Similar faulty analysis of statin and thyroxine treatment in clinical trials

[diogenes]

Malcolm Kendrick's latest blog interested me considerably in that it showed up the close similarities in the incorrect treatment and comment on clinical trials conducted both for statins and for thyroxine treatment. The latest BMC article on T4 treatment I posted earlier has exactly the same basic dishonesty. The data showed no significant effect of low or undetectable TSH on such things as atrial fibrillation and all-cause fracture frequency, but that was deliberately not mentioned seriously or discussed. Only the slight increase in mortality with low TSH was highlighted. And quality of life was hardly mentioned at all. And by this dishonest reporting the authors claimed that the present Guidelines were adequate and were supported by this farrago of a paper. There seem to be similar lacunae in the statin trials' reporting. Truly the medical world has a feeble grasp on valid statistical analysis. So unsupportable decisions come to be made.

[Musicmonkey]

😢😢

[Furface]

Malcolm Kendrick has written so much about statins and the cholesterol lie and i commend him for that. This news does not surprise me as it seems that studies are funded with certain results and conclusions predecided, that are designed only to promote drugs. By way of 'not mentioning' certain issues, they deny their existence and massage percentages, excluding all those people who defy their objective. Things are only set to get worse with the new Polydrug mentioned recently. Contains a statin, aspirin and 2 blood pressure drugs. Very concerning, people will be put on this without knowing the truth. It seems we all constantly trawl through corrupt studies to try to find little gems of truth that will help our journey to good health, thats mad in itself.

[MissGrace]

Pharma is big business, profit comes before truth and health all too often. 🤸🏿‍♀️🥛

[LindaC]

Thank you, again, Diogenes. I haven't had a chance to get into my in-box, still stuck with worse than... devious mediocrity has now become lying/cheating mediocrity!

LOVE Malcolm Kendrick - would love to move to have him as my GP As with several others, Sarah Myhill too, we are being short changed with the... no words printable to describe some of the [quacks my father used to call them] shoddy 'treatment' we receive. I now describe them as "When Snake-Oil[ers] Came to the City"

[humanbean]

diogenes

What was the name of the paper you are referring to and who were the authors?

[diogenes Remembering in reply to humanbean]

This one:

366:l4892 | doi: 10.1136/bmj.l48921RESEARCH

Thyroid replacement therapy, thyroid stimulating hormone concentrations, and long term health outcomes in patients with hypothyroidism: longitudinal study

Rasiah Thayakaran, Nicola J Adderley, Christopher Sainsbury, Barbara Torlinska,Kristien Boelaert, Dana Šumilo, Malcolm Price, G Neil Thomas, Konstantinos A Toulis, Krishnarajah Nirantharakumar

[humanbean in reply to diogenes]

Thank you.

The full paper can be found here :

bmj.com/content/bmj/366/bmj...

[UrsaP]

Research and these papers are akin to ‘lies, damn lies and statistics’ they can be made to support or deny anything that suits by picking and choosing which bits to include. Words can be so damaging - ‘unknown’ or ‘uncertain’ ‘adverse' effects of NDT - as is often quoted, including the NICE draft guidance, which insinuates there are adverse effects. Omissions are as bad. It is ‘withholding evidence’ for the end game, i.e. BP profit and the corrupt cartels that operate throughout the medical fraternity. People are dispensable.

Seems to me that there is suddenly a plethora of new papers, all analysis of existing research, nothing new, all just being ‘reviewed’ to support the status quo, trying to boost the T4/TSH only ethos. With blind indifference to anything that promotes NDT or T3 usage.

[humanbean in reply to UrsaP]

It is also common for people to only read the abstract.

As a result the abstract and the "meat" of the paper will sometimes disagree or stuff that the authors want to hide is left out of the abstract and only put in the discussion.

[diogenes Remembering in reply to UrsaP]

Perhaps it might be that the naysayers begin to feel threatened by new findings and try to hide the implications by repeatedly claiming how right they are instead, using whatever ammunition they can dredge up. A well known defence.

[UrsaP in reply to diogenes]

Sounds about right.