Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (18656)	8/7/2010 11:19:18 AM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

What is not here that you would like to see and are qualified to analyze? This one doesn't require a whole lot of qualification, merely the ability to read critically and, at that, only the title. Here's the money phrase: "in Women With Elevated High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein" It's important to read carefully and not overgeneralize. That piece you posted addresses a small subset of women, those with high CRP, which I had already acknowledged. As I said, there is no evidence that women, even women with extant CAD, achieve better outcomes with statin use. Your own article confirms that: "In the meta-analysis, statin use by women cut primary CVD events by 37% (p < 0.001), but did not significantly affect total mortality." The Jupiter study is an interesting one, one I often use as an example of how poorly study results are evaluated and reported. Statins are widely prescribed as primary care to reduce LDL, considered (questionably) a risk factor for heart disease. What the Jupiter actually demonstrated was that the benefits of statins is their utility as an anti-inflammatory. Unfortunately, many of those reporting on it were channeled by their biases and didn't get that.