Likewise, I have become wise to statins and aspirin claims.
Getting my doctor to check my Vitamin D levels almost requires giving a full dutch rub!
He always manages to "forget" to check the box. From all the writings, I'm thinking it is much more than "forgetting". This "forgetting" been an ongoing fight for over three years now. Amazi…
Likewise, I have become wise to statins and aspirin claims.
Getting my doctor to check my Vitamin D levels almost requires giving a full dutch rub!
He always manages to "forget" to check the box. From all the writings, I'm thinking it is much more than "forgetting". This "forgetting" been an ongoing fight for over three years now. Amazingly, he averages "remembering" about once per year.
I called him out on the statins. He pulls out his smart phone and looks up the life expectancy at my age (65) using statins. Came out to a whole seven months. And I'm in excellent health. None of this co-morbidity stuff. My BP has been high since my teens so the doctors always are pushing statins, et al. Nothing works. He's had his heart attack and I'm older than him. I remind him I'm the stroke guy. Dad and Mom made it into high 80s and didn't die of heart failure or stroke!
I'm with you on the emergency room stuff. In an emergency, we're all kind of at the mercy of whatever they decide to put in the IV - in our best interests, of course. I'm certain they mean well, but, like my old flight instructor said: When they clear you for take-off, look! If someone lands on top of you, you'll be dead. The guys in the tower will only be sorry.
Thanks for the reply. Perhaps one of the biggest "moments of epiphany" I had when looking under the hood, at critical books and/or the studies themselves, is how little these drugs actually have to offer (as primary prevention). I usually compute all-cause deaths and it's minuscule. Added time of life is another way to look at the data, but it's hard to calculate and NEVER mentioned in the study. Recently I looked at a blood pressure lowering meta-analysis (this one, freely available)
The median age in this analysis was about 65 and lots of the people had prior health issues. Even so, I calculated the reduction in all-cause mortality (to me, the most important figure) : In those with NO history of cardio-vascular disease, that difference was a whopping 0.18%. For those with a history of, it was 0.14%. The overall death rates were about double what a "normal" 65-year-old's should be; I attribute that to the unhealthy enrolled in the trials.
I do not deny that hypertension and statin meds do what's claimed. Trials -- all I've seen -- normally DO show an improvement in CVD events or deaths, but even there the absolute reduction is quite modest. Apparently they do have their legitimate medical uses. But for primary prevention in people with no history of trouble? While they do tend to reduce heart attack, stroke, etc. the overall death rate (and date) hardly budges. Very counter-intuitive, but this result shows up in nearly all studies. Statistically, being on one of these regimens might add a few weeks or months to your life expectancy. No thanks, I'll take the slightly shorter life and be free of the inevitable side effects these drugs have, thank you very much, doctor!
A final quirk in my "meta-meta-analysis": In the "no history of" group, the lowest overall death rates were in the cohort with quite high blood pressure (160-169 systolic). This held true for both "intervention" and "comparator." This anomaly did not occur in the "prior history" group. I suspect a flaw of some type in the the data. I don't think even the crackpots are claiming that Stage 2 hypertension reduces the risk of death in healthy people, but there is the data.
Likewise, I have become wise to statins and aspirin claims.
Getting my doctor to check my Vitamin D levels almost requires giving a full dutch rub!
He always manages to "forget" to check the box. From all the writings, I'm thinking it is much more than "forgetting". This "forgetting" been an ongoing fight for over three years now. Amazingly, he averages "remembering" about once per year.
I called him out on the statins. He pulls out his smart phone and looks up the life expectancy at my age (65) using statins. Came out to a whole seven months. And I'm in excellent health. None of this co-morbidity stuff. My BP has been high since my teens so the doctors always are pushing statins, et al. Nothing works. He's had his heart attack and I'm older than him. I remind him I'm the stroke guy. Dad and Mom made it into high 80s and didn't die of heart failure or stroke!
I'm with you on the emergency room stuff. In an emergency, we're all kind of at the mercy of whatever they decide to put in the IV - in our best interests, of course. I'm certain they mean well, but, like my old flight instructor said: When they clear you for take-off, look! If someone lands on top of you, you'll be dead. The guys in the tower will only be sorry.
Thanks for the reply. Perhaps one of the biggest "moments of epiphany" I had when looking under the hood, at critical books and/or the studies themselves, is how little these drugs actually have to offer (as primary prevention). I usually compute all-cause deaths and it's minuscule. Added time of life is another way to look at the data, but it's hard to calculate and NEVER mentioned in the study. Recently I looked at a blood pressure lowering meta-analysis (this one, freely available)
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00590-0/fulltext
The median age in this analysis was about 65 and lots of the people had prior health issues. Even so, I calculated the reduction in all-cause mortality (to me, the most important figure) : In those with NO history of cardio-vascular disease, that difference was a whopping 0.18%. For those with a history of, it was 0.14%. The overall death rates were about double what a "normal" 65-year-old's should be; I attribute that to the unhealthy enrolled in the trials.
I do not deny that hypertension and statin meds do what's claimed. Trials -- all I've seen -- normally DO show an improvement in CVD events or deaths, but even there the absolute reduction is quite modest. Apparently they do have their legitimate medical uses. But for primary prevention in people with no history of trouble? While they do tend to reduce heart attack, stroke, etc. the overall death rate (and date) hardly budges. Very counter-intuitive, but this result shows up in nearly all studies. Statistically, being on one of these regimens might add a few weeks or months to your life expectancy. No thanks, I'll take the slightly shorter life and be free of the inevitable side effects these drugs have, thank you very much, doctor!
A final quirk in my "meta-meta-analysis": In the "no history of" group, the lowest overall death rates were in the cohort with quite high blood pressure (160-169 systolic). This held true for both "intervention" and "comparator." This anomaly did not occur in the "prior history" group. I suspect a flaw of some type in the the data. I don't think even the crackpots are claiming that Stage 2 hypertension reduces the risk of death in healthy people, but there is the data.