Oh NO! Not more statin stuff.

[DavidGrahamJones]

You'll be pleased to hear that this is nothing to do with whether they're good, bad or indifferent. More to do with who they choose to do further research.

There is to be a £1 million trial into the danger of statins, examining the risk of muscle pain. One of the key researchers is Professor Jane Armitage, an expert in public health medicine at the University of Oxford. She is confident that statins do not increase the risk of muscle pain in most patients and believes side effects are rare. She has said "We are very anxious about adverse publicity on statins".

She heads up the Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit and I have no doubt of her credentials, but it would seem that she has already decided the results of any trial they do, which I find very worrying.

She obviously hadn't seen the Merck Pharmaceutical patent application of 1990 (yep, 26 years ago) that wanted to add CoQ10 to the statin to prevent skeletal muscular myopathy. Statins prevent CoQ10 uptake and that's what causes the muscle pain in some people who take statins.

 

[NoCrbs4Me]

That's a rather bizarre, but telling, statement for a researcher to make. She's put the £1 million trial results in question before even starting.

 

[Oldvatr]

That's a rather bizarre, but telling, statement for a researcher to make. She's put the £1 million trial results in question before even starting.

It is never in question because its the result the bill payer wants.

 

[Mike d]

"We are very anxious about adverse publicity on statins".

Pathetic. The conclusion and bias in her head before she puts in the work.

 

[Squire Fulwood]

The bloke that didn't test them for side effects in the first place made a similar statement. He said that, if funded, he would examine the files of thousands of patients to prove that statins were harmless. I don't think either of these people qualify as unbiased.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/558249/statins-expert-heart-drug-rory-collins

 

[Brunneria]

Well, I would be 'anxious' about ANY 'adverse' media blathering about the subject of any study or review I was conducting.

- don't get me wrong, I think all investigators should be impartial.

But just because someone is worried about adverse media attention does not mean they are a master criminal about to manipulate the study results. It just shows they have common sense concerns that the media are a bunch of Barn Burners with very little understanding of the subjects they report, and a ravening hunger for Sound Bite Melodrama.

 

[Daibell]

Well, I have already made my biased decision to ignore the results of this research when concluded. Who is funding this research? If anyone examines patient records they may not find much useful data as many, like my wife's record, doesn't reflect the serious liver problem she had with statins i.e. no Yellow card.

 

[Squire Fulwood]

Of course there is this as well.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-36274791

The news report also contains the comment ......

"The medicines regulator said the clinical risk to patients was low."

So a computer was wrongly programmed and people have been given statins when they shouldn't have and not been given them when the computer said that they should have been. It's OK though since in either case the risk to patients was low???

 

[Brunneria]

Well, I have already made my biased decision to ignore the results of this research when concluded. Who is funding this research? If anyone examines patient records they may not find much useful data as many, like my wife's record, doesn't reflect the serious liver problem she had with statins i.e. no Yellow card.

You can always report the issue yourself, and then send a letter to your surgery requesting that it be placed on her record that the statins caused a problem.

 

[Dark Horse]

Of course there is this as well.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-36274791

The news report also contains the comment ......

"The medicines regulator said the clinical risk to patients was low."

So a computer was wrongly programmed and people have been given statins when they shouldn't have and not been given them when the computer said that they should have been. It's OK though since in either case the risk to patients was low???

It's not OK , which is why the software company are working with the MHRA to identify the patients affected and the calculator is being fixed. The errors in the calculator are in both directions (some people are taking statins who "shouldn't" and some people are not taking statins who "should") and at the moment it is not known who is affected. Every statin-taker may be worrying that they have been mis-classified so it is appropriate to try and reduce their anxiety while they wait to see if they have been affected by pointing out that the risks are low.

 

[Oldvatr]

The problem with the yellow card system is that in many cases, the adverse effects are anecdotal, and unless there is collaborating evidence to support such as A&E admission, scan results. blood tests etc. then a GP is reluctant to log it. My GP is aware that I have an adverse reaction to statins, but has not raised any paperwork as a result. We have agreed to disagree.

But as I point out, unless we are sectioned under the Mental Health Act, or are under a specific High Court ruling, then we can refuse to accept medical treatment and do not need to give a reason. Of course, there may be follow on difficulties in the GP/patient relationship and this may lead to withdrawal of further care, which would need to be addressed with higher authorities. In the days of PCT's and PALS, then there was a channel for raising complaints, but now the NHS has devolved funding direct to Practice Managers, then it has become more difficult to obtain redress. Such is progress.

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

But just because someone is worried about adverse media attention does not mean they are a master criminal about to manipulate the study results.

They don't have to be a master criminal, just clever with statistics, you can say anything then. Ancel Keys and his famous "Seven countries study" is a classic example. In his case he only presented 7 of the 22 pieces of data available.

It's a shame that the small anecdotal survey that we did on this forum isn't considered to be valid statistics. Of the 220 members who replied to the question "If you have used statins, did you experience significant side effects from using them?”, 65% said yes and 35% said no. Yet she believes that side effects are rare, maybe she doesn't know many people who take them.

This trial is duplicating research done in the U.S. which concluded that of the 491 subjects just over 40% experienced muscle pain while taking Atorvastatin , but not while taking placebo. More details http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2511043.

There's a name given to science where the scientists have preconceived ideas or a hypothesis that they are keen to prove - Wishful thinking science.

 

[Brunneria]

I agree with all of that.

However, this thread seems to assume that this woman is/has pre-judged her findings.

Ironic then, that the majority of comments on this thread are doing exactly the same thing about her.

 

[Daibell]

I agree with all of that.

However, this thread seems to assume that this woman is/has pre-judged her findings.

Ironic then, that the majority of comments on this thread are doing exactly the same thing about her.

She has already stated her bias by saying side effects are rare etc when there is enough evidence to say otherwise. I think we are therefore entitled to say she has pre-judged by openly ignoring pre-existing evidence and therefore any results from her research have to be suspect.

 

[Oldvatr]

If s

She has already stated her bias by saying side effects are rare etc when there is enough evidence to say otherwise. I think we are therefore entitled to say she has pre-judged by openly ignoring pre-existing evidence and therefore any results from her research have to be suspect.

If she were a judge about to take a major trial, would this behaviour be ignored. Especially by the defence team?

 

[Brunneria]

She has already stated her bias by saying side effects are rare etc when there is enough evidence to say otherwise. I think we are therefore entitled to say she has pre-judged by openly ignoring pre-existing evidence and therefore any results from her research have to be suspect.

The OP did not quote her saying this. The OP presented an interpretation of her words, implying bias, then went on to quote an out of context quote referring to publicity on statins.

She MAY be biased. But the evidence presented in the OP does not prove it.

Without that evidence many posts on this thread HAVE pre-judged.
All pre-judgement is unfair, even if based on prior experience.

- just to clarify, I don't like statins and don't anticipate ever taking one. I think they do far more harm than good. My comments are because of the hypocrisy of people taking incomplete comments out of context and using them to pre-judge. Especially in view of the fact that this woman was criticising the media for doing exactly that.

Excuse me while I go off and giggle at the layers of irony.

 

[Oldvatr]

Think this

You'll be pleased to hear that this is nothing to do with whether they're good, bad or indifferent. More to do with who they choose to do further research.

There is to be a £1 million trial into the danger of statins, examining the risk of muscle pain. One of the key researchers is Professor Jane Armitage, an expert in public health medicine at the University of Oxford. She is confident that statins do not increase the risk of muscle pain in most patients and believes side effects are rare. She has said "We are very anxious about adverse publicity on statins".

She heads up the Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit and I have no doubt of her credentials, but it would seem that she has already decided the results of any trial they do, which I find very worrying.

She obviously hadn't seen the Merck Pharmaceutical patent application of 1990 (yep, 26 years ago) that wanted to add CoQ10 to the statin to prevent skeletal muscular myopathy. Statins prevent CoQ10 uptake and that's what causes the muscle pain in some people who take statins.

I think this is relevant to this discussion
http://www.ndph.ox.ac.uk/team/jane-armitage

I see she was also part of the team that produced the following study
Trial of Atorvastatin for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.

and she was co-author on
Management of residual risk after statin therapy.

EDIT to Add: the third link here allows access to the full text. It was published in 2016, so should be up to date. It is clear she is very pro statin therapy, and is reviewing further treatments to lower LDL levels. It is very clear her tenet is the old model of LDL= BAD!
She recommends fully the addition of Ezetimibe as an adjunct to statin therapy.
She does not seem to know about the study that shows women do not benefit from statin therapy AT ALL, so she is probably still using the old statistical analysis method used in the Avorastatin study above.

Most of the trials she references in this report have been discredited.

Bad news IMO a dinosaur disaster about to repeat.

 

[NoCrbs4Me]

I agree with all of that.

However, this thread seems to assume that this woman is/has pre-judged her findings.

Ironic then, that the majority of comments on this thread are doing exactly the same thing about her.

And now you're pre-judging me! (joke).

 

[Dark Horse]

One of the strengths of the scientific method is transparency. The results of this study will be published publicly (unlike many studies performed by drug companies) and the methods used, the results obtained and the analysis of those results will be available for any other scientist to pick holes in. If someone tries to manipulate the statistics, somebody else is likely to pick up on it and raise a stink.

I believe the study in question is this one http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2016/side_effects_statins_investigated.html
with more detail here http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/projects/hta/1449159

It is being run by The London School of Tropical Medicine Clinical Trials unit who say, "As this is a double-blind placebo controlled trial, neither the participants themselves nor the researchers analysing the data will know which medicine they have been given." Armitage is not leading the study but is a "Co-investigator, as is Ben Goldacre of " Bad Science" and "Bad Pharma" fame. It's quite interesting to read an article that Goldacre wrote about statin research:-
http://www.badscience.net/2014/03/s...ws-and-why-trials-transparency-matters-again/

 

[Pipp]

You'll be pleased to hear that this is nothing to do with whether they're good, bad or indifferent. More to do with who they choose to do further research.

There is to be a £1 million trial into the danger of statins, examining the risk of muscle pain. One of the key researchers is Professor Jane Armitage, an expert in public health medicine at the University of Oxford. She is confident that statins do not increase the risk of muscle pain in most patients and believes side effects are rare. She has said "We are very anxious about adverse publicity on statins".

She heads up the Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit and I have no doubt of her credentials, but it would seem that she has already decided the results of any trial they do, which I find very worrying.

She obviously hadn't seen the Merck Pharmaceutical patent application of 1990 (yep, 26 years ago) that wanted to add CoQ10 to the statin to prevent skeletal muscular myopathy. Statins prevent CoQ10 uptake and that's what causes the muscle pain in some people who take statins.

@DavidGrahamJones , is there a link to the information on the propsed study?
To me, the statement "we are very anxious bout adverse publicity on statins" is very ambiguous. Especially if taken in isolation or out of context.
I would like to read the full proposal before forming an opinion.
Thanks.

Edit by Pipp.... Sorry , had not noticed post by Dark Horse. Will read and reflect.