U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-16-2020, 02:22 PM
 
12,209 posts, read 7,893,762 times
Reputation: 23409

Advertisements

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...earch-suggests


Quote:
Many of the side-effects attributed to statins could be down to the “nocebo effect”, which occurs when someone expects to experience negative symptoms – even if the drug is a placebo – a study suggests.

With few exceptions, this is something that I believed all along
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-16-2020, 07:38 PM
 
Location: Brawndo-Thirst-Mutilator-Nation
18,562 posts, read 18,718,140 times
Reputation: 15455
The well documented cases of statin-induced liver-damage and muscle-wasting are
part of the nocebo-effect????
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2020, 08:41 PM
 
12,209 posts, read 7,893,762 times
Reputation: 23409
Quote:
Originally Posted by tickyul View Post
The well documented cases of statin-induced liver-damage and muscle-wasting are
part of the nocebo-effect????



https://www.aafp.org/afp/2011/0315/p711.html


Quote:
The risk of hepatic injury caused by statins is estimated to be about 1 percent, similar to that of patients taking a placebo.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...s/art-20046013


Quote:
The actual risk of developing muscle pain as a result of taking statins is about 5 percent or less compared with taking a pill that doesn't contain medication (placebo). However, studies have found that nearly 30 percent of people stopped taking the pills because of muscle aches even when they were taking a placebo.
A strong predictor you'll experience muscle aches when taking statins could be whether or not you read about the potential side effect.


Very rarely, statins can cause life-threatening muscle damage called rhabdomyolysis (rab-doe-my-OL-ih-sis). Rhabdomyolysis can cause severe muscle pain, liver damage, kidney failure and death. The risk of very serious side effects is extremely low, and calculated in a few cases per million people taking statins. Rhabdomyolysis can occur when you take statins in combination with certain drugs or if you take a high dose of statins.

It is documented, but very very rare
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2020, 04:14 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
4,729 posts, read 1,878,172 times
Reputation: 11237
Once again, I have to ask, "How does this crap get published?"

In the study https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2031173 they gave subjects four bottles of pills, each to be taken for one (lousy) month in sequence. Two bottles each were the statin or a placebo.

Then they recorded pt complaints each month, and found that placebo months were just as likely to induce complaints of muscle pain as real med months....Therefore, the complaints MUST be all in the pts' heads--

I guess God himself told the researchers that the real muscle damage couldn't possibly have bled over from the med month to a placebo month, nor could it take more than 4 weeks to develop.

My personal observations when in practice were that muscle aches and clouding of memory & thinking processes were way more common than is reported in the studies. Most pts using statins are older and any such changes were often not mentioned specifically because they were "expected" at that age, came on slowly over many months and not severe enough to mention.

...and you're right, Mike...the really serious damage is extremely rare.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2020, 05:25 AM
 
Location: Outside US
2,309 posts, read 1,006,788 times
Reputation: 3279
$tatin$ are the number #1 money maker in
The Pharma industry.

Period.

And the science does not back widespread statin use.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2020, 07:10 AM
 
945 posts, read 427,182 times
Reputation: 1937
The controversy continues. Certainly depends on who funds the research ....and the focus of who writes the papers!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2020, 08:11 PM
 
4,758 posts, read 1,609,445 times
Reputation: 3676
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
Once again, I have to ask, "How does this crap get published?"

In the study https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2031173 they gave subjects four bottles of pills, each to be taken for one (lousy) month in sequence. Two bottles each were the statin or a placebo.

Then they recorded pt complaints each month, and found that placebo months were just as likely to induce complaints of muscle pain as real med months....Therefore, the complaints MUST be all in the pts' heads--

I guess God himself told the researchers that the real muscle damage couldn't possibly have bled over from the med month to a placebo month, nor could it take more than 4 weeks to develop.

My personal observations when in practice were that muscle aches and clouding of memory & thinking processes were way more common than is reported in the studies. Most pts using statins are older and any such changes were often not mentioned specifically because they were "expected" at that age, came on slowly over many months and not severe enough to mention.

...and you're right, Mike...the really serious damage is extremely rare.
There seem to be professional researchers who are experts in designing studies that will make the drug companies look good.

One common trick is to under-power the study -- not enough subjects, not a high enough dose, not a long enough time period.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2020, 04:43 AM
 
11,223 posts, read 3,432,725 times
Reputation: 12347
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
There seem to be professional researchers who are experts in designing studies that will make the drug companies look good.

One common trick is to under-power the study -- not enough subjects, not a high enough dose, not a long enough time period.
DING DING DING

We have a winner.

Clinical trials are marketing tools to test a product. Nothing more. Product is tested in BEST possible situation on BEST possible candidates for BEST possible outcome. Unflattering data is curiously explained away or completely left out.

Buyer beware.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2020, 05:45 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
4,729 posts, read 1,878,172 times
Reputation: 11237
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice View Post

Clinical trials are marketing tools to test a product.

Buyer beware.
I'll agree with the "buyer beware" part, but clinical trials are demanded by the FDA as part of the approval & licensing process.

The thing we have to watch out for is (a) the industry supported research only reports the favorable trials and doesn't publish the trials that show little or no benefit of the drug tested, (b) the govt funded trials get their money from an "in group" that is subject to lobbyists &/or is comprised of "experts" in the field who have their own pet theories to defend, which means (c) you only get research funds if your work is going to agree with theirs and keep them in power. Also consider the "No Problem = No Funds" aspect of grant applications.

As always, beware of studies that report "Relative Risk Reduction" instead of "Absolute Risk Reduction." That's a disingenuous way of turning a puny single digit per cent improvement into an impressive double digit per cent improve. Eg- statins improve post-MI survival by only 2% ARR, but the papers report it as 35% RRR.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2020, 07:43 AM
 
Location: Boston, MA
12,902 posts, read 9,184,190 times
Reputation: 7064
I have been on a statin for 4 years, the only side effects are me stupidly thinking I can eat whatever I want now.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top