Well, we could use Doctor Google or we could see what Dr. Fiona Godlee, the Editor of the British Medical Journal, has to say about the debate and those that would try to shut it down. She apparently thinks the debate is worth having. Published in the Lancet, "
Lessons from the controversy over statins".
"Questions about the evidence base for statins continue to emerge from many quarters: how strong is the evidence, how large is the benefit for individuals at lowest risk of heart disease, how well did the trials record common minor side-effects, how representative were the trials of women and the elderly, what was the effect of active run-in periods and composite endpoints, how does taking a statin affect a person's diet and exercise patterns, why is there a discrepancy between the real-life experience of muscle pain and what was reported in the trials, why have the data for harms not yet been given the same levels of scrutiny as the data for benefits, and is cholesterol a reliable surrogate endpoint to guide prevention of cardiovascular disease?"
"
So despite Horton and Collins and colleagues wanting to shut down the discussion and award themselves the final word, the debate about statins in primary prevention is alive and kicking. (my emphasis added)It is a debate that needs to be resolved as thoughtfully, objectively, and openly as possible, and not by eminence-based narrative reviews, however extensive, based on meta-analysis of data that only Collins, his fellow trialists, and industry sponsors have seen. This absence of independence and transparency is not unusual in medicine—indeed it is sadly still very much the norm. "
End of article quotes -
Those that would like to stop the debate have indicated we should only take direction from experts. Since Dr. Godlee is a Cambridge trained MD and the Editor of one of the leading medical journals in the world, I think we should follow her lead and keep the debate open. (Or, at least until we get to 10,000 thread views!)