NEMJ:issa on juuri julkaistu lääketeollisuuden rahoittama ja runsaasti sidonnaisuuksia omaavien tutkijoiden tekemä tutkimus, jossa tiukempi LDL:n alentaminen vähensi iskeemisen aivohalvauksen uusimisriskiä. Zoe Harcombe perkasi tutkimuksen ja löysi siitä pitkän listallisen vikoja:
* There were at least a dozen issues with the study:
1) The trial was industry funded;
2) The authors had extensive conflicts of interest;
3) The trial was registered after it started, not before;
4) The trial was stopped early;
5) The trial measured the intended effects, but not side effects;
6) The LDL-cholesterol targets were not achieved;
7) If the LDL-cholesterol targets were not achieved and benefits occurred, they were the result of something else;
The primary end points (the key events to be measured) were changed late in the trial with no reason given;
9) The method of allowing for dropouts favoured the lower LDL-cholesterol target group;
10) Few results were significant or generalisable;
11) The data are due to be shared (only?) with the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists;
12) Issues are present related to conflict and competence – and conspiracy?
* This post goes through each of these issues with the conclusion that the peer review process has failed again.