Statins Bad press
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace,
I will give you an example of how bigpharma tries to influence you by playing with numbers, supposing the numbers are correct in the first place. Who paid for the study?
Suppose I am selling lottery tickets.
You buy one ticket, I say; "Did you know that if you buy two, you just doubled your chances of winning?" Is this true, yes but only in relative numbers.
In absolute numbers, (if 10 million tickets are sold) your chances go up from 1/10000000 to 2/10000000.
If you look at the medical stats, you will see that they give all the positive effects as relative numbers (doubling your chances of winning the lottery) and all the side-effects as absolute numbers.
I will give you an example of how bigpharma tries to influence you by playing with numbers, supposing the numbers are correct in the first place. Who paid for the study?
Suppose I am selling lottery tickets.
You buy one ticket, I say; "Did you know that if you buy two, you just doubled your chances of winning?" Is this true, yes but only in relative numbers.
In absolute numbers, (if 10 million tickets are sold) your chances go up from 1/10000000 to 2/10000000.
If you look at the medical stats, you will see that they give all the positive effects as relative numbers (doubling your chances of winning the lottery) and all the side-effects as absolute numbers.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gosh. Lively and lovely debate but getting a bit heated if we (I assume pilots) take a prod at you (the medics). Rdgirl, stop taking the statin every evening & you might calm down, I really like Ginger's chill technique & picture. STRESS is the big thing. One Poster had a heart attack while telling us he was well within fitness criteria. But, was he stressed out of his brains for other reasons ?
We are not trying to terrify anyone, Radgirl. I think Gordomac's post was excellent. He was alluding to BALANCE. He demonstrated that well by shooting you down & complimenting you at the same time.(your humorous assessment).
Medics have their place and the excellent work is much appreciated. I think we (the pilots) are complaining about rather quick diagnosis, of course down the drug route & scant grasp of the physical damage being done.
Overviewing many posts, I don't think the Jury are out. Balance appears to favour the view that Statins are causing misery to many. The media chop & change with the latest view but do have cause to report on the latest news.
Oh & don't get me started on BMI !!!
Pilots get very worried (not terrified) when the evidence is in our faces. A bunch of my colleagues faced "enhanced" medical requirements in order to extend contracts to age 65 rather than 60. This was a Company requirement rather than a Regulatory Authority one. One, a poster on this forum, was one of several grounded for high blood/sugar & some were than diagnosed with type 2 D. Statins (over-subscribed in one case, nearly killed him.).
Another, after passing tests that would floor most NASA Space Cadet wanabees, got his Class one medical but wound up in intensive care a few weeks later and then died ! Don't know the causes or how he got his Class one but, really- , In your face stuff that made us all go into the Medical depts with suspicion.
Again, balance dear people. We (pilots) have the same respect for you (medics) as you have for us. We are commenting on valuable observation. Not "havin a go !" !
Gordomac, can I join you & Radgirl for that Drink ? I need to DESTRESS !
Ginge : Downloaded your pic & hanging it in the pub.
We are not trying to terrify anyone, Radgirl. I think Gordomac's post was excellent. He was alluding to BALANCE. He demonstrated that well by shooting you down & complimenting you at the same time.(your humorous assessment).
Medics have their place and the excellent work is much appreciated. I think we (the pilots) are complaining about rather quick diagnosis, of course down the drug route & scant grasp of the physical damage being done.
Overviewing many posts, I don't think the Jury are out. Balance appears to favour the view that Statins are causing misery to many. The media chop & change with the latest view but do have cause to report on the latest news.
Oh & don't get me started on BMI !!!
Pilots get very worried (not terrified) when the evidence is in our faces. A bunch of my colleagues faced "enhanced" medical requirements in order to extend contracts to age 65 rather than 60. This was a Company requirement rather than a Regulatory Authority one. One, a poster on this forum, was one of several grounded for high blood/sugar & some were than diagnosed with type 2 D. Statins (over-subscribed in one case, nearly killed him.).
Another, after passing tests that would floor most NASA Space Cadet wanabees, got his Class one medical but wound up in intensive care a few weeks later and then died ! Don't know the causes or how he got his Class one but, really- , In your face stuff that made us all go into the Medical depts with suspicion.
Again, balance dear people. We (pilots) have the same respect for you (medics) as you have for us. We are commenting on valuable observation. Not "havin a go !" !
Gordomac, can I join you & Radgirl for that Drink ? I need to DESTRESS !
Ginge : Downloaded your pic & hanging it in the pub.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope it's an interesting debate and not too heated as have greatest respect for Radgirl and Gingernut and I do not have the knowledge they have only media induced concern and other sources which frankly make sense ! This is a small thread but even the reports from users past and present reinforce what is being said and claimed
Last edited by Pace; 5th Oct 2015 at 16:46.
Thanks for the link PACE, I will read it, and try and critique it.
I've had a long day in tutorials with undergraduates, discussing the "health belief model."- it's one of these psychological conceptual models that academics love, but makes the heart of clinicians sink.
This one was quite interesting, and I was thinking of you guy's. It provides a framework that helps us (them) explore perceived severity, perceived susceptibility, perceived benefits, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, cues to action and self efficacy of a health promotion behaviour. This debate made it all seem a bit clearer.
Please don't apologise to us professionals, we enjoy the debate, and welcome your contributions.
On the evidence I've seen so far, I'm still advocating statins in those above 10% 10 year risk.
I've had a long day in tutorials with undergraduates, discussing the "health belief model."- it's one of these psychological conceptual models that academics love, but makes the heart of clinicians sink.
This one was quite interesting, and I was thinking of you guy's. It provides a framework that helps us (them) explore perceived severity, perceived susceptibility, perceived benefits, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, cues to action and self efficacy of a health promotion behaviour. This debate made it all seem a bit clearer.
Please don't apologise to us professionals, we enjoy the debate, and welcome your contributions.
On the evidence I've seen so far, I'm still advocating statins in those above 10% 10 year risk.
I think we could all do with a drink down the pub! There's only so much evidence either way and I can certainly understand the scepticism with which medicine and the lack of certainty therein is viewed. The problem is that medicine is inherently uncertain, you never really know until afterwards! As clinicians we can only give you the best available information and help you synthesise it in order for you to make an informed decision. Medicine thankfully isn't as paternalistic as it used to be and we as medical practitioners have to adapt, like it or not.
Thanks Mike, yes I have read it. Fantastic paper demonstrating the benefit of statins. Multiple massive studies proving 1 in 60 to 1 in 80 people who would have died every 2-3 years survived due to statins. Although most studies were in specific groups, if you apply it to the population of the US or UK you get some idea of the number of lives saved by these drugs that cost pennies. Sadly not everyone can tolerate them. and doctors need to monitor patients and only prescribe after informed consent.
Compare this with the billions of pounds spent trying to reduce road traffic deaths. There were just 1713 deaths in the UK in 2013. Cant prevent more than this but in reality deaths have risen slightly.
Compare this with the billions of pounds spent trying to reduce road traffic deaths. There were just 1713 deaths in the UK in 2013. Cant prevent more than this but in reality deaths have risen slightly.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radgirl
I do not see this study as supporting Statins but highly critical of how statistics have been manipulated to trick people and The medical world into believing Statins offer benefits to a greater number of people than they actually do!
The benefits appear to be to a far fewer number than the drug companies have claimed and the downsides far worse! Even the studies take maybe 2000 people and treat them as clones which of course they are not as are the reasons people may have elevated cholesterol ? So it is not clear on which specific people with what condition will benefit
We have to remember that it was not long ago that certain quarters where demanding that every healthy person over 50 should be put on Statins
I totally see your point that people with severe risk should have them as the better of two evils but as posted by many in this thread who have had very negative and damaging effects someone needs to come clean on these drugs for the confidence of the public.
Pace (not medically qualified)
I do not see this study as supporting Statins but highly critical of how statistics have been manipulated to trick people and The medical world into believing Statins offer benefits to a greater number of people than they actually do!
The benefits appear to be to a far fewer number than the drug companies have claimed and the downsides far worse! Even the studies take maybe 2000 people and treat them as clones which of course they are not as are the reasons people may have elevated cholesterol ? So it is not clear on which specific people with what condition will benefit
We have to remember that it was not long ago that certain quarters where demanding that every healthy person over 50 should be put on Statins
I totally see your point that people with severe risk should have them as the better of two evils but as posted by many in this thread who have had very negative and damaging effects someone needs to come clean on these drugs for the confidence of the public.
Pace (not medically qualified)
Last edited by Pace; 6th Oct 2015 at 12:48.
Problem with statistics is they can be tailored to suit the case ?
The paper talks about the attempt of those with a vested interest, to try to pull the wool over our eyes, by attempting to "hide" or not report, detrimental date.
Known as "grey research" in the trade.
Guess that there still remains a difference between evidence of effect, no evidence of effect, evidence of no effect. :-)
Check this out.....the pub looks empty, 'cos the elderly population of Charlestown looked on pprune, and decided not to take their statins......
Only kidding, it was because it was cold.
Only kidding, it was because it was cold.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here we go again new claims on the use of statins
Taking statins may prevent flu vaccine from working, studies show | Daily Mail Online
Make your own judgement also note the comments on GPs starting to rebel against the official recommendation on statins due to what they are seeing on the ground amongst their patients
There is enough smoke around Statins that a fire is likely
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...#ixzz3pyxsFk6C
Pace
Taking statins may prevent flu vaccine from working, studies show | Daily Mail Online
Make your own judgement also note the comments on GPs starting to rebel against the official recommendation on statins due to what they are seeing on the ground amongst their patients
There is enough smoke around Statins that a fire is likely
GPs are refusing to give patients statins in defiance of NHS guidelines aimed at saving thousands of lives.
Prescription rates have barely increased since health watchdog Nice last year urged doctors to offer the pills to any patient deemed to have a 10 per cent risk of developing heart disease within the next decade. This meant an estimated 17 million adults would be eligible.
But many GPs admit they are disregarding the guidelines as they believe statins cause more harm than good. There are concerns over long-term side effects, which include muscle pain and type 2 diabetes.
Pulse magazine found a steady rise in prescription rates has stalled since the guidance was introduced. Dr Rubin Minhas, a GP who specialises in cardiology, said the guidance has ‘no credibility’ among doctors.
Prescription rates have barely increased since health watchdog Nice last year urged doctors to offer the pills to any patient deemed to have a 10 per cent risk of developing heart disease within the next decade. This meant an estimated 17 million adults would be eligible.
But many GPs admit they are disregarding the guidelines as they believe statins cause more harm than good. There are concerns over long-term side effects, which include muscle pain and type 2 diabetes.
Pulse magazine found a steady rise in prescription rates has stalled since the guidance was introduced. Dr Rubin Minhas, a GP who specialises in cardiology, said the guidance has ‘no credibility’ among doctors.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...#ixzz3pyxsFk6C
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 29th Oct 2015 at 18:20.
We seem to be going round in circles on this, but then I note the provenance of the link
Today's Times has a very sensible letter setting out the risks and side effects in a scientific manner and noting that in properly controlled studies there is little evidence of side effects in a population group (ie we are not saying nobody has a problem, just that the frequency is low). This letter is written by an academic
Weighing up the benefits of taking statins | The Times
It is followed by two letters which are neither scientific nor IMHO rational making the opposite claim
I thought of this thread as I read them!
Today's Times has a very sensible letter setting out the risks and side effects in a scientific manner and noting that in properly controlled studies there is little evidence of side effects in a population group (ie we are not saying nobody has a problem, just that the frequency is low). This letter is written by an academic
Weighing up the benefits of taking statins | The Times
It is followed by two letters which are neither scientific nor IMHO rational making the opposite claim
I thought of this thread as I read them!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Australian ABC Catalyst program recently ran a documentary, entitled "Too Much Medicine". It's a rather thought-provoking program.
Bottom line is the vast profits to be made from producing drugs that are supposed to keep people well, rather than producing drugs that cure really sick people.
Really sick people mostly just die, and the market for the drugs ends - therefore the market for drugs for people that are otherwise well - but who just might develop some problem later in life - is just too attractive for the pharmaceutical companies to ignore.
We're talking about a pharmaceutical industry that just keeps growing in leaps and bounds - and for which industry, the estimated income by 2020 will exceed US$1 TRILLION.
Catalyst program - Too Much Medicine
One point brought up in the documentary was the recommendation in the U.K. that the percentage of "at-risk" heart-disease patients who were to be prescribed statins, be reduced to 10% from 20%.
However, a survey of U.K. doctors found that 2/3rds would ignore the recommendation, and still prescribe statins at the 20% rate.
The simple term for this is over-medication, and I personally believe this is very much a recent phenomenon - but a growing one, and a concerning one.
Bottom line is the vast profits to be made from producing drugs that are supposed to keep people well, rather than producing drugs that cure really sick people.
Really sick people mostly just die, and the market for the drugs ends - therefore the market for drugs for people that are otherwise well - but who just might develop some problem later in life - is just too attractive for the pharmaceutical companies to ignore.
We're talking about a pharmaceutical industry that just keeps growing in leaps and bounds - and for which industry, the estimated income by 2020 will exceed US$1 TRILLION.
Catalyst program - Too Much Medicine
One point brought up in the documentary was the recommendation in the U.K. that the percentage of "at-risk" heart-disease patients who were to be prescribed statins, be reduced to 10% from 20%.
However, a survey of U.K. doctors found that 2/3rds would ignore the recommendation, and still prescribe statins at the 20% rate.
The simple term for this is over-medication, and I personally believe this is very much a recent phenomenon - but a growing one, and a concerning one.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is a major problem and takes us full circle on this thread.
Not long ago there were studies that were promoting Statins not just to risk people but to all people over the age of 50, it was the wonder drug for health for all
You have to question the motivation behind the statistics used which can be constructed and manipulated to make a case.
Then you read real reports from ordinary people even on this thread reporting negative life changing side effects which are brushed aside or ridiculed that no wonder there is lack of trust on the advice being given by even authoritative sources.
I remember a few years ago with the flu scare 100,000s of thousands of people would die in the UK and the government panic bought Tamiflu on medical scientific advice they were given. There was even a rip off market for these drugs with people paying a fortune to protect their families by buying on line.
The flu turned out no worse than a normal winter flu and all was forgotten other than the fact that the government had stock piled £2 billion in drugs who's actual effectiveness then came under question.
Even GPs are now not following guidelines on Statins so this points to a lack of trust on the accuracy of the directives they are given and the statistical claims which don't match what they see on the ground
Radgirl your contributions are much appreciated and respected. You defend Statins but even you must know that at least there is something wrong in the communication trust chain which needs addressing.
If we cannot trust the information from our own GPs and in turn our own GPs cannot trust the information they are given? Surely there has to be a problem somewhere
http://psychology.usf.edu/News/Exper...inResearch.pdf
Pace
Not long ago there were studies that were promoting Statins not just to risk people but to all people over the age of 50, it was the wonder drug for health for all
You have to question the motivation behind the statistics used which can be constructed and manipulated to make a case.
Then you read real reports from ordinary people even on this thread reporting negative life changing side effects which are brushed aside or ridiculed that no wonder there is lack of trust on the advice being given by even authoritative sources.
I remember a few years ago with the flu scare 100,000s of thousands of people would die in the UK and the government panic bought Tamiflu on medical scientific advice they were given. There was even a rip off market for these drugs with people paying a fortune to protect their families by buying on line.
The flu turned out no worse than a normal winter flu and all was forgotten other than the fact that the government had stock piled £2 billion in drugs who's actual effectiveness then came under question.
Even GPs are now not following guidelines on Statins so this points to a lack of trust on the accuracy of the directives they are given and the statistical claims which don't match what they see on the ground
Radgirl your contributions are much appreciated and respected. You defend Statins but even you must know that at least there is something wrong in the communication trust chain which needs addressing.
If we cannot trust the information from our own GPs and in turn our own GPs cannot trust the information they are given? Surely there has to be a problem somewhere
http://psychology.usf.edu/News/Exper...inResearch.pdf
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 31st Oct 2015 at 09:22.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just received the news that my mother is diagnosed with Alzheimer's. I found this recent article of interest: A Recipe for Alzheimer's Disease
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DirkD
There are already claims on Statins causing memory loss
If the above article is soundly based that is a very serious damnation of Statins and the knowledge and way cholesterol works in the body ?
Pace
There are already claims on Statins causing memory loss
If the above article is soundly based that is a very serious damnation of Statins and the knowledge and way cholesterol works in the body ?
Pace