Comments on: When medical research is funded to favour the drug, not the facts

By: Carolyn Thomas

Carolyn Thomas — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:57:02 +0000

Hello Marilyn,
I suppose you’re right. The tone of this discussion could well be considered a “witch hunt” in much the same way many public health officials reacted during the 1960s when Big Tobacco openly paid physicians to testify that smoking was not associated with any known health issues. Today in hindsight, we are shocked that such “scientists” were considered even remotely credible given their clear financial conflicts of interests at the time. The relevant question is of course: how credible is the ‘science’ bought and paid for by industry when its sole purpose is to boost sales?

And there’s already considerable independent non-industry-funded research (Ray et al 2010, Cochrane 2011, Women & Health Protection 2007) describing the evidence promoting statins for primary prevention in low-risk people and related all-cause mortality reduction claims as “an extreme and exaggerated finding”. And as Dr. Eric Topol warned in Forbes recently: “The diabetes risk (of taking statins) does not just show up in JUPITER – it is consistent in every trial of high potency statins.”

LikeLike

By: M2

M2 — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:29:07 +0000

This discussion has taken on the tone of a witch hunt. If you’re one of those vocal critics who don’t believe the results or conclusions of the JUPITER study then don’t take statins. If you do take stains and the risk/benefit calculation is not in your favor then stop taking them. If you don’t like the fact that large clinical trials such as JUPITER are funded by the drug companies then consent to having your taxes pay for expensive Phase III clinical trials (though it takes more than money to do it properly); but don’t assume that results from agency-conducted trials will somehow be devoid of differing interpretations from reasonable people.

The bottom line is that I’m glad that statins exist as approved drugs. I hope I never need them, will continue to diet (Mediterranean) and exercise, but I’m glad statins exist as another option that may help further mitigate my risk going forward.

LikeLike

By: Carolyn Thomas

Carolyn Thomas — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:35:13 +0000

Thanks so much for taking the time to respond, Jacques. Please reread this post; you’ll see that I agree with your perspective. “Much to gain” includes both financial and non-financial (reputation, credibility, etc) potential benefits of holding a specific position. Many physicians who share Dr. de Lorgeril’s views questioning the growing popularity of statins – particularly as primary prevention in low-risk patients – do not of course stand to gain financially from their association with Big Pharma (as statin proponents like Ridker do), but are well-known and respected in medical circles and often cited specifically because of their anti-statin cautions (e.g. Drs. Rita Redberg, Malcolm Kendricks, Eric Topol, John Mandrola, Barbara Roberts, etc). This increased public and professional profile is a “gain”. Not a financial gain, but not all gains mean money.
PS Your English is outstanding!

LikeLike

By: Jacques Evrard

Jacques Evrard — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:32:25 +0000

I appreciate most of your paper, but then you wrote : “He too [Dr Michel de Lorgeril] has much to gain with the publication and acceptance of his research.”

MUCH to gain ???
What are you talking about ?

I know his work and researches very well.
Note that I am just an European patient who had 3 acute myocardial infarctions under statins and is now PERMANENTLY crippled by an irreversible myopathy caused by these drugs.

Do you realize that Dr Lorgeril is a researcher working in a public national research center (CNRS) ?
Each month he earns the same reasonable salary, with or without “publication and acceptance of his research” !
And he is published (try a search under his name on pubmed) and his Lyon Diet Study is respected in the whole wide world !
This argument (mainly started by the like of Cardiobrief & Marilyn Mann) is TOTALLY unfair. It is a LIE and a RIDICULOUS lie for those who know.

Dr Lorgeril doesn’t try to sell us any drugs or complements, he repeatedly explains that cardiovascular diseases are the result of our way of life, that if we want to protect ourselves against these diseases (even in secondary prevention) we have to eat differently (Mediterranean diet), to have more physical activities, etc.
Yes, he sells a few books (in french) about this and the cholesterol/statin scam. Very serious books, with a scientific analysis of the studies, nothing easy or very fun to read.

How could this make him earn billions of $ every year like the CRESTOR industry Ridker is working for ?
I don’t understand !

And I didn’t miss something. Dixon May’s comment is NOT part of your paper.

P.S.: Excuse my poor English, I am Belgian and French is my first language.

LikeLike

By: Carolyn Thomas

Carolyn Thomas — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:22:45 +0000

Thanks for sharing your perspective, Marjorie. It’s a good reminder for patients to report their own significant drug side effects (here’s the FDA MedWatch reporting info). And unless you are already a heart patient at high risk for future cardiac events, there is considerable evidence that women at low risk for cardiovascular disease should not take statins merely for the purposes of managing (intermediate endpoint) cholesterol numbers.

LikeLike

By: Marjorie

Marjorie — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:53:19 +0000

I just discovered this site. I have been obsessed with this subject since I was a Crestor victim several years ago. After taking a low dose of this drug for several months, I developed a laundry list of symptoms. Having not been warned about side effects, I concluded that old age was quickly setting in. Eventually, I found some websites devoted to the negative side effects of statins and realized the truth, I was being poisoned.

I went off the medication and quickly recuperated. This experience left me quite frustrated and angry. The FDA and the medical profession do not take our very real complaints seriously. Both my old doctor and my new one stated that they would not report my complaints to the FDA because they were not “serious enough”.

Must a patient wind up in the hospital or dead before anyone pays attention? The real problems we experience from drugs are anecdotal, while Big Pharma statistics are the gold standard. The fact that the FDA now lists memory problems as a possible side effect of statin drugs is because of patient complaints. How many patients actually complain? Surely those they hear from are just the tip of the iceberg.

It is not outside the realm of possibility that dietary cholesterol may not be the great satan. Gluttony, lack of exercise and heredity all play a role. No one lives forever. Can Big Pharma extend our lives and better the quality?

Ultimately each one of us has to make our own decisions about our health. What do we eat, how much do we exercise, do we take drugs to lower our cholesterol or supposedly to strengthen our bones. We must educate ourselves and be armed with our own research to better decide when and if we want to add big pharma into the equation. I for one, take their biased conclusions, with a healthy dose of skepticism and a grain of salt.

Thank you for this most informative website.

Marjorie

LikeLike

By: Elliott

Elliott — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 14:12:46 +0000

Yes Carolyn, I indeed had seen this comment but sincerely, when I read YOUR PAPER, I understand you suggest De Lorgeril has a lot to gain too. I’m glad you agree with Dixon May :p)

LikeLike

By: Carolyn Thomas

Carolyn Thomas — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 14:02:18 +0000

Yes, maybe you have missed something. Again, see Dixon May’s comment above: “Just look at the “EXPERT” who has the MOST to gain financially – and that’s the one whose EXPERTISE is least likely to be trusted.” Dr. de Lorgeril clearly appears to be least likely to gain financially here, right?

LikeLike

By: Elliott

Elliott — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 13:29:58 +0000

Yes, but when you write “De Lorgeril’s conflict of interest disclosure…..He too has much to gain with the publication and acceptance of his research.”,
you seem to support those who :
– dismiss him on this ground
– without trying to reply to the evidence he brings.
That is not fair.
This is strange because it is at odds with the general tone of your paper.
Or maybe I missed something ?

LikeLike

By: Carolyn Thomas

Carolyn Thomas — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 00:09:51 +0000

That is precisely the point. See Dixon May’s comment above for an explanation.

LikeLike

By: Elliott

Elliott — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 22:53:54 +0000

Really ?
“De Lorgeril’s conflict of interest disclosure: he and one of his study co-authors are members of a group called The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics (THINCS), who oppose the belief that animal fat and high cholesterol play a role in the causation of cardiovascular disease. He too has much to gain with the publication and acceptance of his research.”
===================
I fail to see what he and others (who seem not to write at all or often at THINCS) have to gain. This is a poor comparison to Ridker’s financial interests.

LikeLike