Re: Note to Sharon

In article <puBBe.1355$8y1.201@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Bill"
<xxx@xxxxx> wrote:

> "Jason" <jason@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:jason-1407051320180001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > In article <iOyBe.1503$dX5.349@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Bill"
> > <xxx@xxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> "Jason" <jason@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> news:jason-1407050852490001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >
> >> > Sharon,
> >> > My memory does not work very well but seem to recall that you were the
> >> > one
> >> > that posted the interesting information about the articles that appear in
> >> > medical journals. I believe that JAMA (in the post) admitted that biased
> >> > articles have appeared in their journal. Please repost the article since
> >> > there is at least one person in this newsgroup that seems to me to
> >> > believe
> >> > that due to the peer review process, no biased articles have ever
> >> > appeared
> >> > in medical journals.
> >> > Thanks in advance,
> >> > Jason
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
> >> > We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
> >> > We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Whomever that person is, is obviously thinking incorrectly. Some degree of
> >> bias may slip in. The peer review, editorial review, and letter to the
> >> editor
> >> process - which is often responded to cut down on that considerably.
> >>
> >> People in this newsgroup often read everything with their own biases firmly
> >> fixed and frequently show that.
> >>
> >> Bill
> >
> > Bill,
> > I agree. It is my GUESS that most of the people on review boards of the
> > major medical journals are in favor of the use of statins. Therefore,
> > those people would vote to reject any article that mentioned the dangerous
> > side effects of statins.
>
> That is absoultely false. I have read several articles which mention
these. In
> fact Sharon has cited several. The typical article is not meant for the
> general public and typically focuses on one thing. For example, if they want
> to know if statin x is better than statin y at lowering LDL they may focus
> just on that and not on anything else. They may be underpowered to
detect side
> effects because they are relatively rare and in some cases difficult to
> measure. And, in any case, there role is to resolve one issue not to present
> an overview of the subject.
>
>
>
> > Those same people would NEVER admit that they had
> > a bias. Those same people would also vote to reject any article written by
> > a "nutritional" doctor.
>
> How do you know that is true? You may have a bias. I would think they would
> give it a lot more scrutinty, as would any responsible person, than if
it were
> from someone with a documented histroy of writting articles that stand up,
> good acidemic credentials, and who has previously co-authored with people
> whose reasearch has stood the test of time.
>
> Also, Dr. Andrew Weil has written some articles.
>
>
> > Many people that have a bias will never admit it.
>
> Yes, though others, such as Sharon are fair enough to admit that they do.
>
> Bill

Hello,
You made some great points. I should have been more clear--I'm sorry. I do
recall some of those same reports that you mentioned. I should have used a
better example. Dr. Cohen (in his statin book) discussed about a dozen
alternatives to statins in his book. Have you ever seen a report in a
medical journal where those alternatives were tested? I don't recall
seeing such a study mentioned in Sharon's report.
On the other subject--bias--you also made a great point. I stated or at
least implied that everyone that has bias would never admit it. I should
have clearly stated that some of the people that have a bias would never
admit it. I admit that I now have a bias against statins because of the
damage they done to me and to other people--including Sharon's husband. I
don't have a bias against other medications that have NOT caused harm to
people.
Thanks for your post.
Jason

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Note to Sharon
    ... >>> major medical journals are in favor of the use of statins. ... You may have a bias. ... >>> Many people that have a bias will never admit it. ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: Fear of Statins
    ... I worked on the clinical developement of Zocor ... We already know that investigator bias leads to overreporting of benefits and underreporting of risks/harm in drug trials. ... Folks on statins now have to wait years to find out how many of their non specific aches, pains, memory problems, dizziness, etc. that are being waved off by their docs are actually effects of the statins they take, often in combination with other HPA suppressive meds. ... My strong feelings about statins come from a careful reading of the literature, and the FDA's extremely poor performance, increasingly, in protecting us from massaged data from big pharma. ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
  • Re: Legendary genius Gene Shalit under fire
    ... >>> complaining is asking (demanding) something more. ... his job will be to review a new crop of movies. ... > Well, if he is guilty of bias and even if he ...
    (rec.arts.tv)
  • Re: recommendations?
    ... promoting or slamming some particular blend, that would be a bias. ... You said tr is an unbiased review source and I ... wanted to point out that it's not run by the Center of Pipe Tobacco ...
    (alt.smokers.pipes)
  • Re: Breaking News from ESPN!
    ... many RSFCKers have against USC). ... First step is to admit your bias. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)