FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Medicine forums » cardiology
Why is JAMA hiding statin adverse effects?
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [8 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
Sharon Hope
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 5:29 pm    Post subject: Why is JAMA hiding statin adverse effects? Reply with quote

How can doctors and patients make an informed risk analysis about the
dangers of statins when JAMA, the journal of their own medical association,
refuses to allow them access to information on these adverse effects as
collected in a study PUBLISHED BY JAMA? Not only do they refuse to publish
the adverse effects data, they refuse to publish the request. Where do the
JAMA editors ethical loyalties reside? With the doctors they purport to
inform, or with the sources of their advertising revenue?

http://www.thincs.org/index.htm

select "News"

Click on the link for

Unpublished letter to JAMA By Uffe Ravnskov,* Paul Rosch* and Morley
Sutter.* Did you know that almost 50 % of the participants in the IDEAL
trial had serious side effects from the treatment? Why won´t the authors
tell us about the nature of these side effects?
Back to top
William Wagner
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 809

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:13 pm    Post subject: Re: Why is JAMA hiding statin adverse effects? Reply with quote

In article <1NadnVKH1bGcoCzZnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Sharon Hope" <shope@anet.net> wrote:

Quote:
How can doctors and patients make an informed risk analysis about the
dangers of statins when JAMA, the journal of their own medical association,
refuses to allow them access to information on these adverse effects as
collected in a study PUBLISHED BY JAMA? Not only do they refuse to publish
the adverse effects data, they refuse to publish the request. Where do the
JAMA editors ethical loyalties reside? With the doctors they purport to
inform, or with the sources of their advertising revenue?

http://www.thincs.org/index.htm

select "News"

Click on the link for

Unpublished letter to JAMA By Uffe Ravnskov,* Paul Rosch* and Morley
Sutter.* Did you know that almost 50 % of the participants in the IDEAL
trial had serious side effects from the treatment? Why won´t the authors
tell us about the nature of these side effects?

All I see are the words **May ** bantered about along with the word
Gray. If this was data for a possible strip mine ...

Bill whose phone line is back due to heaven knows what.

--
S Jersey USA Zone 5 Shade
This article is posted under fair use rules in accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and is strictly for the educational
and informative purposes. This material is distributed without profit.
Back to top
listener
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 05 May 2005
Posts: 617

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:50 pm    Post subject: Re: Why is JAMA hiding statin adverse effects? Reply with quote

"Sharon Hope" <shope@anet.net> wrote in
news:1NadnVKH1bGcoCzZnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@comcast.com:

Quote:
How can doctors and patients make an informed risk analysis about the
dangers of statins when JAMA, the journal of their own medical
association,
refuses to allow them access to information on these adverse effects as
collected in a study PUBLISHED BY JAMA? Not only do they refuse to
publish
the adverse effects data, they refuse to publish the request. Where do
the
JAMA editors ethical loyalties reside? With the doctors they purport
to
inform, or with the sources of their advertising revenue?

http://www.thincs.org/index.htm

select "News"

Click on the link for

Unpublished letter to JAMA By Uffe Ravnskov,* Paul Rosch* and Morley
Sutter.* Did you know that almost 50 % of the participants in the IDEAL
trial had serious side effects from the treatment? Why won´t the
authors
tell us about the nature of these side effects?



On 09 Jul 2006, you wrote in sci.med.cardiology:

Quote:
A recently published medical journal article showed 100% of statin
patients have muscle damage identifiable on muscle biopsy after only a

few months.

Link?


Quote:
Another recently published study showed all statin patients have
measurable cognitive impacts after 6 months.


Link?



Quote:
Another recently published study showed neuropathy 26 times more likely
in statin patients.


Link?
Back to top
listener
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 05 May 2005
Posts: 617

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:52 pm    Post subject: Re: Why is JAMA hiding statin adverse effects? Reply with quote

William Wagner <not-to-here-williamwag@gmail.com> wrote in news:not-to-
here-williamwag-778931.17131810072006@sn-indi.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:

Quote:
In article <1NadnVKH1bGcoCzZnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Sharon Hope" <shope@anet.net> wrote:

How can doctors and patients make an informed risk analysis about the
dangers of statins when JAMA, the journal of their own medical
association,
refuses to allow them access to information on these adverse effects
as
collected in a study PUBLISHED BY JAMA? Not only do they refuse to
publish
the adverse effects data, they refuse to publish the request. Where
do the
JAMA editors ethical loyalties reside? With the doctors they purport
to
inform, or with the sources of their advertising revenue?

http://www.thincs.org/index.htm

select "News"

Click on the link for

Unpublished letter to JAMA By Uffe Ravnskov,* Paul Rosch* and Morley
Sutter.* Did you know that almost 50 % of the participants in the
IDEAL
trial had serious side effects from the treatment? Why won´t the
authors
tell us about the nature of these side effects?

All I see are the words **May ** bantered about along with the word
Gray. If this was data for a possible strip mine ...

Bill whose phone line is back due to heaven knows what.



Sharon posted the following in another thread:

On 09 Jul 2006, you wrote in sci.med.cardiology:

Quote:
A recently published medical journal article showed 100% of statin
patients have muscle damage identifiable on muscle biopsy after only a

few months.

Quote:
Another recently published study showed all statin patients have
measurable cognitive impacts after 6 months.


Quote:
Another recently published study showed neuropathy 26 times more likely
in statin patients.



Since she has me killfiled would you please ask her for the 3 links to
these claims, particularly the first?

Thank you.

L.
Back to top
Just Ed
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 04 Jun 2005
Posts: 119

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Why is JAMA hiding statin adverse effects? Reply with quote

Sharon Hope wrote:
Quote:
How can doctors and patients make an informed risk analysis about the
dangers of statins when JAMA, the journal of their own medical association,
refuses to allow them access to information on these adverse effects as
collected in a study PUBLISHED BY JAMA? Not only do they refuse to publish
the adverse effects data, they refuse to publish the request. Where do the
JAMA editors ethical loyalties reside? With the doctors they purport to
inform, or with the sources of their advertising revenue?

http://www.thincs.org/index.htm

select "News"

Click on the link for

Unpublished letter to JAMA By Uffe Ravnskov,* Paul Rosch* and Morley
Sutter.* Did you know that almost 50 % of the participants in the IDEAL
trial had serious side effects from the treatment? Why won´t the authors
tell us about the nature of these side effects?

Would someone please explain to me the discrepencies here?
1. the link says 95% of the patients "experienced adverse effects".
The abstract PMID: 16287954 doesn't mention anything near that.
Where does the 95% come from?

2.The adverse effects data was listed as "nonserious adverse events;
transaminase elevation resulted in 43 (1.0%) vs 5 (0.1%) withdrawals
(P<.001). Serious myopathy and rhabdomyolysis were rare in both
groups."
What further breakdown is needed if the freq is less than that?

Compare this to Sharon Hope's quote of her linked page
Where does the 50% serious side effects come from?
Why won't the people claiming that explain where it comes from
instead of letting it seem like a total lie?
Back to top
William Wagner
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 809

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:09 pm    Post subject: Re: Why is JAMA hiding statin adverse effects? Reply with quote

In article <1152745001.530314.76190@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"just Ed" <just_ed53spam@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:
Sharon Hope wrote:
How can doctors and patients make an informed risk analysis about the
dangers of statins when JAMA, the journal of their own medical association,
refuses to allow them access to information on these adverse effects as
collected in a study PUBLISHED BY JAMA? Not only do they refuse to publish
the adverse effects data, they refuse to publish the request. Where do the
JAMA editors ethical loyalties reside? With the doctors they purport to
inform, or with the sources of their advertising revenue?

http://www.thincs.org/index.htm

select "News"

Click on the link for

Unpublished letter to JAMA By Uffe Ravnskov,* Paul Rosch* and Morley
Sutter.* Did you know that almost 50 % of the participants in the IDEAL
trial had serious side effects from the treatment? Why won´t the authors
tell us about the nature of these side effects?

Would someone please explain to me the discrepencies here?
1. the link says 95% of the patients "experienced adverse effects".
The abstract PMID: 16287954 doesn't mention anything near that.
Where does the 95% come from?

2.The adverse effects data was listed as "nonserious adverse events;
transaminase elevation resulted in 43 (1.0%) vs 5 (0.1%) withdrawals
(P<.001). Serious myopathy and rhabdomyolysis were rare in both
groups."
What further breakdown is needed if the freq is less than that?

Compare this to Sharon Hope's quote of her linked page
Where does the 50% serious side effects come from?
Why won't the people claiming that explain where it comes from
instead of letting it seem like a total lie?

Just Ed are you taking this stuff or just promoting it?

Bill

--
S Jersey USA Zone 5 Shade
This article is posted under fair use rules in accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and is strictly for the educational
and informative purposes. This material is distributed without profit.
Back to top
David Rind
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 205

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:32 am    Post subject: Re: Why is JAMA hiding statin adverse effects? Reply with quote

Quote:
"just Ed" <just_ed53spam@yahoo.com> wrote:
2.The adverse effects data was listed as "nonserious adverse events;
transaminase elevation resulted in 43 (1.0%) vs 5 (0.1%) withdrawals
(P<.001). Serious myopathy and rhabdomyolysis were rare in both
groups."
What further breakdown is needed if the freq is less than that?

Compare this to Sharon Hope's quote of her linked page
Where does the 50% serious side effects come from?
Why won't the people claiming that explain where it comes from
instead of letting it seem like a total lie?

Actually the 50% figure (actually 47%) is from the IDEAL study as
published in JAMA (in Table 4). However, what people really should be
complaining about isn't that they aren't explaining the breakdown of
these "serious" adverse events but that they defined the events in such
a way that there were so many of them as to mask any difference between
the two arms of the study (comparing high intensity and low instensity
statin therapy).

The 47% serious adverse event rate as reported is silly. The numbers
this hides is that 10% of patients discontinued the intensive regimen
for adverse events while only 4% discontinued the less intensive regimen.

That said, it may be that some external regulatory body in Europe or the
US required this definition of "serious" adverse events, rather than the
investigators defining things this way.

So, at least to my mind, there really is an issue here but it's
completely different from the one raised. I don't care what the
breakdown of those 47% of "serious" adverse events was since they
clearly weren't actually serious. I care that the intensive regimen lead
to adverse events causing twice as many drug discontinuations.

--
David Rind
drind@caregroup.harvard.edu
Back to top
Just Ed
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 04 Jun 2005
Posts: 119

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:45 pm    Post subject: Re: Why is JAMA hiding statin adverse effects? Reply with quote

David Rind wrote:
Quote:
"just Ed" <just_ed53spam@yahoo.com> wrote:
2.The adverse effects data was listed as "nonserious adverse events;
transaminase elevation resulted in 43 (1.0%) vs 5 (0.1%) withdrawals
(P<.001). Serious myopathy and rhabdomyolysis were rare in both
groups."
What further breakdown is needed if the freq is less than that?

Compare this to Sharon Hope's quote of her linked page
Where does the 50% serious side effects come from?
Why won't the people claiming that explain where it comes from
instead of letting it seem like a total lie?

Actually the 50% figure (actually 47%) is from the IDEAL study as
published in JAMA (in Table 4).

There it is, thank-you...
my fault for thinking that JAMA wouldn't let me at the full text.


Quote:
However, what people really should be
complaining about isn't that they aren't explaining the breakdown of
these "serious" adverse events but that they defined the events in such
a way that there were so many of them as to mask any difference between
the two arms of the study (comparing high intensity and low instensity
statin therapy).

The 47% serious adverse event rate as reported is silly. The numbers
this hides is that 10% of patients discontinued the intensive regimen
for adverse events while only 4% discontinued the less intensive regimen.

and that 10% seems kind of mysterious since they state that there
are no other causes as large as .5% apiece making up the 5.4%
which is unaccounted.


Quote:
That said, it may be that some external regulatory body in Europe or the
US required this definition of "serious" adverse events, rather than the
investigators defining things this way.

So, at least to my mind, there really is an issue here but it's
completely different from the one raised. I don't care what the
breakdown of those 47% of "serious" adverse events was since they
clearly weren't actually serious. I care that the intensive regimen lead
to adverse events causing twice as many drug discontinuations.


Having half the patients preconditioned to simvastatin (per the
'Safety' para) may take much value out of comparing these numbers,
but I get your point.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [8 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Wed Dec 12, 2018 6:56 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Medicine forums » cardiology
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Congressman's widow sues Pfizer over Lipitor effects Sharon Hope cardiology 1 Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:27 am
No new posts Authors of JAMA Study on Antidepressant Use During Pregna... @reastimplantAwareness.or nursing 1 Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:37 pm
No new posts Phytates effects Davide nutrition 5 Sat Jul 08, 2006 7:17 pm
No new posts Indian Govt responsible for adverse vaccine reactions - D... john nursing 1 Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:19 pm
No new posts Adverse Health Effects From Amagams: PEER-REVIEWED STUDY BreastImplantAwareness.or dentistry 2 Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:01 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: email marketing campaigns , electronics forum, Science forum, Unix/Linux blog, Unix/Linux documentation, Unix/Linux forums


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0210s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0012s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]