Here is what troubles me with this idea. About 25% of the bodies cholesterol is in the brain. Statins starve the brain of the cholesterol it needs to function. Hence all the studies going on linking statins with the rise in alzheimers and dementia. I think I’ll just stick with cymbalta and a stimulant till they find something better.
A meta-analysis looking at observational studies investigating statins and the risk of dementia looked at data from 11 studies, involving over 23,000 participants, who had been taking statins for between 3 and nearly 25 years on average. When all of the data was analysed together, the researchers found that those people taking statins had a 29 per cent reduced risk of developing dementia.
No offense but I have doctors in my family who have told me this. And one is a neurologist.
Are you really saying that what your medical relatives say trumps a meta analysis ?!
Yes I am, not to mention that the fda puts a warning in every box that specifically states statins can increase memory loss and confusion. I’ll believe an honest neurologist and a primary care physician who won’t prescribe the drugs because they have seen the negative results in their own patients. Do you realize how many trillions of dollars are invested in keeping the bad out of the light each year? Studies are flawed and biased, there is too much money and profit involved for the drugs to fail. Do a search for user reviews and forums where real people post about the damage statins have caused them or a loved one. The wealth of negative information is immense.
That’s true of psychiatric meds too. People who think their meds are ok are far less likely to post about it than those who are not happy with the meds they’re taking.
That creates a distorted picture of how good or bad those meds are.
Yes it is true, but that still doesn’t discount the fact that healthcare is a business. Those businesses influence the studies that are done either by sponsoring the trial or study themselves. Or they just make a hefty donation to the fda so they keep their mouth shut. I’m sorry to say that’s how it works, but that is how it works.
Also I read how you discount your intelligence from time to time. You shouldn’t, you are highly intelligent regardless of what you may believe.
People who make new meds need to be paid for their work,like anyone else that works. The issue is not whether healthcare is a business , but whether as a business it operates in an ethical and moral way.
Opinions vary on that.
I have always stated I have a spiky profile ,rather than saying I’m outright unintelligent.
https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/FSIQ/1.php I didn’t tick the working memory questions as that is susceptible to the practice effect(I’ve done the test a couple of times) . The spatial IQ is at the high end of what I usually get for that. .
Big pharma is not the only source of new drugs. Small companies and universities account for some of the production and research. Usually small companies are bought out by big pharma when they have a good drug. Pharma companies don’t take gigantic bets on new drugs either. Usually the researchers creating these drugs either have a good idea of what the drug does/can do already or have an idea of what they want a drug to do and where they want it to act.
Very rarely will you see a company put billions into researching a drug where they have no clue what it does.
It’s called “conflict of interest.” Any industry that has a profit motive will have a high chance of bias. This isn’t a conspiracy but simple human nature.
There is baked-in systematic error in that researchers are incentivized to only publish positive results, bandwagon on popular science, and sensationalize their claims while minimizing the limitations of their studies to drum up public and financial support. This problem is exacerbated by pharmaceutical companies who have turned the practice into a whole new Corporate Machine, but they are not the only culprit, and it is certainly not limited only to the field of mental health.
Of course industry-sponsored research is very valuable and has the potential to do much good, if ethical. The future will likely be an increase in statutory and bureaucratic regulation (more forms, committee approval, etc.)
Well I’m a cynic, so you probably won’t succeed in convincing me that they are ethical.
I didn’t mean unintelligent, I just see you discounting yourself, even in your subtitle.
It’s generally acknowledged by people that know me IRL that I’m far from the front of the queue when it comes to common sense.
Well I don’t know you, but those people that say that clearly lack the common sense to know not to say that to anyone else.
I know there are people campaigning for negative results to be published more frequently.
If it was untrue it would upset me. It happens to be true though.
To each their own I guess. I say I’m a cynic and you say you have little to no common sense. Maybe we can agree to disagree?
There’s nothing wrong with a healthy level of cynicism . For a lot of us here though it can go beyond that .