Thank you very much for clarifying that. There are so many studies done, and it is hard to know the conditions under which the studies were done. Articles like that one can be depressing, if one does not know the entire story. I see the difference in my father that did not control his diabetes for the last ten years of his life, and my Godfather who does, and is very healthy comparably, and still living. The problem I have with many studies, is that they do not include the severity of diabetes in the people that were studied. Certainly, a diabetic with an A1c of 5.5 to 6, verus a diabetic with an A1c of 10, would have different results in a study. And so would age likely affect outcome.
You can get any results you want if you pick your subjects carefully. And statistics are too easy to manipulate. This is VooDoo science at it's worst.
There's some truth to what you say, but it doesn't make sense in the context of these studies.
The drug companies would like to show that their drugs work. These studies showed that they didn't.
Physicians would like proof that the drugs they're prescribing work. These studies showed that they didn't.
So why would someone have manipulated the data to show that the drugs didn't work?
The insurance companies might like it if people took fewer drugs, but insurance like Part D makes money off drugs. If everyone stopped taking drugs, they'd lose money.
So who do you think manipulated this data?
It could be competing companies, or it could just be too narrow a study to actually be accurate. Tunnel vision by the study authors...