|"They are trying to do good work. It is hard to do good work and it takes a lot of dedication."|
A lot do slipshod, inferior work. 25% of the studies we reviewed when I was at U in the 70's studying psyche turned out to be invalid due to inferior statistics, invalid conclusions, study size too small, no double blind, or experimenter bias. Bad study design was common too. Did the study test what it set out to? Where the test results a cause or an effect? Often one could see the results were not tenable as the groups studies was not sufficiently random. Great scientists make great mistakes. Freud thought masturbation was a cause of disturbance or evidence of it. He did not use a control group. He just studied crazy people. Either that or there are far more crazy people out there than we guessed at.
Testing is hard. It is hard to know if you got the correlations correctly measured, let alone know if they were a cause of an effect. Then to get all the math right, and eliminate bias is hard too.
I suspect a lot of error is caused by wishful thinking, some results are based on payola, and some on ignorance. Out and out corruption is hard to measure.
I am very sure that the statin tests are just corporate study design by people pushing drugs. It is bad science.
Otherwise test the competitor's drugs, the generics, over the counters and be fair. Combinations of statin and niacin may be something valid to test but I am getting really tired of their not testing the alternatives, and fairly.
This will never get done until a foundation who owns no stock in the pharma companies funds a wise and fair study of the whole matter.