|
|
|
|
|
by roboticmind
758 days ago
|
|
Earlier you were saying how you didn't trust only observational studies and wanted to see people actually doing randomized trials. That was for a meta-analysis, but this neither a meta-analysis nor an RCT. It is a single purely observational study. Further, looking at their 95% confidence interval graphs... you can see the many of trends could potentially be completely reversed and still within the 95% confidence interval. Their 95% confidence interval contain probable outcomes where 140mg/dL was the worst possible level as well Further it also still finds increased risk for heart issues with higher LDL. > Any increase in LDL-C levels was associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction. |
|
That's just lying.
Yes there are edge cases. You could get hit by a car with a 140.
It's looking at all cause mortality.
A higher ldl seems to be protective. Of course it is. The body makes it for a reason.