|
|
| Author |
Message |
Sharon Hope
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 752
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 5:29 pm Post subject:
Why is JAMA hiding statin adverse effects?
|
|
|
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Unpublished letter to JAMA By Uffe Ravnskov,* Paul Rosch* and Morley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
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:13 pm Post subject:
Re: Why is JAMA hiding statin adverse effects?
|
|
|
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Unpublished letter to JAMA By Uffe Ravnskov,* Paul Rosch* and Morley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
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:50 pm Post subject:
Re: Why is JAMA hiding statin adverse effects?
|
|
|
"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
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:52 pm Post subject:
Re: Why is JAMA hiding statin adverse effects?
|
|
|
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: 120
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:56 pm Post subject:
Re: Why is JAMA hiding statin adverse effects?
|
|
|
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
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:09 pm Post subject:
Re: Why is JAMA hiding statin adverse effects?
|
|
|
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
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:32 am Post subject:
Re: Why is JAMA hiding statin adverse effects?
|
|
|
| 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: 120
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:45 pm Post subject:
Re: Why is JAMA hiding statin adverse effects?
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Sat Nov 22, 2008 4:57 am | All times are GMT
|
|
Free Insurance Quotes | Remortgages | Property for sale in Spain | Electronics | Samsung
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
electronics forum,
Science forum
Unix/Linux blog
Unix/Linux documentation
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Medicine forums
»
cardiology
