However some very large study show a seemingly different story, eg:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9798292/
"Association between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and cardiovascular mortality in statin non-users: a prospective cohort study in 14.9 million Korean adults"
Figure 1 shows a hazard ratio higher for both lower LDL-C and higher LDL-C level, with a large flat part of the curve in between.
Curious if someone has an explanation
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16516588/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8109468/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8109854/
It seems to me like it should totally be possible to do the math here and figure it out. Compute the lives saved and compute as many of the lives that will be lost. For instance, statins are a risk to pre-diabetics, and to children, and to etc...
There better be a very large difference. That's the bottom-line argument that I would have attempted to make.
> 2. Safety so boring it is practically soporific
> Serious muscle injury from statins occurs in <0.1% of users; hepatotoxicity is an order of magnitude rarer. For context, you’re free to purchase orlistat—a drug whose calling card is oily rectal incontinence—straight from Amazon’s shelves. If we are letting consumers gamble their underwear for a few pounds lost, we can surely trust them with the pill that costs pennies and saves hearts.
Are they saying that there will be many serious muscle injuries if this prescription drug goes OTC, but an already-OTC drug has a potty-humor side effect, therefore... through the power of dismissive levity-logic, we can just chuckle and stop thinking, and it's that same human capacity for rational thought that ensures that a OTC medication with dangerous side effects will be used only judiciously-- Sorry, I don't follow?
Statins are wonder drugs for those who need them. There’s absolutely no reason individuals should be deciding for themselves if they need them though. Bloodwork is required at a minimum to determine if they are needed. They are not NSAIDs.
This is a critical medical responsibility. It seems profoundly foolish to place it with an entity that 1) is wholly unqualified and 2) has its funding dependent on locking medicine behind that schedule.
kurthr•4h ago
Where's the grift? Who is your target audience? How will they make money?
mindslight•3h ago
The loudly proclaimed surface policies are trolling for whatever draws the most attention - hence the recycling of so many disparate longstanding criticisms into an overarching wholesale condemnation. And the real policy is driven by whatever enables them to loot, steal, and otherwise enrich themselves by taking bribes for enabling corporate totalitarianism.
I guess it's not really different than people who still think the Republican party represents a strong America, or the widespread continued use of "conservative" as a lazy synonym while the actual agenda is the complete opposite of conservatism. But still like, you aren't an elderly person glued to a nursing home TV all day. You're online so much as to even have a blog. You should know better.