Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: daily mail debunking harcombe statin debate

  1. #1

    Default daily mail debunking harcombe statin debate

    the Daily Mails articles are about pushing statins on us again, we are all going to die sooner if we dont take them, Zoe and Dr Kendrik both get a mention in the Mail Sunday 2nd March 2019

  2. #2
    Super Member Mamie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Village in rural Lancashire
    Posts
    12,448

    Default

    Thanks Edmund. It wasn't just a mention, it was a hatchet job. The MoS should be had up for libel.

  3. #3
    Super Member PerryPoole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Thornbury, South Gloucestershire
    Posts
    2,205

    Default

    Hi Edmund, did you follow the threads on this forum about that very article? Zoe is obviously rattling someone's cage and they are getting very frightened... Thank goodness she has Aseem and Malcolm with her and everyone on here behind her ALL THE WAY!

  4. #4

    Default

    There is a simple way for Prof Rory Collins to end the argument.
    Make all the data he is relying on open access.
    The only reason the data is secret is because it won't stand the scrutiny it would be subjected to by independent experts. That is people like Harcombe who don't have a financial interest in the use of statins.
    The longer Collins delays access to the data he claims supports the general use of statins the less credible he becomes.
    Statins - a call for transparent data
    He can bully and bluster all he likes but eventually it may end up in a court case and access to the basic data will be required, so the sooner he behaves like a fair minded reasonable adult the better.
    We can't just sit around watching the health and cognitive function of many people my generation be reduced for the sake of pharmaceutical CEO's bonuses.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TedHutchinson View Post
    the sooner he behaves like a fair minded reasonable adult the better.
    I genuinely believe that he cannot do that as to behave as you mention; one would need at the very least a grounding in it - I do not think he has a fair-minded, reasonable adult bone in his body.
    The worst bigots in the world are those who most loudly proclaim their ‘tolerance’

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mat View Post
    I genuinely believe that he cannot do that as to behave as you mention; one would need at the very least a grounding in it - I do not think he has a fair-minded, reasonable adult bone in his body.
    Zoe knows better than most people the stress and financial cost of a court case (or in the case of fighting big pharma a series of high court cases)
    No one wants a repeat of the Noakes trial but if Collins is going to carry on with the current policy of attacking by proxy and not personally or directly then suing becomes the only option.
    No one wants to discredit the whole medical profession.
    People my generation want to trust their GP and the advice they provide. Whether we are talking about diabetes, heart disease Hyperthyroidism, B12 or lyme disease current medical advice should keep up with recent research.
    Now more people have more access to published research than previously it's more important than ever that access to the data underlying that research is also open to scrutiny.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TedHutchinson View Post
    Now more people have more access to published research than previously it's more important than ever that access to the data underlying that research is also open to scrutiny.
    Oh totally! But if Ioannidis is to be believed, then isn't over half of that garbage anyway? Due to very poorly designed experimentation.

    Fully agree that the longer Collins, or to give him the title he deserves, Collins withholds the raw data the more 'shonky' he, and it, looks!
    The worst bigots in the world are those who most loudly proclaim their ‘tolerance’

  8. #8

    Default

    Formal comment on "Systematic review of the predictors of statin adherence for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease".
    Came across this recent paper again and it's possible some people here haven't read it yet.
    Of course it's authored by "Deniers" however a careful evidence based rebuttal backed by studies that can be checked by everyone with access to the full text and supporting data would be more convincing than the hysterical article in the DM.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TedHutchinson View Post
    Formal comment on "Systematic review of the predictors of statin adherence for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease".
    Came across this recent paper again and it's possible some people here haven't read it yet.
    Of course it's authored by "Deniers" however a careful evidence based rebuttal backed by studies that can be checked by everyone with access to the full text and supporting data would be more convincing than the hysterical article in the DM.
    In fact new research shows the deniers may be understating the risk of diabetes incidence associated with statin use.

    Statin use and risk of developing diabetes: results from the Diabetes Prevention Program
    In this analysis, statin use was associated with a clear increase in diabetes risk in the cohort
    as a whole, with point estimates of the HRs suggesting this risk is increased by close to 30%.

  10. #10

    Default


    Fascinating material Ted, thank you.
    Gilli - DLTBGYD but more importantly KCHO

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO