Are we being complicit in accepting the gradual lowering of thresholds for various treatments?
There’s some interesting discussions at the moment on the Cholesterol Treatment Trialist’s Collaboration.
This is an international group of doctors and statisticians that includes Australia’s NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre.
This collaboration seems to have a dogmatic approach to advocating the wider use of statins, and in that regard, has been granted lots of raw clinical data from Big-Pharma funded trials.
But here’s the “kicker”……In return, this group has agreed to keep the data secret!
How does integrity and transparency stack up in this regard?
This efficacy data doesn’t allow prescribers and patients to independently analyze the data at all, bearing in mind that the majority of Australians taking a statin are healthy people at low risk.
Match that with perceived “benefits” of statin therapy and there’s a smell about the whole scenario.
Do the opponents of complementary medicines comment on this appalling situation?
No, they are too busy trying to manipulate debate within Parliament on regulations and claims about complementary medicines.
Yes, some claims are unrealistic, but you do have choice.
On talk-back radio, there’s a never-ending series of interviews with “experts” pushing the “danger” agenda, with no evidence to back it up – disrespectful attitudes towards complementary therapies and nutritional supplements are puerile.
In being directed to start statin therapy, unrealistic expectations based on flimsy (and it appears, secretive) evidence is happening.
Frankly, I can’t see the difference, but there’s no vitriol being directed at statins……..