However, it looks like you listened to. At one stage I was cut off when I attempted to bring up the issue of financial conflicts of interest amongst the authors. The lead author of this paper was Professor Sir Rory Collins. In truth, I have been awaiting this article for some time. In fact, I am going to reproduce here a blog I wrote on February 1. A humiliating climb down – or a Machiavellian move? Some of you may have seen a headline in the Sunday Express Newspaper . He, more than anyone, has championed the ever wider prescription of these drugs. He has also ruthlessly attacked anyone who dares make any criticism of them. You may remember that last year he tried to get the BMJ to retract two articles claiming that statins had side effects (correctly called adverse effects, but I will call them side- effects to avoid confusion) of around 1. He stated that these articles were irresponsible, worse than Andrew Wakefield’s work on the MMR vaccine, and that thousands would die if they were scared off taking their statins by such articles. A game I have long since tired of. Is this story ringing any bells yet? The truth was that both articles quoted a paper which stated that 1. So, yes, a pedant would say that the 1. Certainly not worth a demand of instant retraction, and apology, which is a very drastic step indeed. Anyway, below is a short description of the findings of an independent panel set up by Fiona Godlee, editor of the BMJ, regarding the Rory Collins attacks: “As previously reported, Rory Collins, a prominent researcher and head of the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration, had demanded that The BMJ retract two articles that were highly critical of statins. Although The BMJ issued a correction for both papers for inaccurately citing an earlier publication and therefore overstating the incidence of adverse effects of statins, this response did not satisfy Collins. He repeatedly demanded that the journal issue a full retraction of the articles, prompting The BMJ’s editor- in- chief, Fiona Godlee, to convene an outside panel of experts to review the problem. The report of the independent statins review panel exonerates The BMJ from wrong doing and said the controversial articles should not be retracted: “The panel were unanimous in their decision that the two papers do not meet any of the criteria for retraction. ![]() The error did not compromise the principal arguments being made in either of the papers. These arguments involve interpretations of available evidence and were deemed to be within the range of reasonable opinion among those who are debating the appropriate use of statins.”In fact, the panel was critical of Collins for refusing to submit a published response to the articles: “The panel noted with concern that despite the Editor’s repeated requests that Rory Collins should put his criticisms in writing as a rapid response, a letter to the editor or as a stand- alone article, all his submissions were clearly marked . The panel considered this unlikely to promote open scientific dialogue in the tradition of the BMJ.””1. To provide a bit more context at this point, you should know that for a number of years, people have been trying to get Rory Collins to release the data he and his unit (the CTT), holds on statins. He claims he signed non- disclosure contracts with pharmaceutical companies who send him the data, so he cannot allow anyone else access. Please remember that some of the trials he holds data on were done over thirty years ago, and the drugs are long off patent. So how the hell could any data still be ? But that is an argument for another day. Then try to make sense of it. So, they have got the data, but not bothered to look at it? Many moons ago when I wrote The Great Cholesterol Con I provided a very short section at the end on what people should do, to avoid heart disease. Or they have not got it – which surely must be the case if he hasn’t even seen it. Either way, Collins states he has not assessed it. Despite this, he still managed a vicious attack on the BMJ for publishing articles, claiming statins had side effects of around 2. This was an interesting stance to stake, as he now claims he has no idea what the rate of side effects are? In which case he should make a grovelling apology to Fiona Godlee immediately. What is certain, and must be reiterated, is that Rory Collins has consistently refused to allow anyone to see the side effect data, or any other data, that that the CTT may, or may not, hold. ![]() Search the history of over 286 billion web pages on the Internet. Skörbjugg är en bristsjukdom som uppstår till följd av för lågt intag av vitamin C. Trots att det ofta betraktas som ett glömt, historiskt problem är det ett. Macrobiotic diet; Alternative medicine; Claims: Health effects from a diet avoiding refined foods and most animal products. Specific effects on cancer. Scurvy is a disease resulting from a lack of vitamin C. Early symptoms include weakness, feeling tired, curly hair, and sore arms and legs. How healthy were Eskimos and other people around the world who ate all-meat diets? Wikipedia Inuit Diet Scurvy PicturesSee e- mail below from Professor Colin Baigent to the ABC producer Mary. Anne Demasi (she was trying to get the CTT to confirm that they would not release data, Colin Baigent is, or was, deputy to Rory Collins)From: colin. To: maryannedemasi@xxxxxxxxxxxx. Wikipedia Inuit Diet Scurvy Rash![]() Subject: RE: URGENT COMMENT NEEDED PLEASE: ABC TV AUSTRALIADate: Tue, 2. Sep 2. 01. 3 1. 7: 0. Dear Maryanne. The CTT secretariat has agreement with the principal investigators of the trials and, in those instances where trial data were provided directly by the drug manufacturers, with the companies themselves, that individual trial data will not be released to third parties. Such an agreement was necessary in order that analyses of the totality of the available trial data could be conducted by the CTT Collaboration: without such an agreement the trial data could not have been brought together for systematic analysis. Such analysis has allowed the CTT Collaboration to conduct and report all of the analyses on efficacy and safety that have been sought directly or indirectly by others (eg by Dr Redberg in her papers on the efficacy and safety of statins in primary prevention, and in questions raised by the Cochrane Collaboration). Hence, the CTT Collaboration has made available findings that would not otherwise have emerged. I would be very happy to ring you at whatever time is convenient for you in order to help you to understand our approach, and then address in writing any residual concerns. ![]() ![]() It would be a shame if we were not able to speak as this would be the most effective way of explaining things. Please let me know where and some times when I can reach you, and I will endeavour to telephone. Colin Baigent. I put the word safety in bold in this copied e- mail. You will note that Professor Colin Baigent does not say that that the CTT do not have these data on safety. He just says that the CTT won’t let anyone else see any data. If they do have it, why have they not done this critically important review before, as they have had much of the data for over twenty years. If they don’t have it, how exactly is Rory Collins going to review it – as he states he is going to? Sorry to keep repeating this point, but I think it is absolutely critical. Picture the scene in a lovely oak panelled office in Oxford, the city of the dreaming spires. So, let’s get cracking shall we?’And lo it has come to pass that after all these years Professor Collins has deigned to look at the safety data. ![]() This review shall, in Collins own words . I really don’t think they should bother, because we all know exactly what they are going to find. ![]() Nothing to see here, now move along. A. N. Other Researcher: . Data that no- one else can ever see. He might even be the last. P. S. Actually, he would be the last. I do not claim to be Nostradamus here. ![]() If you want to take a deep dive, Dr. Gonzalez masterfully dismantles the ketogenic diet for cancer in the lengthy article below. This is not a scientific rebuttal. In the maps that desolate coast is written Navy Board Inlet, but the Inuit name is best, because the country lies at the very back of everything in the world. What was going to happen was obvious. The script had been written a long time ago. It was only a question of when, not if, it happened. However, whilst the article itself is nothing new. Just the same data stretched into three hundred references, and mind- blowing statistical obfuscation. It does, however, contain a few new Alice in Wonderland statements, such as the following: ? For the first twenty years of trials on statins, no- one had noted that statins increase the risk of type II diabetes. It was not, as far as could be seen at the time, a problem. Then, in a later study, JUPITER, all of a sudden it was found that there was a significant increase in type II diabetes. Now, it turns out that all statins increase the risk of type II diabetes. Had JUPITER not recorded the incidence of type II diabetes, this would never have been noticed. The cynics among you might say that they recorded this in the hope that the incidence would actually go down. Here we have a perfect example of an outcome not recorded in the vast majority of statin studies. Had it been, it would have significantly biased the assessment of treatment. We also find that after two trials, 4. S and HPS, found an increase in non melanoma skin cancer. Outcomes certainly cannot make a difference if you do not record them. But if you did bother record them – who knows what might have happened. This type of logic litters this Lancet paper, along with straw man argument after straw man argument. However, the purpose of this blog was not to discuss the evidence, such as it is, such as we are allowed to see, but to highlight why this paper was written and published. For this I shall turn to the editorial, accompanying the paper, written by Richard Horton. Who is the editor of The Lancet. ![]() Read this, and be afraid, for it is the most frightening thing you will read this year. Possibly this decade and maybe the entire century as is a direct attack on human freedoms. Whilst couched in the usual life destroying scientific prose, what he is saying is that any who questions current accepted medical dogma should be very tightly controlled, and probably should not be allowed to publish anything at all. The entire editorial is an exercise in trying to silence any dissent with what some might view as threats and bullying. This, I think, is the key paragraph (my emphasis in bold). Some research papers are more high risk to public health than others. Those papers deserve extra vigilance. They should be subjected to rigorous and extensive challenge during peer review. The risk of publication should be explicitly discussed and evaluated. If publication is agreed, it should be managed with exquisite care.’Now that, when you strip it down, is basically censorship. Despite the seriousness of what Richard Horton is proposing, it is amusing to know what his published views on peer review might be, consider his statement that .
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
July 2017
Categories |