I was and continue to believe that you have no interest in the information that is in the public domain.
On what basis could anyone draw such a broad conclusion? No interest whatsoever in information in the public domain? That's incomprehensible. One would have to be a non-reader living a self-imposed exile in a cave. I'd love to see you try to explain the basis for that conclusion, scientific or otherwise.
As I recall this discussion started when you suggested limiting prescribing statins to only those with LDL levels above 130 (your level).
I suggested no such thing. And I have several times refuted your continued mis-statement of my position.
My position was and continues to be that statins are over-used when prescribed for primary care based on LDL reaching 130. My position is my position. It is based on considerable research and analysis. I have not strayed from it nor will I until and unless I come across scientific data that challenges it. Your mis-stating my position doesn't in any way alter it. I restated it to you in a post just the other day. Do you not read? Did my recent restatement not register? Or can you not differentiate between my position and your mis-statement of it?
I have never advocating limiting the physician's authority to prescribe, only observed that sufficient justification for their use in the scenario I described has not been scientifically demonstrated. Nor have I suggested that statins are inappropriate for secondary care nor for primary care based on criteria other than or in addition to somewhat elevated LDL.
You have provided no data that challenge my position.
You were provided with references that clearly show clinical results that prove reducing LDL values not only stop or slow blockage but actually start to reverse it.
No, I wasn't. I was provided only with references that were clearly off point.
You offered a reference to a study that scientifically demonstrated the slowing of buildup as a result of heavy-duty statin treatment in patients with extant CAD. That outcome was not attributed by the study authors to lowered LDL.
Your other reference was to several small/informal studies without sufficient documentation to determine scientific rigor that claimed reversal of heart disease, not necessarily plaque buildup, as a consequence of an extreme vegan/fat-free diet, not of lowering LDL.
It is beyond my ken how you can fail to see that those studies don't "prove reducing LDL values not only stop or slow blockage but actually start to reverse it," that they are apples and oranges. Even when I take the time to explain what differentiates them. When people fail to read critically and to differentiate, they can get into a lot of trouble. One can read, for example, that adding a bit of chlorine to drinking water in under-developed countries will make it potable. If you fail to read critically and to differentiate, you could conclude that washing down your breakfast each morning with a tall glass of Clorox is a good idea. That's just what you're doing when you fail to read critically these studies you keep offering. Just because they have some buzzwords in common with a premise doesn't mean they support it.
I am all but certain that there are no scientific data that "prove reducing LDL values not only stop or slow blockage but actually start to reverse it." Even if there were, that would not contradict my position, which was about primary care, where patients by definition have no known blockages to slow or reverse. Duh! |
