We have mentioned the increased risk of ALS and greater violence attributed to statins that lower LDL.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118314239102053337.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/164/2/153
It wasn't too long that someone would run an statistical correlation "showing" that statins are association with cancer. Not a specific cancer mind you. Just cancer.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/24/health/webmd/main3092265.shtml
Would someone please create a federal program to give epidemiologists something constructive to do? Better yet, how about medical journals imposing a ban on running articles that do nothing to generate mechanistically informed hypotheses but everything to run articles that the average reporter can understand once it has been pre-digested by a PR firm by said medical journal?
PR for medical journal ok but PR for new medicines, not ok?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118314239102053337.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/164/2/153
It wasn't too long that someone would run an statistical correlation "showing" that statins are association with cancer. Not a specific cancer mind you. Just cancer.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/24/health/webmd/main3092265.shtml
Would someone please create a federal program to give epidemiologists something constructive to do? Better yet, how about medical journals imposing a ban on running articles that do nothing to generate mechanistically informed hypotheses but everything to run articles that the average reporter can understand once it has been pre-digested by a PR firm by said medical journal?
PR for medical journal ok but PR for new medicines, not ok?
