Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By the way, why is the anti-inflammatory effect of statins a bad thing?
If the (small) benefit of statins is because they are anti-inflammatory, that tends to contradict the cholesterol hypothesis. It is important to have some idea of what is going on.
And anti-inflammatory drugs are generally bad for health. Inflammation has a purpose, and is necessary for health. Some of inflammation is destructive, but the CAUSE of that destructive inflammation should be targeted, NOT inflammation in general.
The cause of destructive inflammation, very often, is metabolic syndrome. You can target metabolic syndrome with lifestyle changes.
About HALF of Americans have diabetes or pre-diabetes, which is related to metabolic syndrome and high insulin levels. These conditions result from the typical modern lifestyle.
Why do you characterize the research itself as deceptive and confusing? That implies an explicit intent to deceive or obfuscate - is that what you're really saying?
Much more likely is that you are either attempting to read professional medical journals and do not understand them - after all, they are intended for trained clinicians or researchers; or you are consulting disreputable popular media sources that aren't qualified to comment or are doing so irresponsibly.
It isn't just me. There are experts who criticize the deceptive practices of drug company funded research. One obvious example, which I have posted, is reporting relative risk reduction, instead of absolute risk reduction. This practice makes a one percent reduction is risk look like a fifty percent reduction.
And side effects are often reported in absolute terms, in order to minimize them.
There may be an explicit intent to deceive or obfuscate, some of the time. That is not unheard of in marketing. In fact, marketing is all about making things appear good.
And research reports are inherently confusing, and very easy to obfuscate. Most MDs do not study research statistics, and they are busy, so they trust the expert interpretations.
Statin drugs are a huge money-maker, and the drug companies probably want to keep this going for a while. Do they sincerely believe in their products? Maybe some do.
I agree that later trials should expand the test groups to more diverse populations. In general, the reasons for keeping it constrained is to reduce the variability that would make it more difficult to assess results without having much larger test samples. At some point that becomes necessary if those populations are intended to also get the medication. Medical research has been slowly adding women and other ethnic groups to drug trials, but not fast enough.
Well they probably should but I don't see that as a central problem. If the drugs worked for most white males, they would probably also work for women and minorities.
The real problem is they DO NOT generally work for white males!
They seem to work for patients whose cholesterol is extremely high for genetic reasons. And maybe for patients with known heart disease.
Hardly any benefit at all for everyone else. Yet something like half of all Americans over age 60 are taking them!
It isn't just me. There are experts who criticize the deceptive practices of drug company funded research. One obvious example, which I have posted, is reporting relative risk reduction, instead of absolute risk reduction. This practice makes a one percent reduction is risk look like a fifty percent reduction.
And side effects are often reported in absolute terms, in order to minimize them.
There may be an explicit intent to deceive or obfuscate, some of the time. That is not unheard of in marketing. In fact, marketing is all about making things appear good.
And research reports are inherently confusing, and very easy to obfuscate. Most MDs do not study research statistics, and they are busy, so they trust the expert interpretations.
Statin drugs are a huge money-maker, and the drug companies probably want to keep this going for a while. Do they sincerely believe in their products? Maybe some do.
I don't see that at all - I understand the difference between relative and absolute risk reduction. When I was in college way back in the '80's undergrads in psychology/biology/business majors had a statistics course requirement and I would be very surprised if there were not additional courses required in medical school and perhaps continuing education.
Research reports in peer-reviewed journals are NOT inherently confusing - they purposely follow very specific guidelines in the way statistical results can be presented and as you might expect, are reviewed by other researchers before being published. In addition to reading primary sources, there are many meta analyses and literature reviews available that break down conflicting results. Medical research is complicated and new research may conflict with older research - that's how science works. It can be a painful process in a world where we want black and white answers NOW. But don't say research journals are purposefully trying to deceive readers.
I won't discuss marketing but they also have to stay within certain guidelines on what they can and cannot say. Anyone who only "researches" based on a marketing efforts is ignorant - no one should mindlessly trust possibly biased sources. But I don't believe in conspiracy theories as some on here apparently do.
Well they probably should but I don't see that as a central problem. If the drugs worked for most white males, they would probably also work for women and minorities.
The real problem is they DO NOT generally work for white males!
They seem to work for patients whose cholesterol is extremely high for genetic reasons. And maybe for patients with known heart disease.
Hardly any benefit at all for everyone else. Yet something like half of all Americans over age 60 are taking them!
Do some research. Just because a drug works for a white middle aged man, doesnt mean its going to work the same way with the same side effects for an elderly woman, or an african american etc.
I don't see that at all - I understand the difference between relative and absolute risk reduction. When I was in college way back in the '80's undergrads in psychology/biology/business majors had a statistics course requirement and I would be very surprised if there were not additional courses required in medical school and perhaps continuing education.
Research reports in peer-reviewed journals are NOT inherently confusing - they purposely follow very specific guidelines in the way statistical results can be presented and as you might expect, are reviewed by other researchers before being published. In addition to reading primary sources, there are many meta analyses and literature reviews available that break down conflicting results. Medical research is complicated and new research may conflict with older research - that's how science works. It can be a painful process in a world where we want black and white answers NOW. But don't say research journals are purposefully trying to deceive readers.
I won't discuss marketing but they also have to stay within certain guidelines on what they can and cannot say. Anyone who only "researches" based on a marketing efforts is ignorant - no one should mindlessly trust possibly biased sources. But I don't believe in conspiracy theories as some on here apparently do.
I don't believe in conspiracy theories. But there definitely is bias. The majority of drug research is funded by drug companies. Even if everyone had perfectly good intentions, there would be bias. And not everyone cares about the patients who take the drugs. Some do, some think they are doing good, others probably are focused on making a big profit.
Do some research. Just because a drug works for a white middle aged man, doesnt mean its going to work the same way with the same side effects for an elderly woman, or an african american etc.
No it might not work exactly the same. But we are the same species, and it will probably work similarly.
Maybe it is a problem, but it is a very small problem compared with all the other problems with drug research.
For one thing, the drugs have not been shown to work to prevent heart disease in people who don't have it. Yet, millions of these people have been given the drugs.
I think it's better to focus on the really serious problems, and there are plenty. For example, drug company research says that statin side effects are imaginary. Somehow they made it look that way, and this was broadcast all over the internet. So when patients complain of severe pain and weakness, their doctors won't believe them.
And this is EVEN THOUGH the mechanism for statins damaging muscle cells is known.
No it might not work exactly the same. But we are the same species, and it will probably work similarly.
Maybe it is a problem, but it is a very small problem compared with all the other problems with drug research.
For one thing, the drugs have not been shown to work to prevent heart disease in people who don't have it. Yet, millions of these people have been given the drugs.
I think it's better to focus on the really serious problems, and there are plenty. For example, drug company research says that statin side effects are imaginary. Somehow they made it look that way, and this was broadcast all over the internet. So when patients complain of severe pain and weakness, their doctors won't believe them.
And this is EVEN THOUGH the mechanism for statins damaging muscle cells is known.
Our mainstream medical system has a certain way of looking at nature, and how it's related to health. In that view, if we lived like our primitive ancestors we would be lucky to survive to age 40.
If you believe that, as most modern Americans probably do, then you might assume that our much longer lifespans are the result of modern medicine. You might assume things like heart disease and cancer are the natural result of aging, and they are common now because we live long enough to get them.
That is the story the medical industry wants you to believe. They believe it themselves, but it also happens to make them look good and to be profitable.
If you didn't have statin drugs, for example, you would be likely to drop dead of a heart attack or stroke in your 40s or 50s.
People who are into a more natural approach to health, on the other hand, don't believe that story at all.
Prehistoric people did NOT drop dead of old age in their 30s, for one thing. No one can be sure how long people lived in various prehistoric cultures, but it is certain that many of them lived to old age. Infants and young people were much more likely to die than in our society, and that brought the average way down.
Different times and places had different average lifespans. In poverty stricken areas, life was short. If we compare ourselves to that, we look great. But there are, and have been, many non-industrial societies where people generally stay healthy into old age. They don't get our "diseases of aging." And they don't get the aches and pains that are supposedly inevitable.
If you have only been exposed to the mainstream narrative, then you are probably skeptical about lifestyle advice and the idea that "natural is better." You probably feel you should take whatever drugs your MD recommends. After all, you think, people over age 50 are only alive because of medical interventions.
For example, the paleo diet is based on what pre-agricultural people probably ate. The assumption behind it is that they were much healthier than we are. Depending on which narrative you believe, you will think that paleo diet sounds like a good idea, or you will think it's nonsense.
You are painting your theory with a wide brush.
Don't forget how penicillin has saved millions of lives. Our ancestors used plant-based remedies and there are medicines today that are derived from these same plants. Willow bark - aspirin. Humans have discovered how to synthesize the essence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
