The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
let's go back and think about the first lipid lowering drug introduced in the United States in God about 1950 right maybe 1959 something like that right so trypanarol which I can never remember the name of the enzyme but it's the enzyme that converts does mosterol to cholesterol in the cholesterol synthetic pathway
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
so you had this drug triparanol that inhibited that enzyme and lo and behold it lowered cholesterol now this was for the listener this is back in the day before we knew anything about the sub-fractions of cholesterol so we just knew from some of the early work of Ansel keys but if you looked at very very high levels of total cholesterol and compared that to people who had very very low levels of total cholesterol there was a difference in outcome cardiovascular outcomes this was an observed finding there was no intervention to test that so this drug came along and it really lowered total cholesterol and it likely would have been lowering LDL cholesterol and apob it basically got approved on the basis of that without of course the hard outcome so it gets approved it goes into circulation and it's really only after it was approved gosh probably what eight to ten years later that they had enough post surveillance data to say you know what this drug is lowering cholesterol all right but it's actually increasing mortality cardiovascular mortality drug was pulled off the market