• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Statins are back in favour

Perhaps the Lancet article should have the word
"ADVERTISEMENT"
at the top of the page?
Sally
 
I read both the news item and the report with a cynical laugh. Everyone I know who's on statins tells me how rubbish they feel on them, which is why I have refused them both times the doctor offered them to me.
 
sally and james said:
Perhaps the Lancet article should have the word
"ADVERTISEMENT"
at the top of the page?
Sally
Click to expand...

The Like button seems to be absent today, Sally, hence reply instead.

But why cant anyone in the press see, and say, that this is an argument, not an exam of new data?
 
hankjam said:
Did he say anything new?
Click to expand...

I had the radio on in the background but didn't quite catch all the interview as I was busy, I'd imagine it will be available on iPlayer sometime soon if you want to have a listen @hankjam
 
I think its just corrupt that totally independent trsts and research isn't done anywhere. And why? Because if an independent company tested and claimed different to the large pharmas they would be sued.

I just don't understand why its not possible to pay more testing in to the 500 people or 1000 people statins supposedly helped to gind out what it is about them that it can help them and not the other 9000+ plus.
Again, if they only targetted 500-1000 people the Pharmas would be out of pocket.

Its not just statins though. Every drug company just tells the NICE, MHRA what they deem as their research on their drugs... we don't really, honestly know that the interpretations are correct for any drug....
 
@hankjam , just checked and the JV show is available on iPlayer now
 
Statin makers obviously make Metformin and other stuff too - ready made customers as statins can lead to diabetes.
 
From a piece in Science Codex today:

"A major review of the available evidence on the safety and efficacy of statin therapy, published in The Lancet, intends to help doctors, patients and the public make informed decisions about the use of the drugs. The authors warn that the benefits of statin therapy have been underestimated, and the harms exaggerated, because of a failure to acknowledge properly both the wealth of evidence from randomised trials and the limitations of other types of studies.

Research on statins has been ongoing for over 30 years, generating a large amount of data from a wide variety of patients. THE REVIEW PUBLISHED TODAY EXPLAINS HOW THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE on the efficacy and safety of statin therapy SHOULD BE INTERPRETED ..."

My emphasis in caps. The point is, it's just interpretation. No new material.

From http://www.sciencecodex.com/the_lan...med_decisions_about_the_use_of_statins-189920
 
I just listened to the iPlayer of the Jeremy Vine show and ..............we're all going to die.

Did you know that eating animal fat furs up your arteries with cholesterol and the statins come along like drain cleaners and make it all go away. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. I still can't.
 
This article has some opposing views. Mainly that there is no new data here, only intensive modelling based on certain assumptions extracted from the existing trials as published. Also that the authors are the triallists - so the whole thing is done from inside the industry.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/cardiology/cardiobrief/60122
 
noblehead said:
NHS Choices take on the research:

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2016/09Septe...effective-and-should-be-used-more-widely.aspx
Click to expand...
Ends up pushing Low Fat diet and Eatwell#2. Goes on about the exaggerations of the side effects, but does not consider the possibility of exaggeration of the benefits made by the study funding partners. The early original RCT studies have been shown to have been using a very dodgy statistical analysis method and I am surprised that NHS is still accepting the original conclusions as gospel. They are totally refusing to acknowledge any of the more recent study reports Heads in sand.
 
Radio 4 Today this morning interviewed a couple of doc's with opposing views but I bet that won;t get splashed across the front page of the Daily Mail. I must admit I was only half listening as I emptied the dishwasher... One of them claimed that the benefits had been significantly exaggerated.
 
As someone who has been taking statins for over 10 years I have never had any muscle pain or ever felt ill on them. Apart from the diabetes I have no other illnesses nor do I have any mobility problems I feel really well and my doctor says I am surprisingly healthy for my age. I think at 77 I am to old now to worry good or bad what is said about statins so will just go on taking them...and yes I have thought that they may have caused the diabetes but I will never know that so no point in dwelling on it. I don't believe in "what if's" I can't change it so I had to deal with it and it's all good
 
Last edited:
An important heart ingredient is Cq10 which is POSSIBLY reduced by the intake of statins. I supplement with Cq10 instead of statins. There is evidence that it is more effective than statins. One of the reasons that doctors POSSIBLY don't prescribe it is because the makers don't put millions into the NHS unlike the makers of statins???

http://www.livestrong.com/article/99966-cq10-benefits/
 
The report was written FOR the industry that supplies statins by medical professionals employed by this industry.

The analysis was undertaken on a study of new statin users against placebo users only.

There was no formal analysis nor any effective means for historical analysis of ex-users who have or are unable to report the issues they have suffered taking statins therefore these users experiences were not taken into account.

I'm shocked anyone can take this report seriously.
 

Yes. Anyone who looks at what the review actually does and says, will be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…