|
| Thanks for the link. I watched it with my wife as we had our morning tea.
The first chart "Japan Lipid Intervention Trial" is so incomplete. After 240, all causes of mortality really goes up - but why? It can't be accounted for by the listed risks below on the chart. This is why biologists should be required to take some math! The wife, without statins, is pushing above that level, but this chart gives no explanation as to the risks for her. The "all causes" is not explained by the listed risks - the sum of the listed risks in no way adds up to the total. She is not really overweight, blood pressure is not a problem at all, so why would she need a statin? Are the risks not shown due to obesity, or diabetes, or what? There seems to be plenty of reasons why she should not be taking a statin - plenty of unintended consequences to taking them. It seems to me that a doctor, at the very least, should give a more detailed reason why a statin is necessary.
It just seems to me like with so many generations of evolution to arrive at this essentially infinitely complex system, why should we trust doctors to micromanage it by looking at one variable - cholesterol?
Note - I just put up the second chart to show how charts can be misleading. The scale should start at zero to give a good comparison view. The first one looks like a huge difference, but it is only from 18% to 19.5%. Same with the one on the right side.
He does give a very good example of how statistics can be used to misrepresent data toward the end of the presentation.
A good video. Thanks again.
 (Screen Shot 2020-07-12 at 12.16.31 PM (full).png)
 (Screen Shot 2020-07-12 at 12.54.30 PM (full).png)
Attachments
----------------
 Screen Shot 2020-07-12 at 12.16.31 PM (full).png (80KB - 89 downloads)
Screen Shot 2020-07-12 at 12.54.30 PM (full).png (67KB - 84 downloads)
| |
|
Do statins prevent or cause heart disease? Should LDL be called "bad" Cholesterol?
