• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Drug companies

Good4Nothin said:
You didn't answer most of what I said. And no, a one percent absolute risk reduction is NOT huge! It is NOT worth the increased risk of diabetes, which is the MAJOR CAUSE of heart disease. NOT cholesterol!

And relative risk reduction is deceiving almost everyone! News reports are saying that statins decrease heart attacks by 40 or 50%, and they do NOT explain that it's relative, not absolute.

And side effects are downplayed. All those aches and pains, and all that tiredness and weakness, is blamed on normal aging and never reported.

And what about the long term side effects, since these drugs are prescribed for life? No one knows.

The medical industry has the public convinced that putting artificial chemicals into their bodies, every day, for a lifetime, improves health. No, that is BS.

Why do we have an epidemic of dementia in older adults? No one knows. I'm sure you think it's because drugs are giving us longer healthier lives. That is a dangerous lie.
Click to expand...

I can’t keep up with the gish gallop- I actually have studies to review, and only have so much time.

The risk of diabetes is slight, and likely just advancing the marker a bit ahead of where it would be eventually.

A 1% ARR is huge. Especially when it’s cumulative.

And I answered your safety question with an actual link before. Guess reading it was beneath you since you know so much about this stuff [emoji849]
 
Threegoofs said:
I can’t keep up with the gish gallop- I actually have studies to review, and only have so much time.

The risk of diabetes is slight, and likely just advancing the marker a bit ahead of where it would be eventually.

A 1% ARR is huge. Especially when it’s cumulative.

And I answered your safety question with an actual link before. Guess reading it was beneath you since you know so much about this stuff [emoji849]
Click to expand...

The increased risk of diabetes is at least as great as the "huge" 1% benefit.
 
Threegoofs said:
(Citation needed)
Click to expand...

The fact that statins increase the risk of diabetes is well known and the information is easy to find.

The benefit of statins for people without heart disease or genetically high cholesterol, for primary prevention, is either very small or nonexistent. And you might give them diabetes, which is a major risk factor for heart disease.

And then there are the other side effects that can result from interfering with complex biological processes that are not well understood.
 
Good4Nothin said:
The fact that statins increase the risk of diabetes is well known and the information is easy to find.

The benefit of statins for people without heart disease or genetically high cholesterol, for primary prevention, is either very small or nonexistent. And you might give them diabetes, which is a major risk factor for heart disease.

And then there are the other side effects that can result from interfering with complex biological processes that are not well understood.
Click to expand...

Ah. You don’t know what a citation is. Or the concept of risk/benefit.

I guess you missed that in your training.
 
Threegoofs said:
Ah. You don’t know what a citation is. Or the concept of risk/benefit.

I guess you missed that in your training.
Click to expand...

I know what a citation is and I know what risk/benefit is.

You have said nothing to show that anything I have said is wrong. If you don't have a logical argument, simply call your opponent ignorant.
 
Good4Nothin said:
I know what a citation is and I know what risk/benefit is.

You have said nothing to show that anything I have said is wrong. If you don't have a logical argument, simply call your opponent ignorant.
Click to expand...

You didn’t give a citation nor cite the risk/benefit.

I’ve been educated and an educator in the field for 30 years.

I only call out your ignorance because it’s friggin obvious to me.
 
Threegoofs said:
You didn’t give a citation nor cite the risk/benefit.

I’ve been educated and an educator in the field for 30 years.

I only call out your ignorance because it’s friggin obvious to me.
Click to expand...

You seem to disagree with what I said, but you give no reasons for your disagreement. So I have to assume you have no reasons.
 
Good4Nothin said:
You seem to disagree with what I said, but you give no reasons for your disagreement. So I have to assume you have no reasons.
Click to expand...

Huh? I gave a reference to WOSCOPS 20, a landmark trial in statins.

You whined about diabetes, which occurs in about 0.1% of patients, vs a benefit of an ACTUAL EVENT of 1% -2% per year.

And I can reference that, which you are too lazy or incompetent to do.

Summarizing the Current State and Evidence on Efficacy and Safety of Statin Therapy - American College of Cardiology
 
Threegoofs said:
Huh? I gave a reference to WOSCOPS 20, a landmark trial in statins.

You whined about diabetes, which occurs in about 0.1% of patients, vs a benefit of an ACTUAL EVENT of 1% -2% per year.

And I can reference that, which you are too lazy or incompetent to do.

Summarizing the Current State and Evidence on Efficacy and Safety of Statin Therapy - American College of Cardiology
Click to expand...

If you have no good arguments, just call your opponents incompetent or lazy.

If you are relying on this kind of summary, that explains why you have no reservations about statins. There is no way to tell what is really going on from reading this article.

You probably have not tried to find other perspectives. This one, for example, which was actually cited by the summary you linked: https://www.drperlmutter.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Statin-data-corruption.pdf
 
Good4Nothin said:
If you have no good arguments, just call your opponents incompetent or lazy.

If you are relying on this kind of summary, that explains why you have no reservations about statins. There is no way to tell what is really going on from reading this article.

You probably have not tried to find other perspectives. This one, for example, which was actually cited by the summary you linked: https://www.drperlmutter.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Statin-data-corruption.pdf
Click to expand...

LOL.

Your reference is from a psychologist who specializes in PTSD writing ‘expert reviews’ on cardiovascular studies.

Some people can get hoodwinked by anything...



My last citation- the one where ‘you can’t tell what’s going on’, is a review by the American College of Cardiology- pretty much one of the most respected cardiology organizations in the world.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

Your reference is from a psychologist who specializes in PTSD writing ‘expert reviews’ on cardiovascular studies.

Some people can get hoodwinked by anything...



My last citation- the one where ‘you can’t tell what’s going on’, is a review by the American College of Cardiology- pretty much one of the most respected cardiology organizations in the world.
Click to expand...

If you trust second hand sources you will not know how the conclusions were reached. You would have to read the original reports carefully.

My reference is from a medical doctor and researcher, Ravnskov. And a neuroscientist. Both are more qualified to judge statistical analyses than a cardiologist.
 
Last edited:
Good4Nothin said:
If you trust second hand sources you will not know how the conclusions were reached. You would have to read the original reports carefully.

My reference is from a medical doctor and researcher, Ravnskov. And a neuroscientist. Both are more qualified to judge statistical analyses than a cardiologist.
Click to expand...

LOL.

I actually have read many of the original reports extremely carefully, and taught the landmark trials to hundreds of not thousands of health care professionals over the years.

And I know when you have to rely on a source on large scale cardiology trials written by a psychologist (is he even an MD?) and an ‘independent researcher (read: nobody will hire him because he’s probably too kooky) it’s pretty sad.

And the cardiologists running these trials most certainly have statisticians on board- the larger trials have budgets running into the hundreds of millions.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

I actually have read many of the original reports extremely carefully, and taught the landmark trials to hundreds of not thousands of health care professionals over the years.

And I know when you have to rely on a source on large scale cardiology trials written by a psychologist (is he even an MD?) and an ‘independent researcher (read: nobody will hire him because he’s probably too kooky) it’s pretty sad.

And the cardiologists running these trials most certainly have statisticians on board- the larger trials have budgets running into the hundreds of millions.
Click to expand...

The majority of drug research is paid for by drug companies. It is not hard to fool people with statistics. Especially MDs who have no research background.
 
"According to Collins et al. [1 Collins R, Reith C, Emberson J, et al. Interpretation of the evidence for the efficacy and safety of statin therapy. Lancet. 2016;388:2532–2561.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar], myopathy occurs in only 0.01% of treated individuals per year, but in most statin trials, myopathy is only recorded if creatine kinase is more than 10 times higher than normal. However, in a study by Phillips et al. [73 Phillips PS, Haas RH, Bannykh S, et al. Statin-associated myopathy with normal creatine kinase levels. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:581–585. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]
], microscopic examinations of muscle biopsies from statin-treated patients with muscular symptoms and normal creatine kinase levels showed signs of myopathy. When patients stopped treatment, their symptoms disappeared, and repeated biopsies showed resolution of the pathological changes."
 
Good4Nothin said:
The majority of drug research is paid for by drug companies. It is not hard to fool people with statistics. Especially MDs who have no research background.
Click to expand...

Sure looks like you’re getting fooled.

And clinical trialists have extensive statistical and research background.

But you dont know that.
 
Good4Nothin said:
"an increase of life expectancy – has never been mentioned in any cholesterol-lowering trial, but as calculated recently by Kristensen et al., statin treatment does not prolong lifespan by more than an average of a few days"

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17512433.2018.1519391?scroll=top&needAccess=true
Click to expand...

LOL.

I guess you dont understand ‘mortality’ then.

And your lead author is again, an ‘independent researcher’. That generally is code for kook.
 
Safety, life-saving efficacy of statins have been exaggerated, says scientist -- ScienceDaily

"Summary:
Statins, the cholesterol-lowering drugs prescribed to prevent heart attacks, are not as effective nor as safe as we have been led to believe, researchers say. Statins produce a dramatic reduction in cholesterol levels, but have failed to substantially improve cardiovascular outcomes, they add, stating that 'statistical deception' has been used to inflate claims about their effectiveness."
 
Threegoofs said:
Sure looks like you’re getting fooled.

And clinical trialists have extensive statistical and research background.

But you dont know that.
Click to expand...

Oh I know -- there are experts who are great at fooling people with statistics.
 
The idea that high cholesterol causes heart disease, and that cholesterol-lowering drugs prevent heart disease, is very popular. Many millions of people are prescribed statin drugs, supposedly to protect them from heart disease and strokes.

It's a simple idea, and many medical professionals want to believe it. It has been promoted by research paid for by drug companies.

Not everyone is aware that the idea is still controversial and has not been settled by science. Some say that statin drugs are one of the greatest medical advances, and that they save many lives. Others say that statin drugs are toxic and have little or no benefit, and their adverse effects are common.

To me, and to many others, it's just common sense that taking an artificial chemical every day for decades is bad for health. Especially since the intricate details of most biological processes are not well understood.

But of course we need more than common sense to understand the controversy. We need objective science. At this point, there is science both for and against statins. Some may be fair and objective, some may be biased in favor of the companies that make the drugs. But all research is difficult and error-prone, and almost everyone gets confused by complex statistics. Especially MDs who have never done research, and who simply trust the experts.
 
Threegoofs said:
Good lord.

You’re gonna love the CT section here.

But I don’t have time for this ridiculous bull****.
Click to expand...

I don't blame you. You have already wasted so much time trying to discredit my post by calling me ignorant. That is not an effective way to argue. We would like to see rational arguments, but you have provided none. Obviously you have none. So your comments here are a total waste of everyone's time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom