[KayakerNC]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

And the report that I refered to was a "meta-analysis of eleven clinical trials involving more than 65,000 people."

Note: Ray, K. K., et al. "A Meta-Analysis of 11 Randomized Controlled Trials Involving 65220 Participants." Arch. Intern. Med. 2010; 170:1007-1008.

From Wiki:
"If a meta-analysis is conducted by an individual or organization with a bias or predetermined desired outcome, it should be treated as highly suspect or having a high likelihood of being "junk science". From an integrity perspective, researchers with a bias should avoid meta-analysis and use a less abuse-prone (or independent) form of research."

Attacking JUPITER - Statins For Primary Prevention Assailed
"Ironically, the chief author of this critical paper is himself a member of a fringe medical group known as The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics (THINCS), whose stated mission is to "oppose" the notion that high cholesterol and animal fat play a role in cardiovascular disease. Members of THINCS also take an extraordinarily strong position opposing statins for any clincal use whatsoever. The irony, of course, is that this striking bias was not disclosed in an article whose main thrust was to criticise the disclosed biases of the JUPITER investigators."