I recently talked to a person who was a research assistant on one of the big statin trials - sorry I forget which now. I have no doubt that those involved in the trials themselves had the best interests of the public at heart. Where I have an issue is the use of the result ing data in a misleading way.
For example in a report, a 4% actual difference in events/deaths can become a headline worthy 50% reduction by the statistical sleight of hand of using 'relative risk' rather than 'actual risk'.
The lowering of cholesterol is not proven to be a major factor in heart disease and too low has been shown to be as bad or worse than too high - this is not mentioned when they are pushing statins on you.
Querying my doctor got the response of 'oh well statins have other protective effects' (which were not specified) - so she wanted me to take a drug that has been implicated in worsening a condition I definitely have, (plus the possibility of side effects), in order to possibly have a very tiny protective effect for a condition I didn't have. Plus if you get the side effects it is likely to make the exercising etc which is very beneficial for all (and especially diabetics) very difficult. How many people have talked about going on statins and no longer being able to walk or exercise properly due to muscle pains.
The other way the data is used to extend the reach of the drug is to extrapolate from a study based on men who have already had heart disease to a general population including woman and those who have never had a stroke or heart disease. As diabetics we know better than most that one size does not fit all.
@Osidge - I was interested in your account of the trial:
'At randomisation for the trial, my cholesterol and BP were raised and I, unknowingly, had diabetes. My diabetes was diagnosed by the study Professor (FBG 12.00). I was put on atorvastatin, ramipril and amlodipine and
followed my usual diet minus sweets cakes and other obvious sources of sugar.
How can you tell if the effects were due to one of the drugs or possibly the change in diet since reducing sugar is now very much thought to be a major factor in improving health? And mixing the drugs tell us nothing about the effects of the statin - only about the effects in combination.
Diabetics are said to be at higher risk of cardiac events but I am waiting for an explanation as to why - is it because they are told to eat lots of starchy carbs, that they might have raised levels of insulin, that they may have become overweight? Maybe that for type 2 it is often not diagnosed until they are older and older people are at increased risk anyway.? Until it can be shown that it is because they have too much cholesterol and no other factor then I see no point in taking a statin. And the very low levels some people are pushed to seems positively dangerous. Much more point in improving diet and getting fitter and healthier through exercise.
The Framlington study has been shown to be highly flawed, the initial ideas about cholesterol being a cause of heart disease have been disproved yet this drug is being pushed on a wider and wider population with virtually no back up data other than for men who have previously had a cardiac event and even then the statistics are manipulated and portrayed in a misleading way.