• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2026 Survey »

Statins explained by John Hopkins... they vote yes!

C

Cowboyjim

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,294
Back after a long break, sad to see in my absence no one else has added much news, not surprising as we are all very people and especially so once you get the diagnosis. I constantly ponder on returning to the statins, here is another reason why I should think some more...
"Writing the first commentary for a new feature in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), called Viewpoint, Johns Hopkins cardiologists make the case for why a 55-year-old man with a 10 percent estimated risk of heart attack over the next 10 years should be offered statin medication. They were invited to debate a professor who argues against prescribing statins for "primary" prevention—for those who have not had a cardiovascular event, such as a heart attack—even though they may be considered at "intermediate" risk because of elevated cholesterol or other factors. Readers are then invited to vote on which viewpoint they endorse."
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20...s-for-primary-prevention-of-heart-attack.aspx
 
Welcome back Jim :thumbup:
 
Welcome back Jim!!!

You're teetering on the 100 post mark, I see. I don't know if you knew this, but once you hit 1000 posts NO-ONE can dispute any of your posts. It's like, interweb law, or something... :wink:

Good to have you back, mate.
 
Hi Jim,

Good post - and thanks for stepping back into the research posting business!

I like how in that article they don't mention any of the arguments against prescribing statins...

Also, where they say :

"To support this argument, they cite four major placebo-controlled studies showing that statin therapy used to reduce cholesterol—in particular LDL, the "bad" form of cholesterol—reduced the incidence of heart attack and death significantly among people who had high cholesterol levels but were otherwise at low risk for developing heart disease."

Sounds good doesn't it? The trouble is the use of the word 'significantly'. Most of us would take that to mean 'a lot', but in terms of a study all that it means is 'not caused by chance' - so there is some statistical correlation, but as often is the case the actual reduction as an absolute (not relative) risk is not given.

Also, because of the weighting given to evidence in clinical trials even a 'significant' result can still be caused by chance; indeed I think there is an error tolerance of about 20 or 25% in clinical studies (!) i.e. one if four or five are just randomly wrong!

Statistics eh?

Dillinger
 
Good to see you back Cowboy! :)

Interesting read speaking from someone who is sitting on the fence having been advised to take a low-dose statin.
 
Back
Top