The Harvard half-wits initial study of Crestor was initially set to continue for 5 years. It was cut off at just over 2 years. Strange, unless one understands one thing about funded studies-- when stuff isn't going right and bad things are being found out, then we stop the study, copyright just the parts we want to save, copyright the entire study, and get ready to sue the pants off anybody who would dare "steal our intellectual product." Although it beats me how anything from Harvard could be called an intellectual product, today.

The study's name was "Jupiter," and involved 17,800 individuals with normal cholesterol but high CRP levels. Half were given Crestor (rosuvastatin) and half a placebo. The claim was premature (to be very polite and uptown about it). The "poll" (which is exactly what it was, managed by a computer) was certainly not "research" as claimed. They want to claim everything as research, today. That's a term stretch that sounds "scientific." And the results are no different than any political straw poll, but their math turns out to be from Alice Through The Looking Glass. (That's what Harvard grads read).To make this even more Harvard-like, the study was wholly funded by Astra-Zeneca-- the makers of Crestor, so you know there's no hanky-panky going on here. It's got to be strictly above-board, right? So continuing the story by the bastion of righteousness-- this Institution of Integrity, we read:

" The study divided the subjects into two groups, with half receiving rosuvastatin (Crestor) and the rest receiving a placebo. The results showed a nearly 50 percent reduction in the risk of heart attack, stroke, and heart-related death among the statin group."

So much for the general public. If it says Harvard it's got to be right. When I say Science, you say Harvard. But wait, there's more:According to an ABC News opinion piece by Nortin Hadler, M.D.:“The JUPITER oversight committee comprised luminaries in the world of cardiology who, like nearly all the principal JUPITER trial investigators, had declared financial involvements with the industry that serves the cardiovascular enterprise, many with AstraZeneca.”

Impressed, I am! But some say that this is a manipulated result."50 percent or higher reduced risk of heart attack and strokes." This does not mean that out of 100 people, 50 or more were “saved” by Crestor, because only 2 percent of all the study participants had a cardiovascular event during the study’s first two years in the first place.

NO! You DON'T SAY!! Why, how could Harvard POSSIBLY be allowed to manipulate scientific results?  The truth? There was a 1.2% difference in 2 years' time between the placebo group and the Crestor group, and they called that a 50% difference! I call that "diddling with the middle." Now, here's how they finagled it, below.These "brilliant" Mensa graduates took the difference between percentages of change, while referring to the "groups." You cannot refer to "GROUPS" and offer as your final result a percent of the percentages. That's flat-out LYING! "The results showed a nearly 50 percent reduction in the risk of heart attack, stroke, and heart-related death among the statin group."  When you claim it this way, you say that the placebo group had 50% more heart-related malfunctions than the statin group. So when you use the word "group," you refer to the total numbers in each group!  When you say that, then change horses to the "percent of the percentage changes," you lie!  And if their oversight committee doesn't catch something this simple and obvious, then they themselves are incompetent and haven't a clue what they are doing, either!

But wait, there's more! If you will keep reading right now I can double your information with just this single comment: Candidates for the study poll are first categorized by some initial tests to determine their state of heart health before inclusion in the study! (please consider where this would lead, with the so-called "researchers" involved, given their uncompromising penchant for honesty). Give them some bell curve expectations and these obviously dishonest doctors participating and being paid by AstraZeneca to make their product look great, might choose (by computer, of course) which of those who tested highest in the acceptable range of C-reactive protein would be given the placebo (you know, as one possible way to further weight their results). Tell the computer to randomize but according to alphabetical names, yet categorize according to certain blood test markers, and then prepare their "random" mailing labels for the monthly dose!

Why, they could easily let the computer send out the placebos, and didn't have to touch it with a ten-foot pole. And remember too, this also is just as "Honest Abe" as their percent of the percentages game! No one could fault them because after all, they all had to "pass the test" to be included in the "study."

Now of course, nobody knows exactly what shenanigans went on, over there. All we know for sure is that the "research" was fixed. That is determined by the dollars paid by the manufacturer themselves, by the fact that the poll was cut short by 2-1/2 years with no reasons given, and that the percentage results published were dishonest, taking percentages of percentages and claiming that represented "groups."

Regarding cutting short the "research study" by over 2-1/2 years, the only reason those things happen is because the Crestor group is getting sicker and sicker! You know, diabetes, muscle soreness, memory problems, heart problems, high blood pressure problems, etc. There just isn't any other reason, except for a class action lawsuit against AstraZeneca. I leave that to your imagination.Except for these little insignificant points, should we all do our Allah-Akbars toward the east now, and thank AstraZeneca for such fair and impartial research by such whiz-kids as Harvard? Well, maybe not. To my mind, they have proved once and for all what kind of people these are, and to what degree I should ever trust them again. So let's all try this little exercise....

"When I say 'science,' you say Harvard." And I suspect from that point forward everybody will think, "Baloney!" By Jove, I think they've got it!