On 2007-05-19 22:56:46 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
said:

Peter Ashby wrote:

It also assumes that the many large controlled studies on statins that
have been done are wrong. Many have been done outwith big pharma by
publically funded scientists too. In addition the idea that most at
risk people should take statins is based on the hard nosed, realistic
realisation that most of those people are not going to make the
required dietary and lifestyle changes.

But thats the point Peter. Anyone even vaguely suspected of being 'at risk'
is almost force fed statins. Whilst they may be effective at reducing blood
cholresterol there is no link between high cholresterol and heart problems.

You underestimate the huge infuence the drug companies have on the medical
profession. GP's are constantly bombarded by 'research' and 'information'
from drug manufacturers. And GP's are now heavily 'targeted' by Govmint.

That's certainly true. One only has to look at the GP contracts and
the various means by which practices can make extra bunce by running
the various set piece care programmes. Whether or not they are
effective in terms of outcome is neither here nor there.



Even if they do the statins
appear to do little if any harm. This is so strikingly true that some
have even suggested that statins are substituting for some absent
component of our diets.

They don't harm the patient true, but what harm does the huge sum of money
spent prescribing them do?

There's about to be a row about that whole area as attempts are made to
switch patients from the (generally more effective) products that are
still on patent to some of the less effective and cheaper generics.