Dr Malcolm Kendrick: Side-effects of statins should not be ignored

http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/dr-malcolm-kendrick-side-effects-of-statins-should-not-be-ignored-1-4436485

Kendrick's response to the recent statin story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/03/statins-myth-thousands-dying-warnings-non-existent-side-effects/

Many thanks for the links Graham.

These paragraphs jumped out at me ...

"But this latest report pushes things to a completely ridiculous point.

Can I, as a GP, simply tell patients reporting side-effects that “you do not have a side-effect, they do not exist, it is simply in your mind”? No, this would be completely ridiculous, and a total denial of the GP’s job, which is to listen to what patients tell you, not to take a horribly “I know best” paternalistic position.

On the other hand, the benefits of statins have been hyped to an almost completely ridiculous degree. We are told that they reduce the risk of having a heart attack by 30 per cent, which sounds highly impressive – if you, like almost everyone, including me, does not understand statistics.

The reality is that, unless you have had a previous heart attack, statins have no effect on overall mortality. To put that another way: they don’t save lives. They don’t even prevent heart attacks or strokes in women with no previous history of heart disease.

The statistic you really want to know about statins is the following. If you have had a heart attack, or stroke, and take a statin for five years, you will increase your life expectancy by 4.2 days. Balance that against a 20 per cent chance of having side-effects, some of which are very unpleasant and long-lasting, and you can see why I’m not a fan of statins."

Read more at: http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/dr-malcolm-kendrick-side-effects-of-statins-should-not-be-ignored-1-4436485


And ...

"The study was funded by drug company Pfizer, which makes statins, but the authors said all data collection, analysis and interpretation of the results was carried out independently.

London cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra, who has argued against mass prescribing of statins, last night insisted the drugs had only “marginal” benefits for those with established heart disease, and did not save lives for lower risk patients."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/03/statins-myth-thousands-dying-warnings-non-existent-side-effects/

All the best Jan

They were supposed to be going to be replaced by PCSK9 inhibitors but due to underwhelming demand they are now being flogged mercilessly again.



The inimitable Janis channels drug company execs

chris c wrote:They were supposed to be going to be replaced by PCSK9 inhibitors but due to underwhelming demand they are now being flogged mercilessly again.

And don't forget overwhelming costs 

A new “hugely expensive” cholesterol drug does not improve overall survival chances for patients with heart disease and should be withdrawn from use, experts have said.

A coalition of doctors last night called on patients to be told that evolocumab, which was hailed as  a “game changer” and “better than statins”, does nothing to prevent fatal heart attacks and strokes.

Fresh analysis of data shows the injectable medicine is costing the NHS more than £645,000 for every minor heart attack or stroke it delays, however a trial conducted by Amgen, which manufacturers the drug under the name Repatha, also showed a higher death rate among those taking it than in the placebo patient group.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/06/nhs-wasting-tens-thousands-year-wonder-drug-stroke-heart-attacks/

More on Statins from Dr Kendrick :

3rd February 2019

A number of people have asked for my views on the Lancet Paper ‘Efficacy and safety of statin therapy in older people: a meta-analysis of individual participant data from 28 randomized controlled trials.’

It was reported in various major newspapers.

The Times reported the study thus: “Everyone over the age of 75 should be considered for cholesterol-lowering statins, experts have urged, after an analysis found up to 8,000 lives a year could be saved.”¹  

The Telegraph had this to say. “Researchers said up to 8,000 deaths a year could be prevented if GPs simply prescribed drugs costing pennies a day.”

This comes hot on the heels of a concerted effort to silence statin critics around the world by a coalition of ‘experts. I suspect the coordinated timing is more than a coincidence.

‘The editors of more than two dozen cardiology-related scientific journals around the world published an editorial Monday to “sound the alarm that human lives are at stake” because of medical misinformation.

These physicians describe regularly encountering patients hesitant to take potentially lifesaving medications or adhere to other prescribed treatments because of something they read online. Or heard from friends. Or saw on television.

“There is a flood of bad information on the internet and social media that is hurting human beings,” said Dr. Joseph Hill, the architect of the essay and editor-in-chief of the American Heart Association journal Circulation. “It’s not just an annoyance, this actually puts people in harm’s way.”

The primary example illustrated in the editorial is the use of statins, a cholesterol-lowering medicine that can reduce heart attack and stroke risk in certain people. But doctors say too many of their patients shun taking statins because of bad information they picked up – often from politicians, celebrities and others who lack medical expertise.’²

Essentially, they feel that certain issues, such as prescribing statins, are so vitally important that critics should be silenced. Perhaps all these editors should try reading this:

‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’

Yes, the US founding fathers knew the first thing tyrannies always wish to do is remove freedom of speech. From that, all else follows. If they don’t get that message, they should all be forced to read 1984 by George Orwell.

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”

Getting back to the Lancet paper. What do I think of it? The first thing to note is ‘who done it.’ Well, of course, it was the Cholesterol Treatment Triallists Collaboration (CTT) from Oxford. Run by Professor Sir Rory Collins and Professor Colin Baigent. They do almost all these meta-analyses on statins, because they hold all the data. So, no-one else can really do them.

The CTT is in this hallowed position because they made a pact with the dev… sorry … they made a pact with the pharmaceutical industry to take hold of all the data on statins from all the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture statins and collate the data.

The CTT are very closely associated with the Oxford Clinical Trials Service Unit (CTSU) which is run by, and has employed, most of those in the CTT. Collins and Baigent etc. The CTSU is a clinical trials unit which, last time I looked, had obtained nearly £300 million in funding from the pharmaceutical industry for running clinical trials on various cholesterol lowering medications.

A fact that needs to be emphasised is that the CTT will not let anyone else see the data they hold. Including all the data on adverse events [side-effects] and serious adverse events. It is kept completely secret. I have the e-mail exchange between an Australian journalist and Professor Colin Baigent where the journalist attempts to find out if it is true that the CTT will not let anyone else see the safety data.

It starts quite well and the tone is amiable. Eventually Professor Colin Baigent clams up and refuses to answer any further questions. I have promised said journalist to keep this exchange under wraps, but almost every day I am tempted to publish it. It is toe-squirming.

Anyway, my point here is that the CTT is a horribly conflicted organisation, and has been paid, directly, or indirectly, a great deal of money by the pharmaceutical industry. Here are the conflicts of interest of those involved in writing the Lancet paper:

Conflicts of interest of statement from the Lancet paper: Commercial organisations in bold.


Please continue to read here
https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2019/02/03/response-to-the-lancet-paper/

All the best Jan