Snap out of it people
Eyes wide shut, the news and government use propaganda , so don’t believe everything you hrear

And beyond that I’m intersted in the microsocial epistemological mechanisms that result in the production scientific studies saying what benefits the profit motive of a pharmaceutical company rather than what benefits the production of social knowledge. What’s the history of this? What are the current instances? And what are effective restraints?

For people who already have coronary artery disease or something similiar, The UpToDate review is here. The first two trials are the 4S and the LIPID trial. Both I believe were funded by Pharma, but show highly significant results (by p-value) and reasonable effect sizes. These are highly significant results in the context of a highly plausible biological mechanism.

In the case of primary prevention — i.e. preventing disease in patients who have never had a cardiac event — this is where pharma and a govt trial ALLHAT differ. Apparently, the researchers for ALLHAT, also think they had extensive methodological problems at their own site and an accompanying editorial to the published study, linked to from their site.

@frelkins, @robin:

This is not my area, but it seems that results from 4S came out in the middle of ALLHAT, and the “placebo/usual care” group in ALLHAT wound up receiving statins (~26%). This accounted for a smaller difference in LDL between the two groups (compared to pharma Trials), as compared to prior trials. This led to a non-significant difference in cardiovascular mortality.

When evaluating a medical intervention — its important to consider, side effects, cost, and evidence. Side effects for statins are minimal (maybe a little more than tylenol). Cost is going to be nothing, as one is coming off patent. Evidence: multiple RCTS, and very convincing biological models.

Haven’t you just re-inforced Robin’s point? The vast majority of the studies finding “benefit” seem to be sponsored in some way by big pharma, the people with the most to gain. Not a neutral, trustworthy source of science.

The only independent, government study seems to show no significant benefit. You question the use of even the government study – therefore it seems there’s no quality, trustworthy evidence for statins either way at all! We know nothing scientific about drugs we spend many billions of dollars a year on. Why are we as a society paying for them?

Can you please, Diogenes, offer OB several high-quality peer-reviewed ungated “clean” – independent, no pharma! – studies that show significant benefit for this class of drugs or any brand-name statin? They would be useful to see.

The QALY for a statin is ~ 15K-25K year for secondary prevention.

All this info is easily accessible on up-to-date, which is available at any academic medical center.

Statins are just not a good example regarding bias in medicine — they mainly display the bias of the person doing the ranting. Just like creationists clearly have their own agenda.

I think what I’ve linked to in the post precisely consists of efforts of the scientific community (or portions thereof) to “self correct,” that is, to point out that some treatments or practices aren’t supported by good evidence.