Skip to main content

View Diary: Cholesterol overhaul (72 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What I heard is the new guidelines (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OldDragon, atana, kaliope

    Would double the number of adults that "should" be on statin treatment from about 15% to 30%.

    Of course, I heard some mumbo-jumbo from a shill on the radio saying "it's not really a doubling because some of the people are already on the treatment", which frankly makes no sense...

    And then there is the question about the risk calculator having a tendency to over-estimate the risk.  An issue raised over a year ago that has never been addressed.

    Yes, this looks like an attempt by big pharma to grab some cash.

    •  Valid criticisms are valid (0+ / 0-)

      Random completely unfounded accusations of political hit jobs are dangerous, hurt the general health of the nation, and attempt to defame peer reviewed research.

      Your accusations of this being a cash grab by "big pharma" are part of the problem, not the solution.  

      •  There are a number of reputable dissenters (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        atana, kkkkate, kaliope

        See, for example, this article.

        The accusations aren't unfounded.

        •  Do you even read the things you are responding to? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DarthMeow504

          1) Just because they are reputable does not mean they are right.

          2) Those who are disagreeing reputably are doing so with clear verifiable claims.

          3) Even if there were problems with the study and analysis. The wild accusation that this was somehow a conspiracy by "OMGZ TEH EVIL PARMA"  is pure unfounded bullshit.   The only link to that the industry being discussed that that "OMG BIG PHARAMA FUNDS RESEARCH, OMG" which is kinda funny in a dirt dumb stupid kinda of way.

          •  Pharma funds research, so the cut taken for (0+ / 0-)

            shareholders is irrelevant? What's the research:profit ratio, do you happen to know?

            •  Do you think the (0+ / 0-)

              automotive industry is going to be funding pharmacological research? No?

              Of course not. The pharmaceutical industry funds pharmacological research. Its their fucking job.

              Are their instances of corruption and and bias. Of course there are, history is full of them.

              At the same time it is asinine and childish to use the industry as some kind of boogy man. Particularly when the report has come from organizations which are less closely linked to corporate interests than most.

              There is ZERO evidence of a link for this report to any kind of corruption. Anyone tossing that kind of accusation around at this point is a crackpot, a fool, and doing serious harm to integraty of the research process.  

    •  There was some programming error in the (0+ / 0-)

      online calculator - I don't know if it has been fixed yet. The doubling number may have come from that.



      Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

      by Wee Mama on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 04:22:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Then, there are those who cannot take statins (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      notrouble

      I'm one of them. Go straight into rhabdo in record time with every one of them.
      Even one per week gets me.

      As my physician and I agree that my attachment to my kidneys is a healthy attachment, no statins for me.
      I'm thinking of going with niacin instead, we'll see at my next appointment.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site