Current Posts – 26 September 2016

For years scientifically-minded patients strongly suspected that the officially approved treatment for a serious disease was not nearly as good as claimed. Last year 10,000 patients with this disease petitioned for the original research to be re-examined. The London University involved refused. In fact, it spent nearly a quarter of a million pounds to prevent the re-examination. Last week the data was released and the patients suspicions were confirmed.

Previous editorials...
The metaphorical thud of yet another massive analysis of statin trials landing in computer inboxes was heard again last week. No surprise that it reveals that statins are even safer and more effective than ever before. It’s not going to achieve its aim –to silence once and for all the statins doubters and naysayers – but it does show that its authors really aren’t interested in criticisms. Here are just some of the unanswered questions it slides by.

Fourteen years ago a major trial showing that HRT raised the risk of breast cancer surprised gynaecologists and alarmed women. A few weeks ago a study revealed that the risk of developing cancer from HRT had been underestimated. Many of the women involved were on an HRT combination identical to the one in the earlier trial. Shockingly there is an alternative which is being ignored.

A band of radical clinicians are questioning whether randomised controlled trials are right way to discover how life-style changes can best beat the obesity epidemic. RCTs are scientific medicine’s gold standard but the radicals say they are too cumbersome, slow and unreliable. A fast grassroots research project gathering real life data to update guidelines on the fly is underway. Their first report has just been published.



Editor: Jerome Burne |

Latest posts by Editorial (see all)

WP-Backgrounds by InoPlugs Web Design and Juwelier Schönmann