4 ms·
The claims in the 4S study paper referenced by the first paper is not generalizable to the general populration. The studied patients were as follows: - 75% smo
by ArchD 5y ago
The claims in the 4S study paper referenced by the first paper is not generalizable to the general populration. The studied patients were as follows:
- 75% smokers or ex-smokers
- already had AP or MI episodes
- 51% at least 60 yo
- 57% were on beta-blockers. (How do you know that the statins are not mainly protecting against some unknown side effects of beta-blockers.)
These patients are not healthy people. The observations do not constitute evidence that cholesterol itself is a risk factor. These days, a lot of doctors are pushing statins to people without any risk factor like age or high-blood pressure, simply because of high LDL-C.
As for the second paper about sdLDL, the mainstream dogma is laser-focused on LDL-C, not sdLDL.
- RockyMcNuts 5y agothe 2 links cover a bit of ground, if those are the only 2 cherry-picked criticisms it would seem to validate the rest?
- ArchD 5y agoA full criticism would take a book. There are such books and presentations you can find easily and the papers I linked to are a start. I was just giving examples to show that there are flaws. The appearance of scientific rigor and trustworthiness disintegrates as you find more and more flawed studies or unsubstantiated arguments from the orthodoxy.