1) I've read enough biomedical literature to know there is a source claiming just about anything you can think of. So regardless of what you mean, my answer is: "there is at least one such source".
2) Why is your question so loosely connected to the topic? Why say "things" instead of "non-aspirin NSAIDs", and "inhibit platelet aggregation" instead of "reduce risk of heart attack"?
3) If you are thinking of a particular paper, why not just say it?
But ok, I am probably being trolled at this point.
> I've read enough biomedical literature to know there is a source claiming just about anything you can think of
Then as I initially said, it really shouldn't be hard for you to imagine why someone would give the advice that the original person gave. This really isn't a difficult concept, yet you still act perplexed by it...
> Why is your question so loosely connected to the topic? Why say "things" instead of "non-aspirin NSAIDs", and "inhibit platelet aggregation" instead of "reduce risk of heart attack"?
Because I was hoping you were capable of following the thread. And because the specific things arn't all that important to whether or not one should be able to think of a reason why that piece of advice was given.
> If you are thinking of a particular paper, why not just say it?
Because if you're not just here to whine about being trolled, you can easily find it with Google.
2) Why is your question so loosely connected to the topic? Why say "things" instead of "non-aspirin NSAIDs", and "inhibit platelet aggregation" instead of "reduce risk of heart attack"?
3) If you are thinking of a particular paper, why not just say it?
But ok, I am probably being trolled at this point.