Quote:
Originally Posted by KayakerNC
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." |
So where does this leave the patient or those of us who are trying to sort this out? It seems we're caught in the middle of a dispute: The JUPITER trial versus 4 articles published by Archives of Internal Medicine. Both sides are pointing fingers at the other. Well, that's my first impression.
I copied the article by richard N. Fogoros, M.D. and will give it a more careful reading (and more thought) later.