RESEARCHERS RETRACT STATEMENTS ON STATIN SAFETY UNDER PRESSURE FROM THE BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
[Our goal with this editorial is to] "alert readers, the media, and the public to the withdrawal of these statements so that patients who could benefit from statins are not wrongly deterred from starting or continuing treatment because of exaggerated concerns over side effects." Dr. Fiona Goodlee of the British Medical Journal explaining why the public needs to be "warned" that Statin Drugs are much safer than some physicians and researchers have been telling the public. The statement comes from her editorial called "Adverse Effects of Statins: The BMJ and Authors Withdraw Statements that Adverse Events Occur in 18-20% of Patients".
Dr Fiona Goodlee, the editor-in-chief of the BMJ, recently withdrew two scientific papers from their
archives, denounced the results of the studies, and is in the process of forcing retractions from the study's authors. Trust me when I tell you that these studies were not done by Bevis and Butt Head. The first study, by Dr. John Abramson (MD) of Harvard Medical School was called Should People at Low Risk of Cardiovascular Disease Take a Statin? The study concluded that, "The evidence does not show that the benefits of statins in low risk patients outweigh the harms and that the advice for treatment of this group should not be changed." Later that same week, Aseem Malhotra, an interventional cardiology specialist registrar at Croydon University Hospital in London, England published an editorial in BMJ called Saturated Fat is not the Major Issue. The jist of the paper was that TRANS FATS and SUGAR / CARBS seem to be the driving force in Cardiovascular Disease and METABOLIC SYNDROME / DIABETES, not SATURATED FATS --- a fact I have belabored on this site.
Although Goodlee herself has been the hatchet-person for these studies, the actual act of retraction has been left up to others. She decided that, "the right thing to do is to pass this decision to an independent panel." In the immortal words of Dana Carvey, "Isn't that special". I'll not get into what "INDEPENDENT PANELS" tend to look like, but suffice it to say that they are rarely as "independent" as they claim to be. Folks; this is EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE at its finest. Sort of makes you wonder how much money / favor changed hands in this filthy little tryst.