Every serious health professional cannot deny the immense value that pharmaceutical drugs can contribute to public health.
Nevertheless not all medications are the same, and some of them, despite largely prescribed and widespread, have no proof of evidence of their claimed benefits.
As my colleague P. Dingle - a specialist in the field - posted recently:
"Statins to lower cholesterol do not save a single life. Tens of millions of unsuspecting people are prescribed cholesterol-lowering drugs—statins like Pravachol®, Zocor® and Lipitor®—each year at a cost of more than billions of pounds with very little, if any, benefit. In the U.S., some 40 million people currently take statins at a cost of more than $3.00 per pill, more than $1,000 per year, totaling more than $40 billion a year. While there are many exaggerated claims and a lot of hype about the benefits of statins, there are also many studies showing no benefits at all. The pro-statin hype is based on the misuse and abuse of statistics. Various independent studies in prestigious, peer-reviewed journals have shown that statin use in primary prevention—that is, to save lives—has minimal or no value in reducing mortality and certainly nothing that is considered anywhere near clinically significant to warrant their widespread use. It does not matter how one manipulates the statistics, the results just aren’t there."
Now the question is: is this good medicine or good marketing? Is this ethical? Which part of our health system has allowed this to happen for more then two decades without considering the missing evidence? What other medications are prescribed based on the same blind system? How could we allow this to happen?