Does this image illustrate a pharmaco marketing manager's new job? They often have little irrefutable proof that some of their products work and so are they preferring to create confusion amongst customers, instead?
What can we make of the new statement on statins and their relative harm:benefits to people at risk of cardiovascular events?
The guy was being interviewed on radio4's morning programme on the 22nd of March talking about this article. He was standing up for statins against the BMJ(?) statement that their risk of side effects were too high to take unless there was a pressing need (dangerously high cholesterol levels).
Reporting on the radio or in anything other than learned journals we don't get to hear about the author's disclosures but Professor Sir Roy Collins still seemed to be saying don't take them unless your at proper risk rather than a pharmashaped risk (even if you have only a 20% risk of heart attax over the next 10 years it was still worth prescribing the makers of the drug were claiming recently).
Sir RC still managed to leave a big ?mark in my mind and didn't clear anything up.
Is this a new sales tactic of drug companies?
In the absence of being able to claim out and out, measurable benefitsfor some of their products are they instead choosing to muddy the waters of their products even further in the patients mind?
Statins for MS were talked about over 10 years ago but it never gets further than talk, or does it?
Why is that?
Are they of benefit?
Why have they not been specifically trialled for MSers use?
What experience have people had in addressing their sticky blood with Simvastatin (the name being bandied about in MS circles)?
