With lots of debate on here lately with regard to statins, I have just been having a little re-visit to my (anti) statin books. Now a huge favourite of mine is Kendrick's Great Cholesterol Con, I like his style and his humour, as well as the way that he presents the argument, but a lot of people can't get on with him.
I've just re-read Ernest M Curtis 'The Cholesterol Delusion'. I think that is a good introduction to the topic. One of the really good things he does is to actually reproduce the figures and statistics from frequently cited research in absolute risk terms (the way they should be reported) rather than relative risk reduction (the way they are normally reported that exaggerates benefits). In the appendix he actually reprints the journal studies of two significant pro-lipid lowering studies, The Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial and the Helsinki Trial, and then takes you, step by step, through a critical analysis of these studies, what are they actually saying and what do they say they find (as reported in the conclusions and abstract). It makes for interesting reading.
I really don't blame our doctors, there have been in excess off 500 studies on statins produced in eminent medical journals. They do not have time to not only read each one, but to also interrogate the findings, to make sure that they are not being mis-represented in the conclusions - and in many studies the actual data is never published, Pharmaceutical companies are allowed to not release the whole data as they are allowed to say that it is 'commercially sensitive'. Pharmaceutical companies should not be allowed to say that information, for instance about side effects to a drug, are commercially sensitive. They are very important to the person being prescribed the drug. When companies refuse to hand over data the drug concerned should not be funded from the public purse.
NICE should employ real experts, expert statisticians and expert scientists - even scientists from other disciplines - who would look with a more objective eye at the research to see if the methods are valid, if there is lack of bias and if the findings are reported in an accurate and transparent way. Instead of which, they employ 'eminent doctors' in the field to advise them. The last lot of 10 advisors, who recommended yet further 'statination' of otherwise healthy people consisted of 8 who had direct ties to Pharmaceutical companies.
but LD gone from 1.6 to 4.49
