bmj statins & lies

I was going to put it up but I noticed a boring fact. Every time statins are criticised a learned professor comes out of the woodwork and says that they are harmless. This is not true in my case but it never stops the learned professors. He says, on this time around, that he is frightened that people will be put off taking them if they get bad publicity.

Just another professor alert. I only ever remember one of them being asked if he would take them himself and he said, "Not for primary care".

Here is a link

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-27420100

Bit doubtful about this bit.
"
The drugs are currently given to patients at high risk of heart disease, often after a heart attack. These patients have the most to gain by lowering their cholesterol.

But there are now plans to prescribe statins to low risk patients too. They would face the same side effects, but for much smaller benefits."

The story passed me by. Statins do what they say they do and that is lower cholesterol levels, some people get side-effects others don't, however your more likely to hear about the ones that do than the ones that don't.

noblehead said:

The story passed me by. Statins do what they say they do and that is lower cholesterol levels, some people get side-effects others don't, however your more likely to hear about the ones that do than the ones that don't.

Click to expand...

I certainly agree with you there and yes you do hear far more from those who have side effects than from the thousands of us who take them without any problems

just wish they had been tested on women as trials were on men and us girls are still wondering how much good they do us

These are the statements that have been withdrawn. You can follow them up rather than make assumptions:
http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g3329
http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g3332
The Editor of the BMJ says:

I have decided that the right thing to do is to pass this decision to an independent panel. Iona Heath, former chairwoman of the Royal College of General Practitioners and of The BMJ’s ethics committee, has agreed to chair the panel, whose members will include people with no “dog in this fight,” but with expertise in clinical trial and observational study methodology, and in designing and implementing editorial policies on retraction. Full details of the panel and processes will be published shortly. I have asked that all submissions to the panel be placed in the public domain on bmj.com, and I have committed to implementing the panel’s recommendations in full
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/05/14/bmj-authors-take-back-inaccurate-statin-safety-statements/
It's a measure of the interest in the subject that it's been publicised, some retractions and alterations even in well publicised papers don't get a mention.

Thanks phoenix

So, both of the articles in question have been jumped upon for 'over stating the side effects of statins'. In response to the first one the BMJ said that the article had stated that "that side effects of statins occur in about 18-20% of patients." and therefore "The authors withdraw this statement. Although it was based on statements in the referenced observational study by Zhang and colleagues, that “the rate of reported statin-related events to statins was nearly 18%,” the article did not reflect necessary caveats and did not take sufficient account of the uncontrolled nature of the study."

So the article said 'about 18-20%' when the study that they took that from actually said 'nearly 18%' and they didn't point out that the study was not a gold standard controlled study.

HOLD THE FRONT PAGE!

That is then being presented as a complete stand down by the BMJ and that 'statins are safe' and if you don't take them then people (you) are going to die.

Here is the Daily Mail on this (but all papers and the BBC are essentially saying the same thing);

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...emics-claimed-drugs-harmful-revoke-views.html

"Professor Sir Rory Collins said the BMJ articles overstated the risks of taking statins by 20 times. Sir Rory, who has led analysis of many statin trials, said side effects affect less than 1 per cent of patients – compared to the 18 to 20 per cent figure quoted by the BMJ."

That is itself sounds a bit fishy doesn't it? Where did this 'less than 1% of patients with side effects' come from?

The BMJ's retraction says "Zhang et al observed that the rate of statin related events found in their study (18%) was “substantially higher than the 5% to 10% usually described in randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trials.”

Side effects were still found though and unless I'm pretty confused if you take the figure of 7.5% (as the average for the lower events from 'controlled' studies) then the actual number in the article (20%) is not 20 times larger than 7.5%.

But Rory Collins is a professor and knows what he is talking about; whilst I'm just some internet whinger.

But can this be the same Rory Collins whose entire career is paid for by pharmaceutical companies? Could it be? Really? How odd...

http://www.express.co.uk/news/healt...ded-by-multi-million-drug-manufacturer-Pfizer

"One of the most influential trials led by Professor Collins, involving 30,000 patients from all over the world, received £96.1million from statin manufacturer Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Professor Collins, who has led the largest trials in the world showing the benefits of statins, has also had funding from cholesterol-lowering drug manufacturers AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck and Sanofi in other studies."

Of course no mention has been given to withholding of negative study results, removing study participants who develop negative side effects and on and on (see Ben Goldacre for all the details on that).

Also I don't recall the last time the papers were covered with withdrawals and corrections when risk reduction was phrased as a percentage without stating whether it was relative risk or absolute risk (going from a risk of 4% to 3% is a 1% absolute reduction of risk and a 33% relative reduction - spookily the same figures that statins lower your risk of death by; guess which percentage figure you will be told if you ask by how much statins will reduce your risk of heart disease by).

Take statins if you want to but don't for a moment think that you are not part of a massive billion dollar industry that will fight to protect its market share.

Best

Dillinger

Nice one Dillinger

I have a personal axe to grind I suppose since I spent two months in a chair until I was weaned off statins. Not taking the hint I went on another and ended up in the physiotherapist's surgery.

Being one of the side effect sufferers I am not encouraged by the support I get from people without the same problem

I'm having minor surgery on Monday, yesterday I had my consent appointment with the consultant. He asked about my medication and I said that I'm taking 2000mg of Metformin a day. I then said that I had been prescribed 40mg of statins a day but that I haven't taken these for 3 months. He looked at me and said quietly, "good".

Just where do they gather all their evidence from? I have conclusive proof that statins are horrendous with me.. All of them.

Not one single GP has ever reported this to the MHRA, I have checked before I have reported myself....

The heart palpitations with atoravastatin did not start until months after starting them both times. Both times I stopped taking them and the strange feelings in my left side of chest went immediately. This occurred twice in 4 years, both discussed with different GP's from different Practices.. One in Wales, one in Northampton. Neither of them, nor my consultants at hospital reported the incidents. All statins have killed my legs, and again I have conclusive proof of this too. Ignored by GP's.

So if GP's are ignoring this evidence because they are being paid for the qty of statins they prescribe, what hope do we have of getting true analysis of the effects of statins?

Where do they get their evidence from?


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

r

donnellysdogs said:

Just where do they gather all their evidence from? I have conclusive proof that statins are horrendous with me.. All of them.

Not one single GP has ever reported this to the MHRA, I have checked before I have reported myself....

The heart palpitations with atoravastatin did not start until months after starting them both times. Both times I stopped taking them and the strange feelings in my left side of chest went immediately. This occurred twice in 4 years, both discussed with different GP's from different Practices.. One in Wales, one in Northampton. Neither of them, nor my consultants at hospital reported the incidents. All statins have killed my legs, and again I have conclusive proof of this too. Ignored by GP's.

So if GP's are ignoring this evidence because they are being paid for the qty of statins they prescribe, what hope do we have of getting true analysis of the effects of statins?

Where do they get their evidence from?


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

Click to expand...

So are you saying statins are the only drug that GP's are making money from and thats why they prescribe them....come on no doctor would deliberately prescribe a drug that they knew was actually bad for patients and could make some people quite ill just to make money

If I ever suffer any side effects from taking statins I will stop taking them but I will tell my doctor about it not other people. I would not want anyone to be frightened to take them because I had bad side effects from them
Statins are something we have to make our own minds up to take and find out for ourself if they suit us we should not be influenced by what others who have had a bad effect have said about them

"A Sunday Express investigation has discovered eight out of 12 members of the Nice panel which drew up the guidance have financial ties to companies that make statins or next generation cholesterol lowering drugs."

Taken from one article alone.... Google payments for statins uk etc and you will find lots of articles about drug companies paying etc.. Recall recently where one company was found guilty of something of bad practices for payments abriad somewhere.

So when NICE people get paid.. How do you expect them to be independent with their advice?

The financial ties are declared in an appendix to the new draft Nice statin guidance and include payments for speeches, lectures or to attend conferences which can reap thousands of pounds per hour.


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

"Increasing numbers of patients in this country have been put on statins in the last decade, amid spiralling obesity and more aggressive prescribing of the medications by family doctors, whose pay is linked to take-up of the pills among their patients"

I can't post the link, but this is quoted from the Telegraph....




Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

"But if a subset of patients cannot reach this target, GPs would still earn points if these patients were prescribed a moderate dose generic statin within 90 days of the cholesterol recording.

If such patients were already taking a statin, a GP would need to increase the dose within 90 days of a recording. Similarly, a GP could instead switch a patient onto a different statin to achieve points in this indicator.

It means that for patients with very high cholesterol in who the 4mmol/L target is unachievable, GPs can still earn points for good clinical practice."

Talen from a GP article...Gp's are not independent from wanting to give statins.


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

AnnieC said:

come on no doctor would deliberately prescribe a drug that they knew was actually bad for patients and could make some people quite ill just to make money

Click to expand...

Well there is a financial incentive to prescribe certain drugs (such as statins) to meet the targets imposed upon GPs.

Personally, I don't think any GP would deliberately do something that they thought would cause harm, but they are stuck in a state of cognitive dissonance. Everyone 'knows' that virtually no one gets side effects from statins (see above) and here is a patient presenting with side effects - what to do? Well, nothing it's all in their heads because statins virtually never cause side effects and so the parade continues.

Best

Dillinger

It will be interesting to read the contributions from Drs Unwin & Briffa.

AnnieC said:

If I ever suffer any side effects from taking statins I will stop taking them but I will tell my doctor about it not other people. I would not want anyone to be frightened to take them because I had bad side effects from them
Statins are something we have to make our own minds up to take and find out for ourself if they suit us we should not be influenced by what others who have had a bad effect have said about them

Click to expand...

Quite right Annie, what a sensible reply.

AnnieC said:

If I ever suffer any side effects from taking statins I will stop taking them but I will tell my doctor about it not other people. I would not want anyone to be frightened to take them because I had bad side effects from them
Statins are something we have to make our own minds up to take and find out for ourself if they suit us we should not be influenced by what others who have had a bad effect have said about them

Click to expand...

I'm very glad 2 Balance readers wrote in with their muscle pain problems with statins. I though my pains were due to advancing age & diabetes complications. I stopped taking them & the pains went in a week.