26th October 2006
[QUOTE]Results showed that pravastatin did indeed lower cholesterol, with a decrease of 17 percent in total cholesterol levels among those taking statin, compared with eight percent in the usual care group after four years of the study
slacck,
I can't find that referenced study. What was it called?
A couple thoughts:
From my experience with statins that 17% decrease in total cholesterol was indeed TINY and the 8% decrease from "usual care" a bit rosier than placebo. So what we might be seeing is comparing a very weak statin at a very low dose with an excellent dietary regimen.
Also, where in blue blazes did they find 10,000 people (or 5,000 people) on pravastain for 4 years??:confused:
Why not test a more popular and stronger med like atorvastatin or simvastatin?
Just a philosophical aside:
If heart disease kills 50% of the population and the chances of DYING are un unarguable 100% what is the obvious necessary conclusion about non-cardiac deaths if heart disease deaths could be lowered to zero percent?
slacck,
I can't find that referenced study. What was it called?
A couple thoughts:
From my experience with statins that 17% decrease in total cholesterol was indeed TINY and the 8% decrease from "usual care" a bit rosier than placebo. So what we might be seeing is comparing a very weak statin at a very low dose with an excellent dietary regimen.
Also, where in blue blazes did they find 10,000 people (or 5,000 people) on pravastain for 4 years??:confused:
Why not test a more popular and stronger med like atorvastatin or simvastatin?
Just a philosophical aside:
If heart disease kills 50% of the population and the chances of DYING are un unarguable 100% what is the obvious necessary conclusion about non-cardiac deaths if heart disease deaths could be lowered to zero percent?