Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to Thread
Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the
Diabetes Forum Survey 2024 »
Home
Forums
Diabetes Management
Other Health Conditions and Diabetes
bmj statins & lies
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dillinger" data-source="post: 543937" data-attributes="member: 13582"><p>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."</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>HOLD THE FRONT PAGE!</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Here is the Daily Mail on this (but all papers and the BBC are essentially saying the same thing);</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2629366/DO-statins-cause-effects-not-Row-breaks-academics-claimed-drugs-harmful-revoke-views.html" target="_blank">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2629366/DO-statins-cause-effects-not-Row-breaks-academics-claimed-drugs-harmful-revoke-views.html</a></p><p></p><p>"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."</p><p></p><p>That is itself sounds a bit fishy doesn't it? Where did this 'less than 1% of patients with side effects' come from?</p><p></p><p>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 <em><u>5% to 10%</u></em> usually described in randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trials.”</p><p></p><p>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%.</p><p></p><p>But Rory Collins is a professor and knows what he is talking about; whilst I'm just some internet whinger.</p><p></p><p>But can this be the same Rory Collins whose entire career is paid for by pharmaceutical companies? Could it be? Really? How odd...</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.express.co.uk/news/health/467673/Prof-Rory-Collins-research-funded-by-multi-million-drug-manufacturer-Pfizer" target="_blank">http://www.express.co.uk/news/health/467673/Prof-Rory-Collins-research-funded-by-multi-million-drug-manufacturer-Pfizer</a></p><p></p><p>"One of the most influential trials led by Professor Collins, involving 30,000 patients from all over the world, <strong>received £96.1million</strong> from statin manufacturer Merck Sharp & Dohme.</p><p></p><p>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 <strong>AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck and Sanofi </strong>in other studies."</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Best</p><p></p><p>Dillinger</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dillinger, post: 543937, member: 13582"] 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); [url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2629366/DO-statins-cause-effects-not-Row-breaks-academics-claimed-drugs-harmful-revoke-views.html[/url] "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 [I][U]5% to 10%[/U][/I] 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... [url]http://www.express.co.uk/news/health/467673/Prof-Rory-Collins-research-funded-by-multi-million-drug-manufacturer-Pfizer[/url] "One of the most influential trials led by Professor Collins, involving 30,000 patients from all over the world, [B]received £96.1million[/B] 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 [B]AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck and Sanofi [/B]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 [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Diabetes Management
Other Health Conditions and Diabetes
bmj statins & lies
Top
Bottom
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Ad free.
Join the community »
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More.…