In a BBC article recently, and followed up quickly by CNN, was a report of a new Independent research study regarding the use of statins in Preventing Heart Disease and/or Heart Attack.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-37306736

“Statins Benefits Underestimated…” says the title.

IMG_0438

Evidently, like me, the British Government is a little peeved that the drug companies are allowed to do their own research studies for their own products. There is no political or social pressure in the States to provide oversight for the pharmaceutical industry, that, according to the article, is an expectation in British and European societies.

bigkaagjtbigkaagjtbigkaagjtbigkaagjtbigkaagjt

The opponents, who obviously want to prescribe this medicine, bemoan only that the group of researchers that performed the study was made up mostly of those that had worked in or for the pharmaceutical industry in the past.

I am trying really hard to continue past the initial statement that the use of statins is indeed NOT for the lowering of cholesterol, but instead is to prevent heart attacks.

k10548216.jpg

Um… maybe I am being a little bit pedantic, but… remind me what it is that statins actually have been proven to do? Regardless of the side effects?

*Phew* Better.

Instead I focused entirely on the word “independent”. It didn’t seem to quite fit with what I needed to fully express how I felt about the article’s point-of-view.


in-de-pen-dent: 1 : not dependent: as a (1) : not subject to control by others : SELF-GOVERNING (2) : not affiliated with a larger controlling unit <an independent bookstore> b (1) : not requiring or relying on something else : not contingent <an independent conclusion> (2) : not looking to others for one’s opinions or for guidance in conduct (3) : not bound by or committed to a political party c (1) : not…


Oh… yeah… that’s the problem, the definition keeps going and going. It has too many connotations.

I require something more refined. More concise.

images

How about…


im-par-tial: not partial or biased : treating or affecting all equally
synonyms see FAIR


Hmm… better… I mean, aren’t juries supposed to be impartial? They certainly aren’t independent of one another, I mean they require a majority vote to even make a decision?

Yes. That’s what we need impartial research on the effects and efficacy of pharmaceuticals.

What do you think?