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)
Now they can censor a new comment. No doubt they will:
It was censored too:
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.
I insist, now asking for an explanation:
Richard Lehman, author of the blog entry, writes about arrogance in twitter:
Is he who is censoring my comment?
More about arrogance…
Richard Lehman knows everything is there to know about arrogance:
– 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.
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.
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
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.
Another excerpt from the book:
Summary of 87 weight loss studies:
Metabolic ward studies: the same conclusion.
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!
I am sorry, but I am not a fan of BMJ right now…
Medical doctors can debate about statins, while patient’s opinions are censored for no good reason:
Who said arrogance?
Now they really surprised me:
They won’t dare to censor George’s comment as they did with mine.