I'm sorry, your response doesn't really address your point. Are you arguing the data I provided is flawed or wrong? Are you saying that the dated, aged, and obsolete post you provided is in some way more indicative of the actual than the most current data or do you just always greet an opposing point of view with an insult? Not much of a discussion if that's the case.
For some one who chuckles so much you do seem to have a considerable amount of anxiety with my posts.View Thread
This link is to a small study literally from the turn of the century, 2001, and research on this topic has been very active in recent months.
This study looks at a relatively small number of participants which may be why the authors were unable to explain their results. Also, the study was limited to a specific social class of Japanese/American individuals in Hawaii only and do not represent the general public which indicates participant selection failures which will skew results making them difficult to compare to other works that are NOT as selective in their method. These are the details that we need to review when trying to use a specific small study to prove a point.
Here's a more comprehensive study from December 2013 using a meta analysis of almost 25,000 participants. The results are; Conclusions"In elderly subjects at high CV risk without established CV disease, statins significantly reduce the incidence of MI and stroke, but do not significantly prolong survival in the short-term."
The results show a significant reduction in the number of cardiac and stroke events in the elderly (over 80 years of age) however long term longevity is only improved by an insignificant amount. The findings clearly indicate that the death from CAD is significantly reduced with statin use how ever statins do not prevent all cause mortality, only deaths by CAD.
I'm guessing that no one has responded because of the source of the article. Have you read it? It's written by a chiropractor from tiny city of Old Town Maine who starts off saying;
As a doctor of chiropractic, I do not prescribe drugs.
But since it has come up, we should at least use the correct NNT numbers and not the number all the anti-statin folks like to use from the incomplete JUPITER trial as the good chiropractor is quoting from one of the most biased sites on the Internet.
Here's the actual numbers;
One of the issues with the data used by the bone cracker is that it does not stratify NNT to risk. The greatest benefit begins with patients having a 10 year risk around 7.5% and improves as the risk increases maxing out at an NNT of 4 which is outstanding by any standard. After all, we're talking about preventing cardiac events in high risk individuals not healthy ones. FYI, the latest data indicates an all use NNT of 11 which is why we should use the most current data available.
I think more than anything else your article proves that just about anyone can get an article on just about anything in the Bangor Daily News.View Thread
A recent post about air pollution makes me wonder, do people even read what they post? The post was from a NY Times Blog, not a great start but if you're looking for an answer to make you feel correct, this would work for you. However, one can do a little more research and get the trial results that the "blog" was referencing, MESA. I won't post it all as I was only interested in the disclaimer. Here it is below;
Despite the many strengths of this study, this work is not without its weaknesses. First, IMT likelydoes not capture all of the relevant pathophysiology related to air pollution exposures [37>. Second, our exposure assignment is currently limited to predictions of pollution from ambient origin after 1999 but restriction of the analysis to non-movers (â‰¥10 y at baseline address) did not alter our findings. Third, we did not achieve complete follow-up of all participants and data. The probability of being lost to follow-up over these first three exams was unrelated to baseline IMT levels, however, and the likelihood of missing covariate or exposure data was also unrelated to baseline IMT or IMT progression. Missing covariate information was similarly unrelated to baseline exposure concentrations. This finding suggests that bias in our primary associations due to selection is unlikely although it is always a possibility in any longitudinal study. Furthermore, we are currently not accounting for changes in neighborhood characteristics that also may have occurred during the study period. Control for time-varying vascular risk factors in our extended adjustment model, which may capture some time-varying socio-economic trends, did not substantially alter our findings so we might hypothesize that this is not a major source of confounding. The lack of an association between reductions in air pollution and changes in healthy food stores is further supportive of this hypothesis. Nevertheless, future work through MESA will address this question more thoroughly as they explore the impacts of changing neighborhoods on health. Similarly, our exposure assessment does not currently account for the penetration of outdoor particles into indoor air but correlations of outdoor and indoor PM2.5 of outdoor origin have been shown to be high [38>. Future analyses of MESA Air will confirm the findings of this early dataset using IMT data collected during MESA clinical visits 4 and 5. These analyses will furthermore incorporate estimates of air pollution infiltration into participant homes and participant time-activity information, as well as investigate other correlated pollutants that may explain some of this PM2.5 association and explore relationships with clinical events.
Let me translate, "we designed a trail based on our best guesses, predictions and estimates and this was the result. This research is by no means complete and additional work will need to be done to see if we were indeed correct in our guesses."
The key disclaimers are they used estimates for several key variables, they were selective in the choice of participants and did not complete the follow up. Well done.
You would think some one who knows so much about trials would have dug past the headlines to the actual MESA results. I thought I read that some people have issues with "estimates", "predictions" and "soft data", perhaps I was wrong.
This may end up being more than it is today, but for now just a well thought out guess. Hopefully additional follow up and changes to the trial design of MESA that are upcoming will help.View Thread
The CDC does not sell Brooklyn Bridges. These numbers are correct an true.
"From 1980 through 2000, the age-adjusted death rate for coronary heart disease fell from 542.9 to 266.8 deaths per 100,000 population among men and from 263.3 to 134.4 deaths per 100,000 population among women, resulting in 341,745 fewer deaths from coronary heart disease in 2000."
The numbers presented are factual and not guesses or opinion. CHD deaths were halved in these two decades.
No guesses, no opinions. The rate of deaths from heart disease was cut by approx. 50% between 1980 and 2000 far outpacing the decrease between 1960 and 1980.
Here's the facts as outlined by the good folks at the New England Medical Journal with assistance from the CDC;
"From 1980 through 2000, the age-adjusted death rate for coronary heart disease fell from 542.9 to 266.8 deaths per 100,000 population among men and from 263.3 to 134.4 deaths per 100,000 population among women, resulting in 341,745 fewer deaths from coronary heart disease in 2000. Approximately 47% of this decrease was attributed to treatments, including secondary preventive therapies after myocardial infarction or revascularization (11%), initial treatments for acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina (10%), treatments for heart failure (9%), revascularization for chronic angina (5%), and other therapies (12%). Approximately 44% was attributed to changes in risk factors, including reductions in total cholesterol (24%), systolic blood pressure (20%), smoking prevalence (12%), and physical inactivity (5%), although these reductions were partially offset by increases in the body-mass index and the prevalence of diabetes, which accounted for an increased number of deaths (8% and 10%, respectively)."
"ConclusionsApproximately half the decline in U.S. deaths from coronary heart disease from 1980 through 2000 may be attributable to reductions in major risk factors and approximately half to evidence-based medical therapies."
Reduction in smoking was a very small portion of the decrease behind cholesterol management and reduction in blood pressure. There is no mention of air pollution. There is a mention of these reductions being off sett by an increase in body mass index and diabetes. The fact that the decline continued even with the increase in BMI and diabetes has been attributed primarily to cholesterol management and the use of statins as they have the largest impact on both conditions.
Again, I'm not giving he same worn out opinion that has been floated here over and over, these are the hard numbers. Unlike other posts here, this is not my opinion but the collective results of thousands of hours of research and analysis of the data. I don't give opinions, I only show you the actual facts. Opinions are nice but they don't tell the story and those that live by opinions don't tend to move on but get stuck in their core beliefs as they can't imagine a world beyond their opinion.
Speaking to the Guardian, he said: 'We have really good data from over 100,000 people that show that statins are very well tolerated. There are only one or two well-documented side-effects.' Myopathy, or muscle weakness, occurred in one in 10,000 people, he said, and there was a small increase in diabetes. Only last week, a major study found that statins have virtually no side-effects. Scientists found that patients taking the drugs were less likely to suffer adverse symptoms than a control group taking a placebo. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2586631/Patients-dying-GPs-scared-prescribing-statins.html
I have not "ordered" anyone to do anything, do as you please. I have only told you I have not been acknowledging your threads for some time and it may be best for your anxiety not to post on mine. As I recalled, you said "I won't reply to your posts, happy?". I would post it but most of your posts on that thread were deleted and I don't feel like looking for it.
See, just seeing me respond to David seems to be making you anxious.View Thread