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.
cuz it's one of the Oh what I would call hepato selective statins it's hydrophilic it goes right into the liver it doesn't need transporters so you don't need much of a drug to get in the liver and hit the cholesterol synthesis and up regulate LDL receptors
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.
of course along came rosuvastatin many years later after pravistan and it shared some at least pharmacokinetic attributes with the uh pravastatin that it was a hydrophilic statin kind of hepatoselective but it was way more potent on a milligram basis than travis statin so it became a and over that evolution of all those early stands yeah you know every three years we had lower and lower and lower ldl metric goals which weren't there when we first started so what used to be acceptable was no longer acceptable so it was very easy to transform from the hydrophilic privacy statin to the way more potent hydrophilic reservostatin and that pretty much was my statin of choice thereafter