British medical journal article on their website and poll

[Ray Holder]

I have just found an article on the BMJ website by a Texas prof saying that women should be given more statins. Uffe Ravnskov has answered this with a NO in a web response.

The home page of *www.bmj.com* has a link to a poll where anyone can vote yes or no and say why, so far 43 votes have been cast, the great majority saying NO

I would suggest that as many members as possible should visit this site and vote, votes are expected from any country in the world. You say if you are a doctor, patient, or patient support group etc, so here is a chance to get a vote in a place where it will be published. Let's make it a wipeout for the Prof with links to drug companies.

Don't delay!!!!!

Ray

[cjbrooksjc]

Ray: OK. I signed up with a very pointed commentary. Did you happen to notice the spread of signators? MOST signators were doctors; not some, MOST; a decidely larger number of NO votes among them. Maybe the truth will out.

Regards and Thanks,

Brooks

[cjbrooksjc]

Ray: Also. if you note the addenda of the url for this YES TO STATINS link, you'll notice it is 982 and the NO view is 983. Interesting..

Brooks

[Brian C.]

Voted, commented - and noted that over 30% of the respondents are in Sweden!

Brian.

[Biologist]

Done.

Biologist

[Ray Holder]

If you click on survey results and then on view, by the reasons given by voters, you can see every comment made. in about 8 pages so far. It makes interesting reading

Ray

[cjbrooksjc]

Ray, et al: YES! Interesting reading!
There were two things that stood out for me as I read these comments:

1. that there were many women hospitalized for ALS-like symptoms who did not have ALS but took Statin drugs. and

2. that the following statement appeared more than once and seemed (to me) so completely accurate and damning: "Ischaemic heart disease is not caused by a lack of statins. Statin treatment does not address the causes."

If an 'obvious solution' is merely a complex idea stated in simple terms, then this last is an 'obvious explaination' of the inefficacy of Statin therapy.

Too, It would be great to see these signatures and comments on xrn's HMO petition. Maybe someone who hasn't yet signed and commented can introduce the WHO url link into the verbiage?

Regards, Brooks

[xrn]

My own rapid response to the BMJ article by Professor Grundy. It may not get published but I am posting it here, anyway. )

Kind regards,
xrn

Is Professor Scott M Grundy really serious? At the end of his article is the following under the heading; Competing interest: SMG has been a consultant to the following companies that market statins: Merck, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Astra Zeneca.

Can I be alone in thinking that these particular associations, with the avaricious and predatory pharmaceutical industry, must surely render Professor Grundy's publicly stated professional opinions (concerning statins) as effectively worthless.

While Professor Grundy is fully entitled to hold a viewpoint on the subject, it is most unseemly, that he should be regarded as an opinion leader for statin therapy, especially where the pharmaceutical industry have paid him to promote their products. It is also probable that any patient he prescribes statins for, who goes on to subsequently develop any form of 'statin disease', would have a legal case against him because Professor Grundy would have to show that he had arrived at the decision in an unbiased manner.

Professor Grundy has a long (and presumably lucrative association) with not just one but four of the major statin producing pharmaceutical companies, who have each engaged him as a consultant, one assumes to advocate on the behalf of statins. By dint of which rule should I ignore this association and the influence it is certain to have on Professor Grundy's pronouncements about statin therapy?

This astonishing competing interest declaration suggests to me that Professor Grundy ought to find a new area of interest so that he can avoid making public statements about statin therapy, that cannot be considered to be anything other than tainted and therefore worthless. I am saddened to see yet another medical talent fall in this way and become just another statistic for the medics who are lost to the world of big business.