| [1] This study makes the assumption that lower ldl is less risk and then looks for mutations in genes that lower ldl. It's putting the cart before the horse. > e. In each study,
we estimated the odds ratio for disease among
carriers of any NPC1L1 inactivating mutation, as
compared with noncarriers. We then calculated
the summary odds ratios and 95% confidence
intervals for coronary heart disease among carriers,
using a Mantel–Haenszel fixed-effects
meta-analysis without continuity correction [2] This starts off by saying that if we gave statins to 10000 people who are at risk that it would help 1000 and 500 people only. In addition 100 people might have adverse effects. If you ask me, an expensive drug that barely helps and only increases mortality by 5 days on average isn't worth it, and it comes with chances of adverse affects. If we just eat foods high in saturated fats and raise our HDL that is far better. [3] a meta analysis of randomized trials. Says 11 out of 1000 patients had a reduction of major vascular events. So that is saying out of 90 or so people who take statins, only 1 of them will see any benefits. Basically statins are poison that give hardly any benefit and treat an assumption that lower ldl leads to less heart attacks. Try this one https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/9/e007118.full > The median postponement of death for primary and secondary prevention trials were 3.2 and 4.1 days, respectively. The average life increase of taking statins is 4 days! |