On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Ilia Stambler wrote:
Large meta-analyses don’t seem to show any benefits of statins as a preventive measure either for mortality or incidence of heart disease.
(and quoted Dr Kausik et al. http://ift.tt/1k5lS7N)
### Really? All of them? Some of them? What about this one:
“Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jan 31;1:CD004816. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004816.pub5.
Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.
Taylor F1, Huffman MD, Macedo AF, Moore TH, Burke M, Davey Smith G, Ward K, Ebrahim S.
Reductions in all-cause mortality, major vascular events and revascularisations were found with no excess of adverse events among people without evidence of CVD treated with statins.”
Who am I going to trust, as the distraught neurologist yearning for therapeutic clarity: Dr Kausik of JAMA Internal Medicine, or Dr Taylor of Cochrane Systematic Reviews?I am feeling too lazy to actually read the articles and try to figure out how in hell could they come to opposite conclusions from looking at roughly the same set of data. I think I’ll go with Cochrane Systematic Reviews. They provide a neat post-facto justification for my umpteen years of self-medication with low-dose statins, which I started despite the lack of any significant CVD risk factors at about age 35.