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.
there is only one population of people in which they have actually been able to show any benefit in terms of mortality or indeed heart cardiovascular endpoints in any kind of epidemiological study and those are males over 65 who have already had the primary cardiovascular event
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.
if you are a female there is no evidence anywhere in the epidemiology epidemiology that supports taking a statin for you so men only so that's the first one secondly only men who are over 65 so if you are under 65 this does not apply to you either so there was no indication for you there either