Many articles about diabetes appear daily, many of them very interesting. The intent here is to make some of these available for others who may not see them or have bypassed them. I will try to comment briefly on those I have grouped or on an individual article. This is not guaranteed to be a daily post, but I hope that this will give you ideas for your own research or blog posts. Please talk to your doctor about medical problems.
13 September 2013
Statins May Prevent Cataracts
Apparently, the drug companies are getting nervous about how long statins are going to survive on the market. With the side effects of causing diabetes, muscle wasting, and a few other problems, they should be. Now they are studying new areas in hopes that this will encourage people to remain on statins. Therefore, I read this article with a lot of skepticism and wondering if we will see more studies confirming this study. I would also call attention to this article in Medscape declaring statins linked to musculoskeletal injury and this article in WebMD linking statins to muscle/joint problems.
Of course the authors did not call for further studies and we are not told where or if the study was published since it may not be peer-reviewed. This makes me even more a doubter of the results of the study. Professor Kostis is the only person quoted in the article and no educational institution or information is given about this professor.
Professor Kostis states, “We therefore investigated the relationship of statins and cataracts in a meta-analysis of 14 studies selected after detailed review of the medical literature. To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis on the topic. The meta-analysis included 2,399,200 persons and 25,618 cataracts. The average duration of treatment was 54 months and average age was 61.”
Yes, this is a lot of people and cataracts, but I am not sure it is of value. The more I analyze the report the more I have doubts about the source, Stone Heart Newsletters. Professor Kostis is never identified or associated with an institution. Is this a study and where was it published? None of this information is included in the article
I will still blog about this, but only from the standpoint of this being another poor example of research and coverage by a fair source. I made a comment to this at the bottom of the article, but I have been ignored and received no answer. Therefore, it is my belief that Big Pharma promoted the article and maybe even the research and they do not wish to have the results confirmed or denied. Sorry, but I can't accept the information as it is presented and have to view the information as unreliable and even possibly a farce. I also wonder if the benefits will now outweigh the risks
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment