2 ms·

The article is about Billionaires trying new approaches to medical research. My point was that more progress could be made by re-examining old assumptions. > S

by tcj_phx 10y ago

The article is about Billionaires trying new approaches to medical research. My point was that more progress could be made by re-examining old assumptions. > So says the cardiology fellow… For the record, I was traveling when I wrote this and my later comments. If I'd had a keyboard, and had spent more time drafting, I might've said things differently. I wanted to point out that the carbocation has a vested interest in promoting statins. I note that carbocation never responded to the substance of my comments: that an old science-mistake that has never been officially corrected contributes to many people's health problems. That inflammation -- caused by the consumption of partially hydrogenated oils and Omega-6 PUFA oils -- is a primary consideration for heart problems, moreso even than cholesterol lab #'s. In summary, I apologize for being short and less-than-courteous yesterday. It was a combination of not having a keyboard for my followup posts, and responding to someone whose initial post was entirely dismissive of the 'dissidents' complaints about the drugs that [s]he apparently thinks highly of.

carbocation 10y ago
I don't have a vested interest in promoting statins: I have no financial stake in companies that produce them, and my job as a cardiologist would still exist if statins were proven to be harmful. I do think that your views about statins are wrong on the scientific merits. There is a preponderance of evidence that supports their use as not only safe, but also effective (though costly if you don't select your population at all). Your views on inflammation aren't right or wrong; they're speculative. Some evidence can be interpreted as supporting the inflammation hypothesis (JUPITER trial), other evidence suggests that much of what we measure as a sign of inflammation has no direct impact on CAD (see the CRP Mendelian randomization). So, this is still an active area of research.

by tcj_phx 10y ago

carbocation 10y ago

I don't have a vested interest in promoting statins: I have no financial stake in companies that produce them, and my job as a cardiologist would still exist if statins were proven to be harmful. I do think that your views about statins are wrong on the scientific merits. There is a preponderance of evidence that supports their use as not only safe, but also effective (though costly if you don't select your population at all). Your views on inflammation aren't right or wrong; they're speculative. Some evidence can be interpreted as supporting the inflammation hypothesis (JUPITER trial), other evidence suggests that much of what we measure as a sign of inflammation has no direct impact on CAD (see the CRP Mendelian randomization). So, this is still an active area of research.