing various vitamins, minerals, herbs, superfoods and nutritional supplements (including anti-cancer mushroms).

But no... our system isn't based on what helps patients. It's based on what makes the most money, and so patients are put on dangerous (even deadly) pharmaceuticals that can cost 5,800% more than low-cost natural remedies that actually work better! 

The big question: Does modern medicine help society at all?

It really makes you wonder: Beyond emergency treatments and critical care, does modern medicine offer any net benefit to society at all? More and more people are now coming to the conclusion that no, modern medicine harms far more people than it helps.

The key question to ask is this: What if our medical system disappeared tomorrow? Would we be better off or worse off?

The startling (but true) answer is that we would be better off. Without cancer screening, for example, breast cancer rates would plummet (because screening causes cancer). Without cholesterol drugs, blood pressure drugs, diabetes drugs and chemotherapy, people would live far longer, with less liver damage, kidney damage and brain damage.

In all, pharmaceuticals do not save lives. They destroy lives while making huge profits for drug companies. And yet much of western medicine is based on the administration of these dangerous, over-priced chemicals.

There's a fascinating book entitled What if Medicine Disappeared? by Gerald Markle and Frances McCrea. (http://www.amazon.com/What-Medicine...)

This book explains why modern medicine does far more harm than good. It doesn't explain, however, why doctors who think they're so smart continue to prescribe a patented medication that's 5,800% more expensive than a nutritional solution that works better. 

Sources for this story include:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandst...

http://www.examiner.com/x-7160-Sacr...

http://www.biojobblog.com/2007/12/a...