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.
after 2004 graphic looks like this and you can see here that these lines do not slope down Le nearly as sharply as the lines from pre 2004 in fact some of these lines even go up meaning that when you lowered LDL in some of these trials like the C's trial like enhance which was looking at uh intimal medial thickness getting worse uh this is JY HF which was all cause death as the outcome which got worse when you lowered LDL
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.
before 2004 the trials definitely showed a significant Improvement in cardiovascular coronary artery event ratios for secondary prevention and even for primary prevention based on LDL levels