3 ms·
It's hard to take the evidence at face value though, given the historically malevolent influence of big pharma on accurate publishing of trial data (SSRIs, viox
by bigfudge 11y ago
It's hard to take the evidence at face value though, given the historically malevolent influence of big pharma on accurate publishing of trial data (SSRIs, vioxx etc), the significant links between the key trialists and the drug developers, and the lack of transparency in the data.
At this point the argument about statins can only be solved by opening the data.
- carbocation 11y agoWhat you are saying is true to the same extent that it is true about any drug. Statins are unexceptional in this regard, except that they have a lot more lines of evidentiary support than most drugs due to the importance of coronary artery disease. Even ignoring statins, again, the genetic evidence paints a clear picture of the causal role of LDL cholesterol in coronary disease. The jury is largely still out on inflammation.
- bigfudge 11y agoAgreed. However in the case of statins, the benefits for an individual are very slight, even if the population benefit is large. This means that this sort of uncertainty about side effects can make it rational for an individual to abstain from taking statins.