# Health scams



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

This might interest those of us who take care of ourselves.

http://www.healthscams.org.uk/

Ray.


----------



## GEMMY (Jun 19, 2006)

You've just put me off my bellybuster breakfast at the caff.

tony


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

I prefer Enid Blyton if I want to read fiction.........

sorry Ray but that site is flawed in a very fundamental way, it simply reports part of accounts and rarely acknowledges other parts. It effectively doing an "Andrew Wakely" and MMR type expose, and is not independent neither has it been peer reviewed.

The "evidence" is selective to say the least, e.g. statins are KNOWN to have side effects - those are ignored by the site, many people on MHF have reported the high incidence of muscle and leg cramps associated with Simvastatin, those are acknowledged facts. But not on that site....

I will not go on - simply return to "Five Go Off in a Caravan";

http://www.enidblyton.net/famous-five/five-go-off-in-a-caravan.html

(I believe all the Famous Five books are available for free download;

http://www.gobookee.net/enid-blyton-famous-five/ )

Dave


----------



## autostratus (May 9, 2005)

raynipper said:


> This might interest those of us who take care of ourselves.
> 
> http://www.healthscams.org.uk/
> 
> Ray.


Not sure if the title "Health scams" is correct but I can confirm the problems the article associates with statins.

I've never been able to walk properly from a few months after starting with statins and even though I stopped taking them I've never got back the ability to walk as I did before although the awful leg muscle pains have largely gone.


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Penquin said:


> I prefer Enid Blyton if I want to read fiction.........
> 
> sorry Ray but that site is flawed in a very fundamental way, it simply reports part of accounts and rarely acknowledges other parts. It effectively doing an "Andrew Wakely" and MMR type expose, and is not independent neither has it been peer reviewed.
> 
> ...


OK Dave.
Just passing it on from a very healthy 80+ year old near Bergerac.

Ray.


----------



## ardgour (Mar 22, 2008)

Penquin said:


> I prefer Enid Blyton if I want to read fiction.........
> 
> sorry Ray but that site is flawed in a very fundamental way, it simply reports part of accounts and rarely acknowledges other parts. It effectively doing an "Andrew Wakely" and MMR type expose, and is not independent neither has it been peer reviewed.
> 
> ...


Sorry Dave but sadly much of the so called 'evidence' in peer reviewed journals is also badly flawed, bad research design, selective use of results, conclusions that are not supported by the results I could go on - and yes I do know what I am talking about, I have worked on one of the committees that examines all the research and produces best practice guidelines.
The bottom line is that university staff are judged by the number of papers they publish (not the quality), reviewers are busy people with limited time (and anyway they want their own research published so don't want to upset too many people) and there are very powerful vested interests that protect their ability to make lots of money by persuading us we need more drugs. Controlling and manipulating the information to professionals and the public is just a part of that.
The study that began the whole cholesterol/ heart disease link was very badly flawed but there are billion dollar industries now dependent on the conclusions of that study so there is no going back.
Chris


----------



## fatbuddha (Aug 7, 2006)

ardgour said:


> Penquin said:
> 
> 
> > I prefer Enid Blyton if I want to read fiction.........
> ...


If you are referring to the Framingham Study, could you point out where the flaws were??? Yes - it wasn't perfect but you have to remember that it very much highlighted a very close correlation between CHD and cholesterol levels and subsequent studies also went on to show other factors involved. And that is the problem with CHD - it is not a single factor disease, it's multi-factorial and many things like cholesterol, HDL/LDL ratios, triglyceride levels, smoking, diabetes, exercise, obesity, and importantly, genetics all have an effect on the incidence of CHD.

what can't be denied is that the use of statins has reduced dramatically the incidence of CHD in a large section of the population and overall, the side effects that are there, are only seen in a very small proportion of patients. they are amongst the best tolerated of all modern drugs hence the call for them to be made available to all over a certain age. I'm not sure I agree with that as prevention is a better approach than a drug one.

I won't disagree that the peer review systems can be flawed in so many ways, and clinical studies on drugs have been very badly biased by those with vested interests aka drug companies which is why there is now a big call for ALL data to be disclosed, not just selective data, so this can be reviewed by the scientific community at large. - http://www.alltrials.net/


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

ardgour said:


> .......... of the so called 'evidence' in peer reviewed journals is also badly flawed, bad research design, selective use of results, conclusions that are not .
> Chris


thank you for that - it is on those reasons that I made my initial response to the supposed "Health care scams".

As I said in my first response;



Penquin said:


> snipped parts .... that site is flawed in a very fundamental way, ......, and is not independent neither has it been peer reviewed. ...... The "evidence" is selective to say the least,


you are singing from exactly the same hymn sheet as me - *the site that launched this thread is unreliable.*

Peer review etc. is not infallible, but any is better than none, and the worst thing is to present misleading opinions as solid fact without even mentioning contrary opinions - much of medical science is a balance - good v bad, and IMO statins very much come down in the "good" category, but there must be reservations about them - they will not be suitable for everyone and frankly prevention of the original problem would be better than a cure......

The lack of independence of most research reflects current pressure on finance, science cannot be held to blame for that. But grants can only come from areas where money is reasonably freely available - and the pharmaceutical industry has that category at present - primarily die to the exorbitant charges they can make for specific "new" drugs until the generic form is available - years later.....

But that delay protects the horrendous cost of developing new drugs - most substances will never be released for use...... as they are not suitable. or efficacious, or safe - or the negative aspects outweigh any potential positive ones..........(Thalidomide epitomised that)

but our diet reflects society in the 21st century - it is impossible to turn the clock back to "healthier" times when people did not die of obesity or CHD in their 60's and 70's because they already died from other causes in their 30's and 40's.

We are stuck with what we have got but must accept the need to be critical and to ask specific questions to establish facts......

Dave


----------



## fatbuddha (Aug 7, 2006)

> and the pharmaceutical industry has that category at present - primarily die to the exorbitant charges they can make for specific "new" drugs until the generic form is available


I would somewhat disagree with that as a general statement - the cost of bringing a drug to market is considerable - in some cases upwards of $1billion so any company developing one needs to get a decent ROI or frankly, you won't get the drugs. that will push up the unit cost of the drug so when it does hit the market it will look very very expensive.

and some of the newer chemicals/recombinant therapies/retrovirals etc are incredibly complex to produce in reliable volumes - that pushes prices up solely on manufacturing grounds, let alone the R&D costs.

sure, some are overpriced (as are some of the generics frankly) but that doesn't detract from them as drugs and the benefits they can bring.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

One of my former students was a part of the team that developed the little blue pills (Sildenafil),

that drug alone cost literally millions to get to the state where it could be prescribed, and that was only one of several thousand products that were being studied at the time - so the "success" rate for a company producing a new drug is miniscule - hence the need to be able to recoup their costs BEFORE it becomes available in the generic form.......

I am NOT knocking the drug companies for those high prices, they are inevitable, but those costs alone puts a heavy economic pressure on trials of them, that of course, increases the pressure on those carrying out such trials to make sure that marketing can go forward........

Peer review by independent bodies is virtually impossible since the drugs are simply not available to allow them to check the results, so the original data is probably the only source that can be used - hence the pressure to ensure total release of all original data.

In the past many University departments received massive grants from the Government, now they can only get such grants for research from those interested in the outcomes - often that is the potential vendor of the products.

Yet another example of how the economic downturn influences society in ways we may not appreciate.

"It is difficult to persuade someone to criticise a product when his income depends upon it."

Dave


----------

