Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by thundara 4761 days ago
So much wat.

> - It has zero to negative efficacy, at least for the for the vast majority of people taking it, and virtually no efficacy for the rest.

Citations? This is a pretty big claim for a FDA-approved drug that was the most profitable drug on the market as of 2011[1].

> - You can get generics that are equally 'effective' for virtually free.

As of last year, yeah, this is a fairly recent development that if you don't follow pharma, you'd be unlikely to know.

> - It's vastly less effective than even the most minimal of lifestyle interventions.

Generally statins are prescribed in combination with recommendations of dietary restriction.

> - If for some reason you really wanted to take those chemicals, you could just get them for free in your diet anyway. E.g. from red rice and I think certain other fungi.

You're thinking of a different active ingredient, monacolin K, which is also sold in pill form (Lovastatin[2]) and found in red yeast rice and oyster mushrooms. A quick literature search found Lipitor to be more efficacious[3] (Double blinded, placebo controlled, n = 1049).

Keep in mind that, as with all drugs, both are dose-dependent and have unpleasant side-effects when taken in combination with certain drugs, foods, and certain patient populations, such as pregnant women and those with liver disease. Hence why it's recommended to check with a doctor who is well versed in this matter, rather than self-prescribing at unknown dosages.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_drug#Leading_bl...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lovastatin

[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9185636

1 comments

"Citations? This is a pretty big claim for a FDA-approved drug that was the most profitable drug on the market as of 2011."

There are a bunch of books about this that you can get on Amazon. A good one I read is Overdosed America. But if you search on Amazon for 'statin' there are a lot more books that are specifically about this.

"A quick literature search found Lipitor to be more efficacious[3] (Double blinded, placebo controlled, n = 1049)."

The academic literature generally isn't a reliable source for information about pharmaceutical drugs, unless it's one of the NIH trials or another trial sponsored by an independent entity. The only way to get accurate information from trials sponsored by pharma companies is to FOIA the FDA, unless the raw data is on clinicaltrials.gov which it almost never is. There are again a number of books that explain why this is, I personally like both Overdosed America (again) and also Marcia Angell's book The Truth About Drug Companies. I'm sure Ben Goldacre's new book probably covers the same stuff though.

"eep in mind that, as with all drugs, both are dose-dependent and have unpleasant side-effects when taken in combination with certain drugs, foods, and certain patient populations, such as pregnant women and those with liver disease."

Plant-based medicines tend to be fairly forgiving about dosage. E.g. you're probably not going to get sick from eating any reasonably amount of oyster mushrooms, at least as long as they're fresh and you cook them properly.

> There are a bunch of books about this that you can get on Amazon. A good one I read is Overdosed America. But if you search on Amazon for 'statin' there are a lot more books that are specifically about this.

Make an argument here and cite your sources here, I'm not going to read a book just so I can respond to your post in half a month...

> The academic literature generally isn't a reliable source for information about pharmaceutical drugs, unless it's one of the NIH trials or another trial sponsored by an independent entity

How's a paper in a top tier medical journal[1]? It's paywalled, but if you actually care enough to read the information on the other side, I can grab you a copy. It's even registered on clinicaltrials.gov[2].

> I'm sure Ben Goldacre's new book probably covers the same stuff though.

This is one that I am somewhat familiar with. He makes plenty of good points with regards to transparency of information and reducing reporting bias, but you can't leap from that to the biggest drug on the market right now having zero efficacy.

> Plant-based medicines tend to be fairly forgiving about dosage. E.g. you're probably not going to get sick from eating any reasonably amount of oyster mushrooms, at least as long as they're fresh and you cook them properly.

False[4]. The end effect of consuming the plant material is a chemical ended up in your circulation at a given concentration. If that concentration is too high, you'll see adverse effects. If it's too low, you won't see any effect. At least in pill form, you know your dose and have quality assurance about that fact.

And we're ignoring the potential case of the process of cooking the food destroying the active compound...

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18061058

[2] http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01687686

[3] http://www.aafp.org/afp/2005/0315/p1137.html

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_yeast_rice#Safety

"Make an argument here and cite your sources here, I'm not going to read a book just so I can respond to your post in half a month..."

I'm not especially interested in discussing this at length, I listed the books I did for the benefit of you and anyone else who is interested. You could instead read Wikipedia and random papers you find on Google scholar, but I don't think you'll really learn much that way. And in Overdosed America it's really only one or two chapters that are relevant.

"How's a paper in a top tier medical journal[1]?"

Not really worth much unless it's a large NIH trial, a well-cited meta study, or an IOM report. Individual research papers are generally pretty worthless, at least for medical related stuff.

Here's a well conducted meta study. (http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004816/statins-for-the-prima...)

> Of 1000 people treated with a statin for five years, 18 would avoid a major CVD event which compares well with other treatments used for preventing cardiovascular disease. Taking statins did not increase the risk of serious adverse effects such as cancer. Statins are likely to be cost-effective in primary prevention.