View Single Post
  #1   ^
Old Mon, Dec-26-16, 09:20
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 10,320
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/161/150 Female 67
Progress: 84%
Location: USA
Default How statistic lie: drug edition

Dr. Cate has been red-hot lately. Here's an article about how statins were "sold" to doctors:

An example is a recent Lancet review article has been hailed as the “definitive” summary of the potential risks versus potential harms of statin drugs. The authors conclude that most of the side effects we’ve thought statins had are actually nonexistent. They predict just 2 adverse events per 15 cases of heart attack or stroke prevented, and make rather strong statements about doctors not prescribing statins often enough.

A couple of folks I respect have pointed out that the authors have long served as apologists for the statin industry. In my video critique of the Lancet article I discuss Malcolm Kendrick, and HealthInsightUK.

My concern about this particular article is that, as far as being the last word on risk versus harm, it’s seriously flawed by failure to include ALL the common side effects in the analysis. Some side effects simply weren’t discussed, like heart failure. But most side effects were dismissed based on the results of randomized controlled trials. However, a little-known stage of most such trials called the “run-in” or “wash out” period, can be used to screen out massive numbers of study subjects. I believe that this little trick is often used to sway the results in favor of a given drug.

Statisticians Can Easily Mislead Doctors About Statin (or any) Drug Safety

This also explains the staggering breadth and reach and danger of drug-related side effects; a subject which scares me every time I research it.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links