Dissenting voices indicate that the furore over Avandia, and the subsequent investigation by Rep. Henry Waxma, may be overblown and focusing on the wrong field.
Experts who disagree with the controversy created by a New England Journal of Medicine study in which Avandia was accused of giving rise to a greatly increased risk of heart attack have begun to pick holes in the enquiry.
The voices of disagreement indicate that the New England Journal of Medicine study is probably not meaningful, and that heart attacks in the study had unknown causes. The statistics are refereed to as unreliable, with a huge margin of error. Claims are that the authors didn’t observe Avandia users directly, instead using meta-analysis.
Meta-analysis is one form of research open to criticism. The opposition argue that there was very little in the way of statistically significant evidence linking Avandia with heart attack.
Experts go further, asking who the study that led to the New England journal report is actually funded by, and whether this all stems from drug industry competition . One thing is for sure, the average diabetic is now in a state of confusion on account of the different opinions being bandied around.

Get our free newsletters

Stay up to date with the latest news, research and breakthroughs.

You May Also Like

Type 2 diabetes found to be a ‘significant risk factor’ among stroke victims

More evidence has been published which supports that diabetes is a “significant…

Top diabetes professor drafts risk assessment document for frontline COVID-19 staff

The health and wellbeing of frontline NHS staff has been prioritised among…

Twice daily dairy intakes could reduce type 2 diabetes risk

Eating cheese, yoghurt or eggs twice a day could help lower the…