Came across
this on the Malcolm Hendrick blog.
"Beyond confusion and controversy, can we evaluate the real efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering with statins?" By Michel de Lorgeril and Mikael Rabaeus.
Journal of Controversies in Bio-Medical Research Vol 1, No 1 (2015), ie a new journal.
It was published last year by a Swiss and a French cardiologist. Lorgeril is an MD and cardiologist working at the CNRS; so is Rabaeus, but working at a private clinic in Geneva. They compare statins RCTs results classifying by particular methodological factors.
From the end of the abstract:
"In conclusion, this review strongly suggests that statins are not effective for cardiovascular prevention. The studies published before 2005/2006 were probably flawed, and this concerned in particular the safety issue. A complete reassessment is mandatory. Until then, physicians should be aware that the present claims about the efficacy and safety of statins are not evidence based."
Happy reading!
Edit:
@phoenix,
@tim2000s, what do you think? This was just a MedLine search by these two physicians, comparing data on rosuvastatin RCTs over two periods. So it's just an analysis. But with that caveat, does it seem reasonably well constructed to you? I had a quick look thro but didn't go thru the methodology in detail. LSW