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.
when they compare it to ldl though they also compare it to lifelong exposure to lower ldl so so they're they're not necessarily comparing lifelong reduction to to trial uh data that we you know with statin trials we have between two and seven years length of treatment in patients that already have disease so you cannot really compare apple in oranges
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 the mr says if you want to reduce if you want to take that mortality curve down to the next rung it's a hundred milligram per deciliter reduction and lifetime exposure which means there's one study that that showed that there's other study that came out after that that said well it's probably not a hundred it's might be around 50 milligrams per deciliter but it's still high so you need a large effect so it's not a 20 reduction there's a bigger point there which is which you alluded to if that that's over the course of your life that's that's yeah well that means over five years you might have to basically obliterate it if you're going to want to see a benefit yes