Safety And Efficacy Of Statins Deliberately Exaggerated

[haidut]

Nothing surprising here, but it is nice to see the truth is slowly coming out and being accepted by the mainstream culture.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1586/17512433.2015.1012494
http://www.thebradentontimes.com/news/2 ... SlhI5OzkfM

"...Dr. David M. Diamond, a professor of psychology, molecular pharmacology and physiology at the University of South Florida, and Dr. Uffe Ravnskov, an independent health researcher and an expert in cholesterol and cardiovascular disease, claim in a recently-published critique that statins produce a dramatic reduction in cholesterol levels, but they have “failed to substantially improve cardiovascular outcomes.” The duo further state that the many studies touting the efficacy of statins have not only neglected to account for the numerous serious adverse side effects of the drugs, but supporters of statins have used what the authors refer to as “statistical deception” to make inflated claims about their effectiveness. Their critique of the exaggerated claims regarding statins’ ability to prevent strokes, heart attacks and heart disease-related deaths on a large scale has been published in the March edition of the medical journal “Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology.”

 

[Dean]

They are going to be able to dodge the lawsuits on statins, though I think they've probably killed plenty. Going to be tougher to get away with their serotonin (SSRI) pushing; the correlation (to suicide, especially) is more direct. Maybe the complete corporate takeover of governance will have to be moved to mock speed. Neo-serfs are less likely to fare well in the courts.

 

[Soren]

This link is dead, here is another link to the study,

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1586/17512433.2015.1012494

 

[haidut]

This link is dead, here is another link to the study,

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1586/17512433.2015.1012494

Thanks, I edited the original post and added the new link. The problem with the popular press articles is that online media tracks which ones are popular and if an article does not gather enough "eyeballs" they remove it and the link no longer works.

 

[haidut]

Here is Vinay Prasad's MD MPH view Statin debate pdf.pdf

Good to see not all doctors are slaves to Big Pharma. Is he an independent practitioner? Most doctors employed by a big institution would not dare publish such an opinion.

 

[cs3000]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272189007_How_statistical_deception_created_the_appearance_that_statins_are_safe_and_effective_in_primary_and_secondary_prevention_of_cardiovascular_disease#pf8

lol thats so ****** shady how they didnt include the death rates from heart attacks in the jupiter study because it was slightly higher in statins.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0807646

bundled myocardial infarction stroke and (confirmed death from heart attacks) together , you need to subtract any myocardial infarction (aka all including death inducing ones) from non fatal to see
31 - 22 = 9 in statins , 68 - 62 , 6 in placebo.
(which as an effect size out of the population is nothing , but still)

so basically they made the effect size seem like it was ~50% beneficial at preventing heart attack occurrence. but actually because they tested 8901 people who only have an incidence of 250 heart attacks in that timeframe, dropping it to 142 out of all those people is actually a tiny effect rate doesnt prove much. it only proves 108 people out of 8901 benefited from statins at reducing heart attacks, while slightly increasing their fatality. and on the other side of that close to the same effect rate for increase in diabetes.
did show slightly less all round death , but again out of population effect size is small, +1.9 years maybe too small a timeframe

another way to put it is the absolute risk is what matters - (when you take something you assume you'd belong to the overall population studied rather than the person with the golden ticket who 100% received the effect being 100% destined for the negative outcome - so how much lower risk do you get being in of all those people who take it - thats what matters)
https://www.proteinpower.com/absolute-risk-versus-relative-risk-need-know-difference/

think the summary is where (if) it has a minor benefit its due to lowering inflammation & lowering blood clotting ,
which can be done with safer stuff without tanking cholesterol, without making yourself violently suicidal, without becoming cognitively impaired and increasing cancer incidence risk more than the sort of lowered risk of heart attack occurrence?

Ravnscov is still going with a bunch of papers , calling out how LDL doesnt cause CVD, Is atherosclerosis caused by high cholesterol? (no correlation between LDL and atherosclerosis until you get to extremes of >350 total <- possibly because that indicates some factor present that causes atherosclerosis)
calling out bs papers on PUFA vs Saturated fat etc

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311450145_Association_of_Specific_Dietary_Fats_With_Mortality

 

[cs3000]

‘The more LDL there is in the blood, the more rapidly atherosclerosis develops.’ This 1984 statement by the Nobel Award winners Michael Brown and Joseph Goldstein1 has dominated research on atherosclerosis since then. As shown here, this hypothesis appears to be falsified by the fact that degree of atherosclerosis, and atherosclerotic growth, were independent on the concentration or the change of LDL‐cholesterol in almost all studies.
The role of LDL‐cholesterol for atherosclerosis growth has been exaggerated, a finding with consequences for the prevention of cardiovascular disease. For instance, as the statins exert their beneficial influence on the cardiovascular system by several mechanisms, it may be wiser to search for the lowest effective dose instead of the dose with maximal effect on LDL‐cholesterol.
Neither should an elevated LDL‐cholesterol be the primary target in cardiovascular prevention, as recently claimed by the American National Cholesterol Education Program, and researchers should direct more attention to other hypotheses.

Results: We identified 19 follow-up studies including 20 cohorts of more than six million patients or healthy people. Total mortality was recorded in 18 of the cohorts. In eight of them, those with the highest LDL-C lived as long as those with normal LDL-C; in nine of them, they lived longer, whether they were on statin treatment or not

"coagulation factors are more closely related to coronary events in familial familial hypercholesterolemia than is LDL-C"

 

[David PS]

View: https://twitter.com/Mangan150/status/1653124446423764997

 

[cremes]

View: https://twitter.com/Mangan150/status/1653124446423764997

Perfectly encapsulates why I told my cardiologist “no more.”

 

[joaquin]

The statin pushing doctors remind me of those criminal prosecutors in a situation where the wrongfully convicted gets cleared, and his innocence is beyond the shadow of a doubt. They'll always say, "We feel as if the prosecution was right all along and that this man was rightfully convicted".. they never come out and say "whoops we made a huge mistake."

 

[cs3000]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FvETYhLakAIGZZc?format=jpg&name=900x900

please take all my money pharmaceutical industry

 

[David PS]

please take all my money pharmaceutical industry

 

[David PS]

The statin pushing doctors remind me of those criminal prosecutors in a situation where the wrongfully convicted gets cleared, and his innocence is beyond the shadow of a doubt. They'll always say, "We feel as if the prosecution was right all along and that this man was rightfully convicted".. they never come out and say "whoops we made a huge mistake."

In a similar vein, it reminds me of a doctor who states the surgery was a success, but the patient died.