Better? You're entitled to your opinion, of course.
I know you and Sharon justify your one-sided viewpoint by claiming that
people who post articles that are not critical of statins are employed by
or paid by pharma to do that. I ain't one of them. This is the
sci.MED.cardiology group, afterall, and statins are some of the most
widely used and researched cardiology-related meds.
Notice, too that I did not edit out parts of the article (i.e. "Previous
reports have linked "statin" drugs, like simvastatin, with muscle side
effects.."), like Sharon does in her posts.
L.
> Better? You're entitled to your opinion, of course.
>
> I know you and Sharon justify your one-sided viewpoint by claiming that
> people who post articles that are not critical of statins are employed by
> or paid by pharma to do that. I ain't one of them.
You only post press releases and information promoting statins for
everything but tooth decay. The rest of your posts are personal attacks
on those who post otherwise.
Sharon and I have very different experiences and perspectives on the
statin issue.
>This is the
> sci.MED.cardiology group, afterall, and statins are some of the most
> widely used and researched cardiology-related meds.
They are widely used due to a triumph of marketing over science, in my
estimation. We've seen ample proof and examples of what passes for
"research" results when the investigators have a financial stake in the
outcome of the research. We have no reliable data on statins, in my
estimation, for this very reason. Not my paranoia, just an established
and much published fact.
> Notice, too that I did not edit out parts of the article (i.e. "Previous
> reports have linked "statin" drugs, like simvastatin, with muscle side
> effects.."), like Sharon does in her posts.
I don't edit articles or citations I post, either. I quote or link to
full text. I don't post my opinions as facts without supporting
documentation. Since there is a safe, atoxic HMG-CoA inhibitor and
anti-inflammatory with no adverse effects cheaply available, I think
statins should be avoided, given their inferior risk/benefit ratio.
Susan
>>x-no-archive: yes
>>
[quoted text clipped - 71 lines]
>>>
>>>SOURCE: American Journal of Cardiology, February 2006.