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.
[quote=suzy_q2010;52721883]
What research has found is that there is a nocebo effect going on with statins and muscle weakness and pain. The complaint of weakness and pain is real, not imaginary, it is just not caused by the statin. The mechanism for muscle damage is known, and such damage can be tested for. Patients who complain of pain and weakness often have no objective evidence of muscle damage. The same person may experience pain and weakness when he knows he is getting the statin but not when he does not know he is getting it.
And one of the authors of that research has explained that it has been misinterpreted.
No, you cannot assume that women will react the same as men or that African Americans will react the same as whites. That is why women and African Americans must be studied - and are.
I think we can assume that since the drugs don't work for most white men, they won't work for most African Americans or women either.
Why waste all that research money discovering the obvious?
And how many patients had to take the drug for how many years for one patient to benefit? I don't know where they buried that information.
I thought you knew how to read medical articles.
The article is a meta-analysis, not a study. The details of the studies the analysis uses are in the text of the article, including how many people were in the studies and how long they lasted.
You will argue about ANYTHING. Drug research results have usually been reported as relative risk reduction, because a 50% reduction is more impressive than 1%! And this sure looks like intentional deception to me.
It looks that way to someone who does not understand how to interpret medical studies, which are used by physicians in the decision making process as far as treatment is concerned. Despite your obvious disdain for doctors, they do know how to read and interpret those studies, they do know the difference between relative risk and absolute risk, and they do talk to patients about it. How much patients understand and retain is a problem. No one is being intentionally deceived. It is just standard epidemiology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
And YOU have been presented with tons of evidence that many millions of patients are taking these drugs who will get a tiny benefit, or none at all.
That is your opinion, not supported by facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
And one of the authors of that research has explained that it has been misinterpreted.
Where?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
I think we can assume that since the drugs don't work for most white men, they won't work for most African Americans or women either.
Why waste all that research money discovering the obvious?
Since the drugs do work the question is moot. However, men and women do not always respond the same way to medications, and neither do whites and African Americans. It is unscientific to assume that they do.
The article is a meta-analysis, not a study. The details of the studies the analysis uses are in the text of the article, including how many people were in the studies and how long they lasted.
And they have hidden the NNTs, or more likely didn't bother to report them.
Knowing how to read research articles doesn't mean wanting to spend hours looking for what is not there.
It looks that way to someone who does not understand how to interpret medical studies, which are used by physicians in the decision making process as far as treatment is concerned. Despite your obvious disdain for doctors, they do know how to read and interpret those studies, they do know the difference between relative risk and absolute risk, and they do talk to patients about it. How much patients understand and retain is a problem. No one is being intentionally deceived. It is just standard epidemiology.
It's intentional deception, and people, including doctors, are starting to realize it. Announcing in a giant font that a drug decreases heart attacks by 50%, when it's really only 1%, is DECEPTION.
They have not shown a benefit for people with no history of heart disease, and who don't have genetic high cholesterol. Yet most people on statins are in that category!!
Since the drugs do work the question is moot. However, men and women do not always respond the same way to medications, and neither do whites and African Americans. It is unscientific to assume that they do.
They ONLY work for patients with extremely high cholesterol because of genetic defects! How many times have I told you that, and how many times will you ignore it?!!
There is a slight benefit for patients with known heart disease.
MOST people taking statins do NOT benefit, at least there is no research showing that they do.
If you want to analyze sub-groups, why not analyze the ones that are meaningful???
The data isn't buried anywhere, go look for it, it's all right there in the link...
A meta analysis of 19 different studies involving over 70 000 patients so pretty powerful data...
But again you aren't really interested in data that doesn't fit your narrative.
So you don't know where it is either.
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.
