Or: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who shall guard the guardians themselves)
In my previous post I analysed the results of the JUPITER drug trials. I demonstrated that, for the participants, the benefits of taking Rosuvastatin (Crestor) were slight while the risks were far from negligible.
I shall now explain how this translates into a difference of opinion with Healthy Skepticism. However, first, a general comment.
In a previous post I stated that I had a philosophical difference with Healthy Skepticism, an organisation dedicated to combating misleading drug promotions. Dr Peter Mansfield, the founder of Healthy Skepticism, posted a comment in which he stated that no philosophical differences existed.
I am afraid that I must respectfully differ with Dr. Mansfield. I do have a philosophical difference or, at any rate, a difference of opinion, with Healthy Skepticism. Rather than argue in the abstract I shall use a “case study” to illustrate our differences. To be specific I shall analyse the much hyped JUPITER study on the use of the cholesterol lowering drug, Rosuvastatin. AstraZeneca markets Rosuvastatin as “Crestor.”