BMJ 'right' in statins claims row

[Northerner]

An investigation has backed the British Medical Journal's handling of two controversial and inaccurate articles it published on the harms of cholesterol-reducing statins.

Both claimed that 20% of users would suffer harmful side effects.

The journal withdrew the claim, but refused calls for a full retraction.

Yet prominent academics have criticised the investigation, saying the articles still damage confidence in statins and are continuing to demand a retraction.

Statins lower levels of cholesterol in the blood to reduce the odds of a heart attack or stroke.

The harms and benefits of the drugs became a hugely controversial area of medicine in the run-up to a massive expansion in prescribing in July.

Four in 10 adults in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are now eligible for statins

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28602155

 

[bill hopkinson]

Scare mongering networks faster than reassurance alas.

So statins are as dangerous as MMI vaccine? 😛

I will keep taking my Simvastatin

 

[trophywench]

Well that's fine for a person with no side effects to say !

I've never ever in my life had any side effect from any drug - only took 3, including insulin so I couldn't do anything with that one LOL - and didn't know which it could be, the statin or the ARB, or neither of them - and I just had senile dementia/Alzheimers and I - and my poor family! - was just stuck with it. I was very scared indeed. There were no horror stories about that I'd seen, then.

I decided to try packing one of them up for a month, just to see - it just happened to be the statin. If it didn't make any difference, I'd try the other one.

Within a fortnight I thought there was a difference, but didn't say anything. After 3 weeks - my husband said there was - so I knew it wasn't just me being over optimistic.

 

[Northerner]

I think that what gets me is that you medicalise 100 people for the rest of their lives (with no real knowledge of the long-term effects) in order to statistically prevent 3 of them possibly suffering cardiovascular problems. I can see the logic in high-risk groups, but not low-risk.