The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
after that time increased regulations were placed on the way that trials are done on the way that side effects are reported and interestingly as part of my research for this podcast there is a real difference in the way that Staten trials look in terms of outcomes before and after 2004
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
well as you'll see in a moment data from after 2004 looks much less impressive than it did before 2004 but Amanda analysis pushes all of this together and we lose the details amongst all of the numerous studies that are being considered this is the problem this is a Nuance of a meta analysis that must be considered carefully though it's a good type of study because it's looking at more data it is also mixing trials potentially of varying qualities and I think that what we have to be aware of at this point is that historically with the massive change in the way that studies were done and the way that results were reported in that amount of time we must be very skeptical of this
what we must question here is whether or not there has been Shady reporting of cardiac outcomes in Statin trials before 20 04 that changed significantly and I think that if you are looking at data regarding cardiac outcomes intimal medial thickness or all cause mortality for statin drugs or other drugs that lower LDL in that graphic we must consider these either post 2004 or pre2 2004 because we know there is a difference in the way these trials were done the quality of the trials the quality of the reporting
before 2004 Statin trials made statins look like they were very effective for reducing cardiovascular disease Statin trials after 2004 do not look nearly as impressive
after that time increased regulations were placed on the way the trials are done on the the way that side effects are reported and interestingly as part of my research for this podcast there is a real difference in the way that Statin trials look in terms of outcomes before and after 2004.
in 2004 the basically the guidelines on running trials or the guidelines to setup trials had to be changed because they were there was an unfair uh kind of an unfair influence of pharmaceutical companies on the researchers and people doing the trials