Yes, most of the studies are fully or partially funded by the pharmaceutical industry. This is how the system works - they have to design, conduct and fund studies to demonstrate efficacy of their drugs. And, yes, there have been cases when studies have been misleading. This is not a perfect system. But you can't use that to disregard the evidence you don't like.
What I am asking you and others is not to trust pharmaceutical industry, me or anyone else blindly. Especially, not express or daily mail. And do not draw conclusions from individual experiences - yes, rhabdomyolysis is a well known and documented side effect but it is very rare.
What I am saying is that right now the evidence used by express to write this attention grabbing article is weak at most. For example, the publication this is based upon has a section "EARLY STATIN TRIALS MAY HAVE BEEN FLAWED". To make the claims this publication makes, this section should provide in depth analysis and evidence for the aforementioned statement. Yet, the only thing the authors provide is few attention grabbing statements that are not backed up by data, nor analysis but only a reference to a kindle ebook by Lorgeril. This is not science, this is a publicity stunt and fearmongering.
You suggest we disregard tens and tens of huge trials because they have been funded by industry. But what about all the academics, people working for government and even doctors and nurses who worked making sure that these trials are honest and not misleading? Are all of them corrupt and dishonest as well? There will always be evidence for and against something, but if there's 1000 pieces of evidence saying that statins can do good and 10 pieces of evidence saying that the only do harm, it is wrong and unethical to disregard the evidence you do not like.
And yes, we should pay attention to every new piece of evidence that comes to our attention, but every new bit of evidence has to be validated and confirmed before we draw any conclusions. But doing that is boring and wouldn't make all these attention grabbing headlines the public craves so much.
Having said all that, there is a very interesting discussion and research on whether statins should also be given to patients with low risk of cardiovascular disease. This discussion has started because now statins are cheap (they are off patent so pharmaceutical industry can't make huge profits from them), we have data over many years showing that they are safe. We need more research, analysis and discussion to determine the benefit and decide for or against it.
Independent as in "not depending on another for livelihood or subsistence". As I said previously, most of the large studies are funded by industry because the law requires them to.
"ultimate issue is a risk-benefit ratio where the benefit looks relatively small" - This is very true, risk-benefit is what matters. If you look into research, there is significant documented benefit for at risk population; and for low risk population it's still being studied and debated.
"potentially dangerous side effects over an extended period" - side effects are well documented and considered low risk. If you could provide the exact scientific evidence you are referring to, we can discuss this in more detail.
So for at risk patient, right now the equation works as "demonstrated benefit" and "low risk", thus statins are widely prescribed and used.
I am not explaining myself well at all! ;) I mean as in these are separate studies - in different countries, hospitals, with different scientists and so on.
Yes, most of the studies are fully or partially funded by the pharmaceutical industry. This is how the system works - they have to design, conduct and fund studies to demonstrate efficacy of their drugs. And, yes, there have been cases when studies have been misleading. This is not a perfect system. But you can't use that to disregard the evidence you don't like.
What I am asking you and others is not to trust pharmaceutical industry, me or anyone else blindly. Especially, not express or daily mail. And do not draw conclusions from individual experiences - yes, rhabdomyolysis is a well known and documented side effect but it is very rare.
What I am saying is that right now the evidence used by express to write this attention grabbing article is weak at most. For example, the publication this is based upon has a section "EARLY STATIN TRIALS MAY HAVE BEEN FLAWED". To make the claims this publication makes, this section should provide in depth analysis and evidence for the aforementioned statement. Yet, the only thing the authors provide is few attention grabbing statements that are not backed up by data, nor analysis but only a reference to a kindle ebook by Lorgeril. This is not science, this is a publicity stunt and fearmongering.
You suggest we disregard tens and tens of huge trials because they have been funded by industry. But what about all the academics, people working for government and even doctors and nurses who worked making sure that these trials are honest and not misleading? Are all of them corrupt and dishonest as well? There will always be evidence for and against something, but if there's 1000 pieces of evidence saying that statins can do good and 10 pieces of evidence saying that the only do harm, it is wrong and unethical to disregard the evidence you do not like.
And yes, we should pay attention to every new piece of evidence that comes to our attention, but every new bit of evidence has to be validated and confirmed before we draw any conclusions. But doing that is boring and wouldn't make all these attention grabbing headlines the public craves so much.
Having said all that, there is a very interesting discussion and research on whether statins should also be given to patients with low risk of cardiovascular disease. This discussion has started because now statins are cheap (they are off patent so pharmaceutical industry can't make huge profits from them), we have data over many years showing that they are safe. We need more research, analysis and discussion to determine the benefit and decide for or against it.
[This comment was removed]
Independent as in "not depending on another for livelihood or subsistence". As I said previously, most of the large studies are funded by industry because the law requires them to.
"ultimate issue is a risk-benefit ratio where the benefit looks relatively small" - This is very true, risk-benefit is what matters. If you look into research, there is significant documented benefit for at risk population; and for low risk population it's still being studied and debated.
"potentially dangerous side effects over an extended period" - side effects are well documented and considered low risk. If you could provide the exact scientific evidence you are referring to, we can discuss this in more detail.
So for at risk patient, right now the equation works as "demonstrated benefit" and "low risk", thus statins are widely prescribed and used.
[This comment was removed]
I am not explaining myself well at all! ;) I mean as in these are separate studies - in different countries, hospitals, with different scientists and so on.