 |
 |
[log in to unmask]" type="cite"> -thanks Lejla
-indeed the BMJ has being a rock helping physicians to work well
-but about statins side effects now we have many "Doctor Cholesterol"
-they say/writte that "statins have no side effects" or "give statins to all over-40" or "they should be made available for sale over the counter and without the need for a prescription" or "statins have been around for 25 years, so we know the long-term results", etc.
-most scientifics answer with questions around clinical trials and the way they hide adverse events
-but no one even remember hundreds of people that have died because rhabdomyolisis a little more than ten years ago, with cerivastatin (having no single death during the clinical trials) http://www.healthyskepticism.org/global/news/int/hsint2002- 06
-in general, the statins mortality risk from fatal rhabdomyolysis is approximately 0.3 per 100,000 person-years http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ so we can expect in the UK (when 12 millions under statins treatment http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10632047/Statins-12-million-Brits-will-be-advised-to-take-cholesterol-lowering-drug.html ) 36 deaths per yearS0002914905021508
-Dr Cholesterol set the agenda "statins have no side effects" and "no debate about the lack of effectiveness of statins in primary prevention"
-behind the agenda, no doubt, is the objetive to weak BMJ position and its editor role
-un saludo
-juan gérvas
El 21/05/2014 15:38, Lejla Halilovic escribió:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">LejlaGreat and timely article on every front, Juan: appropriate and informed patient treatments, journal independence, clinical data transparency, balanced and fair scientific debates.
Patients around the world and we all stand a lot to lose if BMJ succumbs to these unreasonable (and might I add unknightly) pressures.
Recently, Swedish Medical Association joined AllTrials, which is promising. Physicians around the globe need to understand these important transparency debates.
BMJ's motto is: Helping doctors make better decisions. It seems we all now need to help BMJ help doctors make better decisions.
I encourage all on this list, especially physicians, to join the debate and voice their opinions in form of rapid responses to BMJ's recent editorial. Read responses published thus far here.
Sincerely,
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:42 AM, Juan Gérvas <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Adverse effects of statin as weapons against British Medical Journal.
SUMMARY
It appears that the adverse effects of statins are being used as a smokescreen to avoid the debate over its lack of effect in primary prevention. The ultimate intention is likely to change the line of independence of the British Medical Journal, to change its editor and to promote industrial interests.
(attached, with references and in
http://www.nogracias.eu/2014/05/21/adverse-effects-statin-weapons-british-medical-journal/
---
Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protección de avast! Antivirus está activa.
http://www.avast.com
|
Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protección de avast! Antivirus está activa. |