Jump to content
Diabetes forums
  • Welcome To Diabetes Forums!

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today to contribute and support the site.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

NewdestinyX

Statins - benefits versus risks

Recommended Posts

yannah

a friends husband used a statin and started experiencing muscle side effects. all I know about this really, cuase I haven't asked much, is that a couple years ago he was taken off the statin, has been off it awhile and continues to be loosing muscle. he looks awful, has trouble walking and deterioration continues, long after statin use stopped.

 

so, like all drugs, I really try to avoid. but I do decide to take some drugs. blood pressure and met. I went off my statin over a year ago and did succeed i getting normal cholesterol with lifestyle changes. If I had not I would have allowed for mildly high levels without statin use. I am just not convinces that everyone needs to take statins for that.

 

I took a drug for toenail fungus. hard desicion for me. small real risk for liver failure on it. nice! but my toenials during undx'd high blood sugar were thick and curled and brown. and it was mild in my thumb nial as well. choices were remove all the nails or do the drug. I was more afraid of removing nails. cuz my blood sugar was not yet under good control. I did that drug for 3 months with some good result. then I just needed partail nail surgery on two toess. all is well now.

 

these choices are hard. all I know from hard learned experience

is you can't do anything drug-wise because its generally done and accepted. bull ****. I was on 13 meds 2 years ago, and am now on 3 sometimes 4...my opnion is that I would still be on 13 or more, if I had not intervened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yannah

infact, how many times does a doctor go through your drug list to see what someone on multiple drugs can stop taking?

unless your blood pressure has gone to 80/50 and you fall over when you stand up, which happened to me. or your new ac is 5.8 and you say "can I stop actos now?"

 

when I was dx'd with diabetes my liver enzymes were too high, and I was pretty worried about all the new drugs I was taking. I was told that the zyprexa had not only cuased the 70 lbs of wieght gain but also was raising my blood sugat, and so they took me off that and put me on seroquel, which basically does the same thing, just not to the same degree. then as I had to get nerologial testing for nueropathy. I didn't have nueropathy, but my nuerolgist ran some blood tests because I was taking lithium. the lithium was cuasing a potentaily fatal problem where my parathyroid was low and calcium was high.

but he would not comment on stopping the lithium because I am bipolar. so within 3 months I found out 2 drugs I was on were killing me. mmmmmm? and no one had really been monitoring potentail problems.

 

my endo agreed with my nuerologist that it was the lithium. my endo had already told me the atypical antiphychotics were "bad drugs" and to avoid them if at all possible, but did not say much about the lithium situation.

 

well, dah, i tappered off the lithium on my own.

 

these were not good times.

 

anyway, I then became the leader of my health team. yes my bipolar was out of control for a long time and I know they were trying to change the course when they just kept giving me meds, but what was missed at this point that was crucail was that I had had a huge life change. DGF had come and got me, I had gotton out of a toxic marraige that was killing me and DGF had taken all responsibilities away from me. I basically just had to breath for awhile in life. and I had someone watching over me. I really didn't need the 4 drugs and massive over sedation I had anymore.

 

so I changed that, with someone there to help me monitor that change.

 

as I got blood sugar under control and lost my 80 lbs, and went low carb, I was able to drop a whole lot of more stuff.

but I was the one making the suggestions for getting off stuff.

 

does anyone ever try to get you off stuff? do they really monitor you for what you are on?

 

and when deciding to take met over insulin, sholdn't there be a discussion???? even that is a huge desicion, I picked the met cuz of weight loss. but really insulin side effects are possible milder than those with met. but the possiblity of wieght gain was why i did the met. but usually there is no discussin, just a prescription is written, thats it.

 

I think its a really messed up process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yannah

btw, I found out I did need the seroquel, but I am doing that now not daily, but based on episodes. I take it when I need it, not all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bunbury
does anyone ever try to get you off stuff? do they really monitor you for what you are on?

 

and when deciding to take met over insulin, sholdn't there be a discussion???? even that is a huge desicion, I picked the met cuz of weight loss. but really insulin side effects are possible milder than those with met. but the possiblity of wieght gain was why i did the met. but usually there is no discussin, just a prescription is written, thats it.

 

I think its a really messed up process.

 

Hi Yannah - Seasons Greetings! You're right - it really is a messed up process. Just about every drug involves a risk, and sometimes we loose sight of that. The question that can be very hard to answer is whether that risk is justified by the outcome/cure etc. If the disease kills 1 in 10,000 people and the drug that cures it kills 1 in a million do we take the drug?

 

One of the front-line drugs used in parts of central Africa to treat 2nd stage Sleeping Sickness kills up to 1 in 10 of the people who take it. However, it's often the only treatment available, it's affordable and at this late stage the disease is 100% fatal if left untreated. People take the risk.

 

Is there a drug that is risk free? I doubt it. However, there are an awful lot of people (Big Pharma, for example) with a vested interest in playing down the risks. There are also a lot people who, IMO unrealistically, expect drugs to be risk free and a rumour mill to go with them. Look at the scares that surround vaccines like MMR and, here in the UK, TamiFlu.

 

The risk can be very complicated to assess, even if you have a good grasp of the data. Statin-associated rhabdomyolysis is more likely if you take a diuretic .. and what other mix of environmental, physical and medical inputs?

 

Who'd be a family doctor!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yannah
Hi Yannah - Seasons Greetings! You're right - it really is a messed up process. Just about every drug involves a risk, and sometimes we loose sight of that. The question that can be very hard to answer is whether that risk is justified by the outcome/cure etc. If the disease kills 1 in 10,000 people and the drug that cures it kills 1 in a million do we take the drug?

 

One of the front-line drugs used in parts of central Africa to treat 2nd stage Sleeping Sickness kills up to 1 in 10 of the people who take it. However, it's often the only treatment available, it's affordable and at this late stage the disease is 100% fatal if left untreated. People take the risk.

 

Is there a drug that is risk free? I doubt it. However, there are an awful lot of people (Big Pharma, for example) with a vested interest in playing down the risks. There are also a lot people who, IMO unrealistically, expect drugs to be risk free and a rumour mill to go with them. Look at the scares that surround vaccines like MMR and, here in the UK, TamiFlu.

 

The risk can be very complicated to assess, even if you have a good grasp of the data. Statin-associated rhabdomyolysis is more likely if you take a diuretic .. and what other mix of environmental, physical and medical inputs?

 

Who'd be a family doctor!

 

the trust and silliness of people is what worries me. used to be I would take whatever I was prescribed. and not know contraindications ( whether they were grapefruit, alcohol or other drugs, even over the couter) or side effects. dr doesn't tell you and it comes on a peice of paper at the pharmacy that I never read. i just figured if there was something I needed to know someone would tell me. and if the FDA says it is safe, it is.

 

HA HA HA HA HA. hilariuos thinking on my part. never thought once about money and motives versus me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bunbury
the trust and silliness of people is what worries me. used to be I would take whatever I was prescribed. and not know contraindications ( whether they were grapefruit, alcohol or other drugs, even over the couter) or side effects. dr doesn't tell you and it comes on a peice of paper at the pharmacy that I never read. i just figured if there was something I needed to know someone would tell me. and if the FDA says it is safe, it is.

 

HA HA HA HA HA. hilariuos thinking on my part. never thought once about money and motives versus me.

 

:) I think one way to deal with this is to keep our own chemical brews as simple as possible and prevent risks compounding risks .... After 15 years on statins I stopped taking them 8 months ago because I no longer needed them, not because I was well informed about the risks they posed.

 

The more medicines we pour into ourselves the less we know about how they are interacting with each other ... and who knows what else? Witness many of the posts in this thread. If possible, prevention is often better than drug-based control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ODAR

Grant - I don't know if this is relevant to your question but when I was about 25 years old my doc did a blood test and my cholestrol was high.

 

Because my father had a triple bypass for heart surgery before the age of 55 and because I was a smoker she said I was high risk and put me on liptor.

I am now 48 years old and have been on satins since dx. I have my liver and kidneys tested because of my taking the satins at least once a year. Since I was dx with diabetes in July this year I had my cholestrol levels checked at the same time - and it came back at 3.5 (Aud levels - have no idea what it converts to for US levels).

 

I have never experience any "bad" aches etc, however my brother (& the rest of my siblings who are all older than me are on satins) has tried several different types of satins but can never stay on any one long enough because he gets terrible joint pain. My level at dx by the way for cholestrol was 6.5

 

I am having my second 3 monthly checkup in the new year for A1C and Cholestrol. Will be interesting to see what the outcome will be.:o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammer

I mentioned this in another post a long time ago, but all drugs will have side effects, and here's why I think that.

 

You body is genetically programmed to function a certain way. If that genetic programming means you will develop cancer or diabetes or whatever, that is how your body is pre-programmed.

 

If you take a drug that alters that programming, then that drug is going to change a lot of other things by accident. For example, if your body is genetically programmed to have a high blood glucose level, then all of your bodily functions work together to give you that high BG level. Even though that level means you are diabetic, that is what your genes are programmed to do.

 

I like to relate the body to a car, since we all know something about cars. It's as if you bought this car new, and it came with certain size tires. Okay, these tires are put on the car based on the rear axle and the suspension of the car. You get the car and decide that you want more traction so that you can race people, so you buy racing slicks and put them on your car. Racing slicks get tremendous traction on dry roads, so you feel like they will help you race other cars. The thing is, your car wasn't designed for this much traction, so the first time you race someone with these racing slicks on your car, you have so much traction and torque that the rear axle is pulled off of your car. The rear axle couldn't handle the stress of the tires pulling on it. The setup of your car wasn't designed for racing slicks.

 

The same is true of your body. Anytime you take medicine, it alters what your body was designed to do, even if that design is flawed. Any change to that design will cause other problems, or as the drug companies call them, side effects.

 

So now you take a drug that lowers your BG level. That means that whatever the other organs were doing to create your high BG level, now detect that the level is wrong, so the gentic programming causes all of these other organs to change what they are doing. This change is what results in the side effects of the drugs that you took to lower your BG levels. You can't take meds to alter one of your body's processes without causing a change in other processes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewdestinyX

Thanks everyone so far for your input. If I may ask it let's please try to stay on topic specifically with Statins (cholesterol lowering meds) - in so doing hold back our natural desire to speak of the general frustration we have with medicines overall -- with their many side effects. Our topic is statins -- benefits and risks. Thanks! :)

Grant - I don't know if this is relevant to your question but when I was about 25 years old my doc did a blood test and my cholestrol was high.

 

Because my father had a triple bypass for heart surgery before the age of 55 and because I was a smoker she said I was high risk and put me on liptor.

I am now 48 years old and have been on satins since dx. I have my liver and kidneys tested because of my taking the satins at least once a year. Since I was dx with diabetes in July this year I had my cholestrol levels checked at the same time - and it came back at 3.5 (Aud levels - have no idea what it converts to for US levels).

 

I have never experience any "bad" aches etc, however my brother (& the rest of my siblings who are all older than me are on satins) has tried several different types of satins but can never stay on any one long enough because he gets terrible joint pain. My level at dx by the way for cholestrol was 6.5

 

I am having my second 3 monthly checkup in the new year for A1C and Cholestrol. Will be interesting to see what the outcome will be.:o

It is completely relevant and on topic, ODAR. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShottleBop
There's a lot of interesting reading here, even if some of it is over my head. Something that I don't see mentioned in these studies is how the side effects are affected by the dosage of the statin. Were the doses high, or were they the bare minimum?

 

I remember reading in the other thread that Merck, the company that makes Zocor ( simvastatin is the generic name), states in the Physician's Desk Reference, that their research indicates that using 10mg of Zocor reduces the LDL levels by 30%. Today, doctors are prescribing 40mg or more, so that makes me wonder if the test results that show all of the side effects are due to an excessive dosage, and I wonder if using the 10mg dose would result in little or no side effects?

 

The information you're referring to comes from Jay Cohen's book, referenced already in this thread. That took a long time to type in once, and I don't want to go through that again. What Cohen said, however, is that low doses are often all that people need. If you check out the articles for 2005 at medicationsense.com, you wlll find an analysis by Dr. Cohen of a study that tested high dose Lipitor (80 mg) vs. low dose Lipitor (10 mg). While the high-dose group suffered fewer heart attacks, more of the high-dose group died of other causes (resulting in no net benefit on total mortality), and more of them suffered side effects:

Side effects occurred more commonly with high-dose Lipitor: 406 people (8.1%) on high-dose Lipitor got side effects vs. 289 (5.8%) on lower-dose Lipitor.

 

More people discontinued treatment (7.2%) because of side effects with high-dose Lipitor than with lower-dose Lipitor (5.3%).

 

The number of people developing liver enzyme elevations, which indicates liver irritation, increased more than 500%. Sixty people developed liver enzyme elevations with high-dose Lipitor vs. nine with lower-dose Lipitor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yannah
Thanks everyone so far for your input. If I may ask it let's please try to stay on topic specifically with Statins (cholesterol lowering meds) - in so doing hold back our natural desire to speak of the general frustration we have with medicines overall -- with their many side effects. Our topic is statins -- benefits and risks. Thanks! :) It is completely relevant and on topic, ODAR. Thanks!

 

I think everything in this thread is very relavent to taking statins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bunbury
Thanks everyone so far for your input. If I may ask it let's please try to stay on topic specifically with Statins (cholesterol lowering meds) - in so doing hold back our natural desire to speak of the general frustration we have with medicines overall -- with their many side effects. Our topic is statins -- benefits and risks.

 

I was making the following points:

 

1) The risks associated with statin use need to be set in the context of other medications and other side effects. There are complicated interactions. Risks can multiply risks. Statin-associated rhabdomyolysis is more likely if you take a diuretic .. and what other mix of environmental, physical and medical inputs?

 

2) Information about side effects can be difficult to acquire and trust.

 

3) All drugs carry a risk and that we have to set that in the context of the benefits they deliver. (Statins are taken by many people to help sustain an unhealthy lifestyle - food, drink, lack of exercise).

 

Last, I joked that being a family doctor is tough.

 

Is that off-topic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShottleBop
Thanks everyone so far for your input. If I may ask it let's please try to stay on topic specifically with Statins (cholesterol lowering meds) - in so doing hold back our natural desire to speak of the general frustration we have with medicines overall -- with their many side effects. Our topic is statins -- benefits and risks. Thanks! :) It is completely relevant and on topic, ODAR. Thanks!

 

Benefits: Have you seen how much money the drug companies make off of statins?

 

Risks: That their patents run out before they can come up with a new, minor, change that can be patented and marketed as "new and improved," so as to continue the gravy train.

 

Or did you mean "benefits and risks" to us, their guinea pigs? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewdestinyX
I think everything in this thread is very relavent to taking statins.
Not all of it -- but let's keep going.. All is well! We've struck a nerve and that's a good thing. Earlier in the part you quoted I said -- 'statin benefits and risks' AS opposed to other meds in general and our frustrations with our doctors which took up several posts.

 

I was making the following points:

 

1) The risks associated with statin use need to be set in the context of other medications and other side effects. There are complicated interactions. Risks can multiply risks. Statin-associated rhabdomyolysis is more likely if you take a diuretic .. and what other mix of environmental, physical and medical inputs?

 

2) Information about side effects can be difficult to acquire and trust.

 

3) All drugs carry a risk and that we have to set that in the context of the benefits they deliver. (Statins are taken by many people to help sustain an unhealthy lifestyle - food, drink, lack of exercise).

 

Last, I joked that being a family doctor is tough.

 

Is that off-topic?

No. No.. Not at all. All is well, Bunbury. All of that is spot on. Obviously we can't look at statins in complete isolation. I get that. But as many threads do -- we can get off into 'scores' of posts many times that meander to places that really are unrelated - like in this thread -- it would be off topic (to me) to move to -- the 'trust' level we can have toward the medical community in general. I don't want to go there, please. It would equally be off topic to cast aspersions on the Drug companies for their 'evil ways'. ;) And I don't want to go over into issues of 'diet' either unless of course this or that food is contraindicated with statins and experiences where people had food+med side effects.

 

That's all I was trying to say. --All is well. And thanks for your input, Bunbury and Yannah and Hammer and Shottle -- all the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewdestinyX

Much of what I read shows a direct correlation between the lowering of LDL cholesterol and the lowering of heart attack death. But then there is other research that seems to say that 'overall' heart disease in general has 'not lowered' as much in the presence of statins. Do any of you have articles on either side of that issue? If so - link the article and then quote the relevant passage. Please -- not TOO long a quote. I will share more of my readings too.

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewdestinyX
Benefits: Have you seen how much money the drug companies make off of statins?

 

Risks: That their patents run out before they can come up with a new, minor, change that can be patented and marketed as "new and improved," so as to continue the gravy train.

Those two aspects would be off topic for this thread. But I definitely know what you mean and identify with your frustration - to a point. But unless we discuss this topic -with 'science' and personal experience on the meds, as the centerpieces, we won't be able to make the 'best decision' for ourselves in the end to start a statin or come off it. Some folks tend to look for conspiracies everywhere to explain the state of this or that thing/experience in their lives. It will be unproductive to explore that here and it will devolve into heated, often personal, circular argumentation - which has been clamped down on by moderation.
Or did you mean "benefits and risks" to us, their guinea pigs? :D
:) - yes -- that's what I meant. We have the best medical science and drug innovation in the world (also off topic) -- let's try to approach this topic from the 'glass half full' approach. Please. And some of the material you posted in the other thread, Shottle, was super helpful and right on target with what I've asked here. If you point me to a link or two (in PM) on the LDL controversy I will do the re-typing since you already did it once and I was partially at fault for the thread's suspension. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShottleBop
. . . it would be off topic (to me) to move to -- the 'trust' level we can have toward the medical community in general. I don't want to go there, please. It would equally be off topic to cast aspersions on the Drug companies for their 'evil ways'. ;) . . .

 

That is all well and good, but, given the OP's request that we limit ourselves to peer-reviewed studies, there a couple of facts that cannot be overlooked:

 

1. Many, many studies are funded by drug companies, who control the expression of the results--and it has been demonstrated that, in many cases, the abstract--which may be all that is publicly available for a given study--puts (to put it charitably) a more optimistic spin to the results than is actually indicated by the underlying data. Sometimes, it is necessary to rely on third parties to tell us what is missing--for example, as discussed in this letter to the JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY April 2008 regarding the Heart Protection Study(at page 900):

In the Heart Protection Study,1 it was suggested that cholesterol- lowering therapy with simvastatin can reduce the risk of major vascular events among people with peripheral artery disease (PAD). However, a clearly defined effect on total mortality was not reported.

 

In 1992, four of the initiators of the Heart Protection Study (HPS) called for larger total mortality trials to generate data in six named patient subgroups.2 In 2001, after their study was completed, the press release started with the words “LIFE-SAVER” but it gave no data on deaths.3 Similarly, the current HPS report avoided the subject by curiously combining deaths with aneurysm repairs, only to find a small increase on simvastatin for this combined endpoint.

 

Furthermore, HPS found no significant mortality benefit in women, and it now seems that this could also be true for patients with baseline PAD.1 The authors admitted that much of their combined endpoint event benefit in PAD patients was in revascularizations, and after they retrospectively redefined “peripheral vascular events” to include all noncardiac revascularizations including carotid procedures.

 

Revascularizations are procedures that may or may not affect mortality or future cardiovascular events,4 and it is, thus, important to report deaths and true disease endpoints separately. Regardless, despite the absence of noncombined endpoint numbers and numbers needed to treat, the article and its debating author, Dr Bulbulia, stated repeatedly that patients with PAD “should be” on statin (presumably for life) and that there “should be no threshold for initiation of statin therapy”.1 We believe that this is not supported by the grouped endpoint data presented, especially since total deaths are not clearly reported for all participant groups.

 

Interestingly, HPS, 4S5 and LIPID6 are the only three large statin trials to show a brief period of mortality benefit, almost certainly in some men only. Such benefit appeared after about 1.5 years of use and ended about 2 or 3 years later. Such time- dependent and time-limited mortality effect can be shown by releasing the relevant disease and group specific time curves indi- vidually.

 

The authors of HPS should therefore finally release a table for total deaths, heart attacks, amputations, and other disease end- points and related numbers needed to treat, with confidence levels, in women, men, and diabetics, and in this case for PAD patients for 1, 3, and 5 years of simvastatin treatment regarding these end- points. Without such curves and year-by-year disease and group specific numbers needed to treat, prescribers lack crucial data relevant to their patients. Patients deserve to be told their odds of avoiding death and each of the various lesser disease endpoints and for how long they need to take statin to attain these results, and when the effect may no longer exist or be incremental.

 

Eddie Vos, M. Eng

Sutton (QC), Canada

 

Luca Mascitelli, MD

Comando Brigata alpina “Julia” Udine, Italy

 

Colin P Rose, MD

McGill University Montréal (QC), Canada

 

(References omitted, but appear in the letter as linked to.)

 

2. When studies are funded by drug companies, there is an increased likelihood that a study that does not support the sponsor's claims about its drug will never see the light of day.

 

The issue is discussed very well in this article from the Health and Human Services website, titled "CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN CLINICAL DRUG TRIALS: A RISK FACTOR FOR SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT." Excerpt:

I want to start with some general evidence that demonstrates a bias in industry-funded drug trials. What is the bias? It is that company-funded research tends to favor that company's products.

 

In an analysis of 107 drug trials in 5 leading medical journals, Davidson found that 89% of company-funded trials favored the new drug compared with traditional therapies, whereas 61% of trials not funded by industry favored the new drug. He concluded there is a significant association between industry funding and outcome of the study.2

 

Stelfox et al. analyzed 70 articles concerned with the safety of calcium channel blockers. They reported that 96% of authors who were supportive of these drugs had financial ties to calcium channel blocker manufacturers, whereas only 37% of authors who were critical of calcium channel blockers had such financial ties. The results show an association between authors' opinions about the safety of calcium channel blockers and financial relationships with the drugs' manufacturers.3

 

An study of 44 articles regarding economic analyses of oncology drugs found that only 5% funded by drug companies had conclusions unfavorable to the companies' products, whereas 38% of those without industry funding made unfavorable conclusions.4

 

Cho and Bero reported that 98% of company-sponsored drug studies published in peer-reviewed journals or in symposium proceedings between 1980 and 1989 favored the company's drug.5 Can you imagine an election in which someone gets 98% of the vote? I guess if you pay for the votes, it's possible. It seems likely that some of these trials were designed to favor the sponsor, or the data were analyzed to favor the sponsor, or the trials were written to favor the sponsor, or the trials that didn't favor the sponsor were not published.

 

Rochon looked at randomized controlled trials of NSAIDs between 1987 and 1990. She found that virtually all were funded by the drugs' manufacturer; that the efficacy of the manufacturer-associated drug was comparable or superior to that of the comparison drug in 100% of the trials; and that the manufacturer-associated drug was safer than the comparison drug in 86% of the trials.6 Again, the funder of the trials wins the election hands down.

 

The take-home message of these studies is that company-funded trials have a high likelihood of favoring the company's products. The editor of the BMJ has written that such studies "begin to build a solid case that conflict of interest has an impact on the conclusions reached by papers in medical journals."7 Is this scientific misconduct? It is certainly something we should think about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShottleBop
Those two aspects would be off topic for this thread. But I definitely know what you mean and identify with your frustration - to a point. But unless we discuss this topic -with 'science' and personal experience on the meds, as the centerpieces, we won't be able to make the 'best decision' for ourselves in the end to start a statin or come off it. Some folks tend to look for conspiracies everywhere to explain the state of this or that thing/experience in their lives. It will be unproductive to explore that here and it will devolve into heated, often personal, circular argumentation - which has been clamped down on by moderation.

 

Sorry, I was working on the post just above, and didn't see this post of yours until after I submitted my reply. I merely note that the discussion does not have to devolve into circular argumentation--and I will endeavor to avoid that. Further, I note that not all criticism of drug companies has its base in conspiracy theories, and consistently making that assertion in response to such criticism is itself counterproductive.

 

Thanks for your understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewdestinyX
at. Further, I note that not all criticism of drug companies has its base in conspiracy theories, and consistently making that assertion in response to such criticism is itself counterproductive.
As, in my view, it will always be an attempt to 'address a motive' (on the drug company's part) it will always be counterproductive and the stuff of conspiracy theories -almost by definition. No one here can prove that profit is the motive to mislead people and that they discontinue a drug just to sell a new one. Please, for the sake of the thread -- let that be the last word on that topic. It would indeed devolve into circular argumentation again.

 

Thanks for your understanding.
And thank you for understanding the focus I'm hoping to maintain here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
momof3

Thank you for posting this strand - I am newer to the forum and never saw the other one. This timing is perfect for me because I was started on Pravastatin 40 mg on 12/23, (for LDL 132, total cholesteral 197, trigly 121) - took the night of 12/23, 12, 24 and 12/25 and did not take last night because my upper body muscles hurt so bad (also feeling of pressure in chest) I went to look on the internet side affects and VOILA!

 

I know only time will tell if that is what it was. But thanks for the info to research myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dgrilli

After reading all the Posts I didn't find one useful and good thing has done for human kind other than make my stock portfolio look good.

 

I have never been convinced that Cholesterol is bad?

 

Statins good for my portfolio bad for my health imho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewdestinyX
After reading all the Posts I didn't find one useful and good thing has done for human kind other than make my stock portfolio look good.

 

I have never been convinced that Cholesterol is bad?

 

Statins good for my portfolio bad for my health imho

Then I guess you didn't read the first article I posted. The 'benefits' are clear. Whether they outweigh the 'risks' -- well that's what we're discussing here. But the 'benefits', from my reading', to higher risk patients are well documented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShottleBop
As, in my view, it will always be an attempt to 'address a motive' (on the drug company's part) it will always be counterproductive and the stuff of conspiracy theories -almost by definition. No one here can prove that profit is the motive to mislead people and that they discontinue a drug just to sell a new one. Please, for the sake of the thread -- let that be the last word on that topic. It would indeed devolve into circular argumentation again.

 

And thank you for understanding the focus I'm hoping to maintain here.

 

If any criticism of the drug companies will always be seen by you as an attempt to address a motive, and therefore inappropriate, it will be impossible to have a full and fair discussion. In order to properly evaluate the peer-reviewed studies that have been funded by drug companies, it is imperative that we understand (i) whether abstracts and conclusions are truly supported by the raw data, and (ii) that the drug companies as a matter of proven fact do not report every study they do. Not a matter of conspiracy, a matter of fact. And that is what we are trying to determine here, no? How much of what we have heard about statins--pro and con--is factual?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewdestinyX
That is all well and good, but, given the OP's request that we limit ourselves to peer-reviewed studies, there a couple of facts that cannot be overlooked:

Cho and Bero reported that 98% of company-sponsored drug studies published in peer-reviewed journals or in symposium proceedings between 1980 and 1989 favored the company's drug.5 Can you imagine an election in which someone gets 98% of the vote? I guess if you pay for the votes, it's possible. It seems likely that some of these trials were designed to favor the sponsor, or the data were analyzed to favor the sponsor, or the trials were written to favor the sponsor, or the trials that didn't favor the sponsor were not published.
You see, that kind of inference is itself not even scientific of mathematical and that's why I'd ask that it not be a focus in any way of this thread. Though I won't use the 'hyperbolic' term that was used about people who say such things above -- it's clear that they have some 'axe to grind'. You can make percentages say anything you want. People who 'want' to see 'bad behavior' can often find it -even when it's not there. So as I've asked -- let's consider the 'motives of the funders' of a study and the reliability of the data as :topic: -- since I've built into my original request (as OP) the requirement in this thread for what we post to have references or peer-review which in most cases (likely not all) diminish the potential for an article slipping thru from only a doc in the funder's employ.

 

Peer-review is a process wherein work done by a given doc is reviewed by peers NOT in the same employ as the originating author or researcher. The peer-review (other docs usually listed in the credits of an article) process protects us from 'tainted' results to a large extent. Nuff said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.