| George Conklin 2006-09-27, 9:30 pm |
|
"Herman Rubin" <hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:efenvk$71c4@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
> In article <1159387154.986371.202810@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
him[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> If the question is whether one should decide to use these
> drugs or not without regard for much else, my answer, based
> on what I havce read, is that they might be good for middle
> aged people with high LDL and low HDL, and possibly a few
> more, but the evidence for older people is VERY poor.
Correct. It shows that standard medical advice can in fact have negative
consequences for the population as a whole. In short, the bad might equal
the good overall, even if sub-populations are helped.
Low
> cholesterol is associated with higher rates of infection,
> and the whole cholesterol profile needs to be studied, using
> multivariate continuous variable methods. This has not been
> done, and much has been done which does not approach it.
Cholesterol is also an anti-oxidant and may be associated with lower
cancer rates.
By the way, medical advice changes over time. McDonalds was told to get
rid of lard and use more healthy hydrogenated oils. Now they are told to
get rid of what they were told to do and move on to something else. The
population would have been better had they stuck to lard in the first place.
It was the same advice we got: get rid of butter and use margarine. Now we
know that was very very harmful advice. What next? And that is just in 20
years. Bad science also showd that HRT replacement was supposed to lengthen
life. It just caused more heart disease and doubled cance rates for women.
What next?????
>
>
> --
> This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
> are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
> Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
> hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
|