23 Responses to “Doctors tell NICE you’re not independent & you’re not evidence based”

Would you like to make a comment?

Then please do so openly and politely and no hiding behind some pseudonym. As for spam, well that's just another word for junk and it will end up in the bin, where it belongs.

Read below or add a comment...

  1. avatar Anna Watson says:

    That’s true, vaccine trials have no benign placebo (and no control group either) but that’s OK because some vaccines are ‘safe and pure’ and make excellent placebo! “My dear, all placebos are benign. We only use our most safe and pure vaccines” (such as Men C) Prof David Salisbury went in to tell me.
    And the last vaccine trial using a control group was in the seventies for BCG… Showing that the vaccinated group had slightly more risk of developing TB.
    I am still waiting for any good study that shows that the vaccinated are healthier than the vaccinated ….

  2. avatar Bryan Reed says:

    Congratulations, you deserve them. I wonder, though what the next move is going to be. Is there anybody who can be contacted, with a view to possibly suing NICE for fraudulently using false information, in a bid to feather their own nests, as is usually the case, these days.

  3. avatar Beatrice says:

    The ABC in Australia recently removed it’s Catalyst program two part series on Statins, it was deemed to be biased. The focus was on exposing statins for being useless, and having side effects (so many needed to treat to prevent one heart attack but no extension of life). Their own fault they used Jonny Bowden in the second episode, who sells his own ‘cholesterol’ pills while damning statins and is not qualified in anything as far as the critique indicated. Othewise the show was I thought, a real eye opener. Australia spends ONE BILLION dollars of taxpayer money subsidising statins. Everyone I know over 65 is on them, but they are not used as first line treatment as they are supposed to be. Cholesterol may not be the problem. This is how one woman I know takes her statins. Biscuits cake with cream and jam, wash down with statin and cup of tea with two sugars. Perhaps reducing the cakes might be just as beneficial. Perhaps walking for an hour a day may also just be as beneficial. Perhaps eating more greens would be also just as beneficial. Perhaps taxpayers would get more benefits from their donations if ‘first line’ interventions – lifestyle change -were actually carried out.

    • avatar Kim says:

      WOW biased or not why cannot it be available as information……………. that is shocking it’s up to the individual to decide if it is biased !!!

  4. avatar Nigel PJ says:

    Excellent post.
    I took statins. I developed aches and pains and was diagnosed with soft tissue rheumatism. I gave up statins and my symptoms largely disappeared.
    Now those three statements cannot be shown to be causally linked; however, when there is such a preponderance of similar reports it would be wise for them to be taken seriously.

    • avatar Michael B says:

      I love how such reports are dismissed as “anecdotal evidence” as if they are of no importance. Well, they ARE important if you are the anecdote!

      • avatar Frank weir says:

        Ive noticed my doctor is VERY dismissive if I ask if a symptom might be related to statin use…which i no longer take. Is it any wonder that health care organizations say side effects are limited? They just take drug company research and if doctors refuse to listen to their patients, there will be no reportage of side effects. Closed system.

        • avatar Zoë Harcombe says:

          Hi Frank – dismissive is the best that people tell me. Bullying, aggressive, and scare-mongering are the others. If these drugs have no side effects and only benefits (which defeats the law of equal and opposites anyway) then every doc who prescribes them should take them. Just to prove they’re fine. That would be an interesting test!
          Best wishes – Zoe

  5. avatar Mark Johnson says:

    I’ve just read the press release and whilst the whole statin fiasco is truly beyond belief, this summary by Dr David Newman, Assistant Professor of Emergency Medicine and Director of clinical research at Mount Sinai School of medicine, New York summed it up:

    “I am always embarrassed when I have to tell patients that our treatment guidelines were written by a panel filled with people who stood to gain financially from their decisions. The UK certainly appears to be no different to that of the United States. The truth is for most people a statin will give them diabetes as often as it will prevent a non fatal heart attack — and they won’t live any longer taking the pill. That’s not what patients are looking for.” (My emphasis)

    It’s truly shocking.

  6. avatar FrankG says:

    Another trick of which I’m sure you’re aware, is that many (most, all?) of the statin trials are pre-screened… after-all it would be unethical to include a patient in a trial knowing that they suffer the potential life-threatening side-effects.

    • avatar Zoë Harcombe says:

      Hi Frank – that one I had come across. Knowing what statins do, I would expect those most vulnerable to side effects would suffer them quite quickly and – as you say – it would be unethical for these people to continue and so they get dropped and the true side effect picture is totally distorted from that point on. This data is available and this is exactly the kind of data that has been requested and denied. It really is criminal that we have more information about harm that isn’t shared.
      Best wishes – Zoe

      • avatar Helge says:

        Hello. I wonder how the real outcome as regards “lives saved” in the statins trials would be without this screening process. I find it reasonable that the risk for people dying from statin use could be higher for those with the strongest adverse reactions than for the average. In that case I find it questionable if in reality there is any net benefit from statins, considering how small the alleged benefits are. Perhaps a realistic and honest study without the screening would show more deaths in the treatment group?

        • avatar Zoë Harcombe says:

          Hi Helge – watch this space – I’m aware of a paper being written looking at ‘benefit’ in a more relevant way :-)
          Best wishes – Zoe

        • avatar sten b says:

          Helge, very valid point. Here an extract from a paper about muscle weakness from statin use, to give magnitude and extent of this significant exclusion.
          “Why is statin-induced myopathy so uncommon in clinical trials?
          A reason may be that patients in clinical trials are carefully screened. To minimize toxicity, the clinical trials of statins excluded patients with renal insufficiency, hepatic insufficiency, a history of muscular complaints, and poorly controlled diabetes, as well as patients taking drugs with possible interactions. Large efficacy trials have excluded up to 30% of the participants in active prerandomization phases.13,14 (http://www.ccjm.org/content/78/6/393.full)

          30% exclusion is quite a lot! especially considering that the remaining elite patients still exhibited side effects in up to 20% !
          And if GPs were using the same exclusion critera, only perfectly healthy individuals would soon be statined, marking the end of this statin side effect crisis… But treating the remaining elite for what condition ? But do GP’s really know of the long exclusion list?
          It seems to me statins is a preventive medication that require perfectly healthy, and rather younger patients.
          A thought then goes to the heart bypass scandal in Redding, CA, US that also achieved extremely good statistics, low mortality figures. They operated mainly healthy patients merely to keep the operating theaters full most of the time.

  7. avatar Jeff C says:

    A very comprehensive post, well done. The push back is truly a welcome sight, it does make one wonder if the medical establishment finally over stepped their bounds.

    You mentioned data manipulation suspicions to equalize side effects between statins and the placebo. Another thread worth pulling along these same lines is placebo fraud. Placebo content isn’t regulated and the placebo makeup often isn’t reported in studies. In vaccine trials, placebo fraud is rampant. Often the “placebo” will be a shot containing virtually everything except the antigen (as was done with the Gardasil HPV vaccine trials). Many vaccine adverse reactions are linked to the adjuvant, preservative, or other chemical ingredients rather than the antigen itself. Using the phony placebo cranks up adverse reactions within the control group thus making the actual vaccine look relatively safe by comparison. Another trick is that during the trial the vaccine is given in combination with other already approved vaccines. The given justification is that this is how a child will likely receive the vaccine when administered (a true statement given the number of vaccines in the schedule). However, this also tends to raise the “background noise” of control group as it now includes adverse reactions from the additional vaccines given simultaneously. Since the goal is to water down the adverse reactions caused by the vaccine on trial, it is extremely rare to find a vaccine tested singularly against a true inert placebo such as a saline injection. It just doesn’t happen.

    This is how the game is played with jabs; it wouldn’t surprise me to see variations on the same tricks used elsewhere.

    • avatar Zoë Harcombe says:

      Wow! Many thanks for that Jeff – another trick I didn’t know!

    • avatar Catherine says:

      That is seriously scary, Jeff. I would imagine that most of us would assume that a placebo is exactly what you suggest, saline solution, or a sugar pill, depending on what is on trial.

  8. avatar George Henderson says:

    PCSK9 is an inhibitor of Hepatitis C Virus cell entry. So everyone being prescribed this new drug will be regularly tested for HCV? Yeah, right.

  9. avatar robert says:


    Graph #3: there is no ‘statin-kink’ whatsoever.

    If these drugs were so great as claimed, one would expect a massive impact, but it is a bloody straight line. These pills didn’t even make a small dent. Does not compute.

    “However, the death rate from CHD had already fallen by 90% by the time these publications appeared, and therefore before the widespread use of statins. The trend-line of decline of CHD deaths in the UK did not display any subsequent deflection (see figures) and there was no obvi-
    ous effect of statin therapy or other medical intervention.

    We tend to overestimate the benefits of medical intervention, and the reason for this is that not all patients benefit from that treatment.” (p. 512…)

  10. avatar Ash Simmonds says:

    “..cardiovascular disease will be on our death certificate. The chance of that happening is so massively related to age that we should worry way more about birthdays than we do anything else.”

    This just in: cure for heart disease – put less candles on the cake.

    • avatar sten b says:

      The cakes themselves may well be the serious problem considering that every blood sugar spike causes arterial injury in proportion to magnitude and duration; worsening when blood sugar control reduces, as today is common with age. (No cake for me, I am too old to chance it…)
      The yet unproven analogy for plaque formation is that every arterial injury causes a scab that normally heal and fall off like other visible scabs, provided healing is not disturbed with more injuries in between, causing at least our visible ones to just thicken and never heal…
      No wonder the Zoo gorillas got heart attacks when blood sugar inert leafs were changed to blood sugar spiking (modern) whole grains.
      Changing breakfast with a look towards egg and bacon or using a glucometer 1 hour after meal to be really sure is the safe bet compared to taking statins. Read Wheat Belly!

    • avatar HELENA WOJTCZAK says:

      “put less candles on the cake”

      You mean “fewer”.

If you'd like to leave a comment, please do so openly and politely and no hiding behind some pseudonym. As for spam, well that's just another word for junk and it will end up in the bin, where it belongs.

6 − 6 =