The BMJ censored my comment against statins and the MDs who promote those drugs

Unfortunately, we cannot publish this comment as it is potentially defamatory

Potentially defamatory? Which part of my comment deserves censorship? What is exactly the opinion that can’t be allowed in a BMJ blog?


“The protective effects of statins are not in doubt and are proportional to the degree of cardiovascular risk.”

“Statins remain among the most important advances in medical history”

According to the data from Collins et al., reducing your LDL 1 mmol/L with statins delays the death, each year, of 1 out of 500 people taking the drug.

People should stop trusting medical doctors.

NOTE about the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaborators:

This group is part of the Clinical Trials Service Unit in Oxford, which has received hundreds of millions of pounds over recent years to conduct research on behalf of the pharmaceutical companies“.

Excerpt from: “How statistical deception created the appearance that statins are safe and effective in primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease”. Expert Rev. Clin. Pharmacol. 8(2), 201–210 (2015)

23 comentarios en “The BMJ censored my comment against statins and the MDs who promote those drugs

  1. Now they can censor a new comment. No doubt they will:

  2. From Collins et al. (Fig 6):

    Any death rate in control arm (% per year): 2.5
    RR (1 mmol/L decrease in LDL)=0.91


    RR (%) absolute reduction = 2.5-2.275=0.225

    100*1/0.225 = 444 people need to be treated with statins for one year so 1 of them dies after that period, instead of during that year.

    1 out of 444.

    Unpleasant for statin pushers, isn’t it?

    NOTE: the original data (webfigure 8) shows a decrease from 2.47% to 2.27%, that is a 0.2% absolute reduction.

  3. I insist, now asking for an explanation:

  4. Richard Lehman, author of the blog entry, writes about arrogance in twitter:

    Is he who is censoring my comment?

    1. More about arrogance…

      1. Richard Lehman knows everything is there to know about arrogance:

  5. – The protective effects of statins are not in doubt and are proportional to the degree of cardiovascular risk.
    – 1 out of 500 people being treated for a year would die after that year instead of before that term (for a 1 mmol/L decrease in LDL)
    – NNT is 1 tool out of many. There’s no shortcut to a complex decision
    – The protective effects are not in doubt but it is a complex decision? 

    We, patients, deserve better.

    1. Oh, my!

      it’s not surprising that a man who has spent his whole life literally institutionalised should react like this to those who question both him and the very bases of his institution. […] An attack on his institution is an attack on him. And vice versa. Towered-ivory myopia is a wondrous malaise.

      Unfortunately for Sir Professor, the proliferation of the Internet has empowered independent researchers competently to partake in scientific analysis beyond those gates, despite the best intents of the gate keepers. This means that he must suffer impudent little barbarians – like you and me and everyone else here – who nip at his mighty heels and defy his haughty edicts, no matter how loudly he barks back. It must be very confusing for him, suddenly to have his citation-circle intruded upon by such “unwelcome externalities”.

  6. Diego

    Hello Vicente, congratulations for your massive work in the blog! This is my first comment here, I’ve been following you for a while. Have you ever heard of this book?

    The Low Carb Myth: Free Yourself from Carb Myths, and Discover the Secret Keys That Really Determine Your Health and Fat Loss Destiny, by Ari Whitten.

    The title sounds at the very least, to be a little far from being impartial.

    1. Hi Diego,

      no, I hadn’t heard of it before. The authors use Guyenet, carbsane, Freedhof, David Katz, etc. as their sources of knowledge. That is all anyone needs to know about this book.

      Two minutes of reading gives me this.

      First excerpt from the book:

      It is a straw-man argument (see), but it is also a lie:

      Fatty Acids, Obesity, and Insulin Resistance: Time for a Reevaluation

      the literature suggests that NEFA concentrations do not increase in proportion to fat mass, with a clear corollary that lipolysis per kilogram fat mass must be reduced in obesity. This has been repeatedly seen in studies of adipocytes from obese individuals in vitro (66,67) and is associated with downregulation of the expression of the key enzymes of fat mobilization, hormone-sensitive lipase and adipose triglyceride lipase […] As adipose tissue mass expands, NEFA release per kilogram adipose tissue is downregulated, not increased.

      Second excerpt from the book

      Now you can read a couple of scientific experiments: this one and this one

      Third excerpt from the book

      How many scientific studies do you want that demonstrate that that idea is indisputably a lie?

      As I said before: Guyenet, carbsane, Freedhoff, etc.

      1. Another excerpt from the book:

        Summary of 87 weight loss studies:

        Compared with higher carbohydrate intakes, low carbohydrate diets (≤ 35– 41.4% energy) increased the loss of body mass, BF, and percentage BF, even after control for energy intake

        Metabolic ward studies: the same conclusion.

        1. Diego

          Enough said, and having reading myself some parts of the book, it’s full of bad intentioned attacks, it uses too many words to try to explain the same over and over again, let’s also add “Calories In, Calories Out”… not definitely worth the time.

          Take care Vicente!

  7. I am sorry, but I am not a fan of BMJ right now…

  8. Medical doctors can debate about statins, while patient’s opinions are censored for no good reason:

    Who said arrogance?

  9. Now they really surprised me:

  10. They won’t dare to censor George’s comment as they did with mine.

  11. This statement seems to be based on the authors’ opinions and belief rather than scientific evidence. The clinical studies included in the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) meta-analysis upon which this claim is based did not achieve even half that level of cholesterol reduction in people whose risk of heart attack or stroke is less than 20 per cent over the next five years.4 So there is no scientific evidence for the magnitude of benefit of 2mmol/L reduction in a low-risk population; the estimates are based on projections, not fact.

Deja un comentario. Si los comentarios no contribuyen/aportan a los artículos publicados no los publico. Tampoco los publico si intentan forzar un debate o una toma de postura que el autor no ha planteado o que ha dado por cerrada. No publico comentarios descalificativos ni críticas fuera de lugar o que considere que no aportan nada. Si percibo intención de molestar en lugar de participar, o si no detecto vida inteligente, tampoco será publicado.

Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Google photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Conectando a %s

Este sitio usa Akismet para reducir el spam. Aprende cómo se procesan los datos de tus comentarios .