JohnEGreen
Master
- Messages
- 13,230
- Type of diabetes
- Other
- Treatment type
- Diet only
- Dislikes
- Tripe and Onions
Well done! I have the statin conversation at every review but still do not take the DN on her kind offer!!I was on Atorvastatin and when I went for my appointment with the DN, I told her that I was not going to take them anymore as I don't believe in all this cholesterol rubbish! She tried and tried to make me take them but I still said no!
When I had my next appointment, 6 months later, my cholesterol had gone DOWN! I rest my case.
One important thing to take account of is that most of the studies I have seen use the PETO statistical analysis method, which has been thoroughly debunked as being 'open to misinterpretation and bias' The front sheet of the PETO academic textbook has a disclaimer that the method is NOT to be used for new reports, but is still available for 'historical research'. I personally found serious bias on two 'reputable' studies for statin use before I found out that the method had been revoked and 'shamed'.If anyone wants to know about the factual evidence regarding Statins rather than the often bias Youtube video presentations and anecdotal evidence then the only place to look is the Cockrane Reviews.
The Cockrane reviews are NOT cherry picked and give ONLY the best un-biased reviews of medical research .
Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004816.pub5/full
Statins for preventing major vascular events in people with hypertension
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004933.pub2/full
Source and more statin reviews here http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cochranelibrary/search/
Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004816.pub5/full
One important thing to take account of is that most of the studies I have seen use the PETO statistical analysis method, which has been thoroughly debunked as being 'open to misinterpretation and bias' The front sheet of the PETO academic textbook has a disclaimer that the method is NOT to be used for new reports, but is still available for 'historical research'. I personally found serious bias on two 'reputable' studies for statin use before I found out that the method had been revoked and 'shamed'.
I am not a statititian but I used to use statistics in my job, so have some experience using them and reading them. I was totally unable to see how the companies funding the study were making claims that were not backed up by the data.
In 2006 this ban was made official policy for all new reports, but the earlier reports have not been reviewed or retracted.
The Cocrane reviews are totally un-biased and have been quoted before on this forum many times mainly by those strongly against the use of statins, whats changed?
If you read the first report you posted, and then the follow on commentary. you can plainly see that there was an attempt to identify bias, and several of the 19 reports they used show bias. So I dispute your claim that 'The Cocrane reviews are totally un-biased' However, they have acknowledged this in the main body of their report.The Cocrane reviews are totally un-biased and have been quoted before on this forum many times mainly by those strongly against the use of statins, whats changed?
Mainly because their main premise "high cholesterol causes CVD" is currently being questioned. When the recently retired President of the World Heart Federation starts to question this hypothesis then any previous study relying on it has to be questioned as well.
If you read the first report you posted, and then the follow on commentary. you can plainly see that there was an attempt to identify bias, and several of the 19 reports they used show bias.
"Cochrane Reviews are systematic reviews of primary research in human health care and health policy, and are internationally recognized as the highest standard in evidence-based health care resources."
The Cockrane Library is the gold standard of evidence based reviews but if you chose not to believe that then thats entirely your prerogative, although it is generally accepted that they are.
Edit: You might like to read this thread from a few years ago http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/thr...th-about-cholesterol.30571/page-2#post-287263
Strange that on that occasion Cockrane was quoted to back up your theories. I guess guess new evidence must have come to light.
Granted, I took Metformin and the statin at the same time so I can't be certain of which caused what
I tell my DN everytime we have the dreaded 'Statins' conversation but all she says is that 'other ones are available and may be ok' I always decline her kind offer - it saves the NHS money and me grief!!If you are affected by taking statins may I recommend that you tell your GP exactly that and if your GP tries the old "there's no proof . . . . . etc etc" remind them that even the manufacturer knew about the side effects to the extent they applied for a patent for their statin to include CoQ10. There are also countries where CoQ10 is routinely prescribed alongside the statin, unfortunately the effects of ingested CoQ10 aren't very clear.
Sorry Sid, I stll have issue with what you are posting here. The un-attributed quote you make above is the sort of Management Speak that might appear in the introduction to an Annual General Meeting *AGM) report, and means nothing to me since I have experienced it too much in my life. Who originated that quote?"Cochrane Reviews are systematic reviews of primary research in human health care and health policy, and are internationally recognized as the highest standard in evidence-based health care resources."
.
Edit: You might like to read this thread from a few years ago http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/thr...th-about-cholesterol.30571/page-2#post-287263
Strange that on that occasion Cockrane was quoted to back up your theories. I guess guess new evidence must have come to light.