The Medway Handyman wrote:

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.

But again in my experience that is not true. I suppose it could be one
of those differences between England and Scotland.

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.

I am not underestimating it. You seem to be assuming that all prescribed
drugs are so prescribed because of pressure from big Pharma. That is an
extremely biased position that does not reflect reality. It also ignores
the increasing role of NICE to do the intellectual legwork in assessing
drugs.

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?

That's right, change the subject. Lets not spend money on a substance
that does no harm and has been shown to do a lot of good.

Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net