I wonder who the sponsers are.
- Thread starter carol43
- Start Date
Seems to have been done independently with n 2005.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/513974. Might be wrong as I didn't read the whole thing.
Mind you, the report was published 12 years ago so the data from the trial will be even older.
A lot changes in a year never mind 12
SockFiddler
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 623
- Type of diabetes
- Type 2
- Treatment type
- Tablets (oral)
The study is an (old) review of 29 trials:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/mar/13/statin-side-effects-minimal-study-finds
http://cardiac-research.com/reprint... statins are not caused by the drug - NNL.pdf
The research partners seem to be genuine (not like the British Nutrition Foundation being sponsored by every company that ruins health with its products) but I think the problem is that the premise of the study is wrong.
Its approach is in conflict with patient experience, seeking to prove patients wrong. The question they should have sought to answer is "Why do patients report pain on statins?" People don't follow statistical models, nor do they generally tend to lie en masse about the side-effects of potentially life-saving drugs.
Maybe, now they've reached the conclusion that patients are "wrong", they'll investigate that question next.
I think the more pertinent question is "Whose political agenda is being served by this suddenly surfacing so many years after its less impactful publication?"
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/mar/13/statin-side-effects-minimal-study-finds
http://cardiac-research.com/reprint... statins are not caused by the drug - NNL.pdf
The research partners seem to be genuine (not like the British Nutrition Foundation being sponsored by every company that ruins health with its products) but I think the problem is that the premise of the study is wrong.
Its approach is in conflict with patient experience, seeking to prove patients wrong. The question they should have sought to answer is "Why do patients report pain on statins?" People don't follow statistical models, nor do they generally tend to lie en masse about the side-effects of potentially life-saving drugs.
Maybe, now they've reached the conclusion that patients are "wrong", they'll investigate that question next.
I think the more pertinent question is "Whose political agenda is being served by this suddenly surfacing so many years after its less impactful publication?"
Guzzler
Master
- Messages
- 10,577
- Type of diabetes
- Type 2
- Treatment type
- Diet only
- Dislikes
- Poor grammar, bullying and drunks.
Strangely enough my dn told me about this trial when I reported muscle pain. She had me doubting my own sanity but pain is pain is pain. Placeboic or psychosomatic or physiological, it is all pain but I stand by the obvious fact that pain is always triggered by some physiological change.
