4 ms·

This is not a mainstream view of the science, and it's worth noting that this perspective is also not supported by the OP or by the JACC article that it's citin

This is not a mainstream view of the science, and it's worth noting that this perspective is also not supported by the OP or by the JACC article that it's citing.

e40 1y ago
And my understanding of the science is that statins reduce inflammation.
timr 1y ago
> This is not a mainstream view of the science, and it's worth noting that this perspective is also not supported by the OP or by the JACC article that it's citing. Your comment is an appeal to authority. While I have my problems with characterizing statins as dangerous drugs, the article is not particularly spicy. In particular, this part: > Because the link between excessive LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular disease has been so widely accepted, the Food and Drug Administration generally has not required drug companies to prove that cholesterol medicines (such as statins) actually reduce heart attacks before approval. So drug companies have not had to track whether episodes like heart attacks are reduced. ...is true, and controversial only amongst people who don't know the evidence. Which, unfortunately, is many doctors and "experts". In general, saying any variation on "experts disagree" is not a rebuttal to a question of medical evidence. You would perhaps be surprised to know how many practicing physicians have no idea what level of evidence backs the drugs that they prescribe.
- ajkjk 1y ago
  appeals to authority have some merit, you know. I for one appreciated the clarification that it was not mainstream, since sneaking a random controversial take into a comment thread as if it was fact without noting that it's contentious is disingenuous.
  - timr 1y ago
    > appeals to authority have some merit, you know. No, they don't. If you don't know enough to argue on the merits, don't argue. A count of opinions is not an argument. > sneaking a random controversial take into a comment thread as if it was fact without noting that it's contentious is disingenuous. And again, you're justifying your judgment and dismissal based on hearsay. Saying "I refuse to believe it because experts disagree" is fine if you're unable or unwilling to look into an issue yourself, but in that case you have to realize you're basically ignorant. I realize that we all go through life taking most things on faith, but that also means that you should not cling to the opinions of others as a substitute for thought.
    - ajkjk 1y ago
      yes they do. for one thing you do not make the rules around here; no one cares what you think counts as suitable grounds for arguing. For another, yes, authority has some merit. Doesn't make it fact, but certainly the prior we ought to assign for "medical authorities are correct" is quite high. Not certainty, but pretty confident, all else being equal. edit: I see you added "I realize that we all go through life taking most things on faith, but that also means that you should not cling to the opinions of others as a substitute for thought." Don't worry, nobody's doing that here. It's a question of weighting, not clinging. Maybe you mistook "this is not mainstream" to mean "this is definitely false because it's not mainstream"? It does not mean that. It is just helpful context for evaluating credibility.
      - timr 1y ago
        > for one thing you do not make the rules around here; no one cares what you think counts as suitable grounds for arguing. You're asserting that a extremely well-known logical fallacy is not a fallacy. It's not an HN rule, it's argumentation 101.
        onethought 1y ago
        You are confusing what "Appeal to Authority" fallacy is. Namely you are ignoring the fallaciousness of it. The fallacy is where you use an authority in place of evidence. It is not fallacious to refer to consensus or experts. Else, you end up basically in the "Do your own research"/vaccine denier/climate deniers/flat earth territory. Appeals to experts is not a logical fallacy. It's actually smart, because you get to leverage agreed facts (the earth is round) even though you've never actually been to space to see it for yourself.
- pdabbadabba 1y ago
  The view among "authorities" is certainly something I find relevant in assessing a highly opinionated but thinly sourced medium article from someone who, respectfully, I've never heard of and know nothing about. Certainly it would be defeasible by a closer look at the research itself. But, barring that, it's a very useful heuristic.
  - timr 1y ago
    I'm not suggesting you should take the medium article at face value either. Just that if you don't know enough to evaluate the evidence, you don't know enough to dismiss any particular opinion. People are far too willing, today, to defer their thinking blindly to a consensus of opinions, but worse, to accuse anyone who also doesn't defer of being malicious.
alphazard 1y ago
It's true that most doctors and pharmaceutical companies maintain that statins are effective. But there are plenty of statistically educated people that don't think they have much of an effect on all-cause mortality. There are conflicting incentives here, and as usual we don't care about someone else's p value, we care about argmaxing our own utility functions.

This is not a mainstream view of the science, and it's worth noting that this perspective is also not supported by the OP or by the JACC article that it's citing.

e40 1y ago

And my understanding of the science is that statins reduce inflammation.

timr 1y ago

> This is not a mainstream view of the science, and it's worth noting that this perspective is also not supported by the OP or by the JACC article that it's citing. Your comment is an appeal to authority. While I have my problems with characterizing statins as dangerous drugs, the article is not particularly spicy. In particular, this part: > Because the link between excessive LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular disease has been so widely accepted, the Food and Drug Administration generally has not required drug companies to prove that cholesterol medicines (such as statins) actually reduce heart attacks before approval. So drug companies have not had to track whether episodes like heart attacks are reduced. ...is true, and controversial only amongst people who don't know the evidence. Which, unfortunately, is many doctors and "experts". In general, saying any variation on "experts disagree" is not a rebuttal to a question of medical evidence. You would perhaps be surprised to know how many practicing physicians have no idea what level of evidence backs the drugs that they prescribe.

ajkjk 1y ago
appeals to authority have some merit, you know. I for one appreciated the clarification that it was not mainstream, since sneaking a random controversial take into a comment thread as if it was fact without noting that it's contentious is disingenuous.
- timr 1y ago
  > appeals to authority have some merit, you know. No, they don't. If you don't know enough to argue on the merits, don't argue. A count of opinions is not an argument. > sneaking a random controversial take into a comment thread as if it was fact without noting that it's contentious is disingenuous. And again, you're justifying your judgment and dismissal based on hearsay. Saying "I refuse to believe it because experts disagree" is fine if you're unable or unwilling to look into an issue yourself, but in that case you have to realize you're basically ignorant. I realize that we all go through life taking most things on faith, but that also means that you should not cling to the opinions of others as a substitute for thought.
  - ajkjk 1y ago
    yes they do. for one thing you do not make the rules around here; no one cares what you think counts as suitable grounds for arguing. For another, yes, authority has some merit. Doesn't make it fact, but certainly the prior we ought to assign for "medical authorities are correct" is quite high. Not certainty, but pretty confident, all else being equal. edit: I see you added "I realize that we all go through life taking most things on faith, but that also means that you should not cling to the opinions of others as a substitute for thought." Don't worry, nobody's doing that here. It's a question of weighting, not clinging. Maybe you mistook "this is not mainstream" to mean "this is definitely false because it's not mainstream"? It does not mean that. It is just helpful context for evaluating credibility.
    - timr 1y ago
      > for one thing you do not make the rules around here; no one cares what you think counts as suitable grounds for arguing. You're asserting that a extremely well-known logical fallacy is not a fallacy. It's not an HN rule, it's argumentation 101.
      - onethought 1y ago
        You are confusing what "Appeal to Authority" fallacy is. Namely you are ignoring the fallaciousness of it. The fallacy is where you use an authority in place of evidence. It is not fallacious to refer to consensus or experts. Else, you end up basically in the "Do your own research"/vaccine denier/climate deniers/flat earth territory. Appeals to experts is not a logical fallacy. It's actually smart, because you get to leverage agreed facts (the earth is round) even though you've never actually been to space to see it for yourself.
pdabbadabba 1y ago
The view among "authorities" is certainly something I find relevant in assessing a highly opinionated but thinly sourced medium article from someone who, respectfully, I've never heard of and know nothing about. Certainly it would be defeasible by a closer look at the research itself. But, barring that, it's a very useful heuristic.
- timr 1y ago
  I'm not suggesting you should take the medium article at face value either. Just that if you don't know enough to evaluate the evidence, you don't know enough to dismiss any particular opinion. People are far too willing, today, to defer their thinking blindly to a consensus of opinions, but worse, to accuse anyone who also doesn't defer of being malicious.

alphazard 1y ago

It's true that most doctors and pharmaceutical companies maintain that statins are effective. But there are plenty of statistically educated people that don't think they have much of an effect on all-cause mortality. There are conflicting incentives here, and as usual we don't care about someone else's p value, we care about argmaxing our own utility functions.