db.riskwaters.com/global/ac...
A non-medical look at the various hypothesis over time by an actuary. Always nice to get a (hopefully unbiased) professional statisticians view. Seems to do quite a good job cutting to the heart of the matter (no pun intended).
The full article mentioned in that PDF seems to be the one at theactuary.com/actuary/feat... (the link in the PDF didn't work for me). Just reading it now.
This seems to be an anti-statin piece with use of loaded words, such as a study "now admits" a finding and giving inappropriate emphasis to things being hypotheses rather than facts - mainly because proving things in experimental science is rather difficult, but surely actuaries should be up with that?
Does this say anything useful for FH sufferers who have been refused life insurance because of their cholesterol levels?
I haven't read the article yet, but will do so. As a general comment I can't think of any other drugs that raise the emotional level so much as satins do. As soon as I start reading anything about them I start thinking, they are anti statin or they are pro statin.
In my humble opinion this has not been helped by some medics talking about putting them in the drinking water and everybody over the age of 50 being prescribed them in a "polypill".
Not sure if actuaries are pro or anti statin - they have nothing to lose in terms of funding/ honoraria etc from the drug companies - they just want to assess risk.
Currently - I see this article as saying - ignore the doctors who may have agendas - look at real risk based on actuarial concepts - this may then give FH 'sufferers' (I put that in inverted on purpose) a fairer crack at things like life insurance e.g. when a person with FH reaches middle age, they have the same risk of CVD as a person with 'average' cholesterol.
Yes, can see that the article was just the level of risk. I was interested in the fact that about half of people who have heart attacks have a normal cholesterol level, but somehow this turned into an argument for lowering LDL even further.
However, maybe people at the highest end are over represented for risk. Oh for an unbiased, rational opinion on all these matters.
Actuaries are good as far as they go, but somtimes they clutch at straws, misgroup people or conflate correlation with causality. They're nearly always right at summarising the state of an illnes and often they are correct about risk factors, but there have been some spectacular failures. Actuaries are no substitute for medics whose "agendas" mostly involve improving health, ideally by understanding diseases based on research!
Aliwally, I'm dead against mass medication. This stuff is still new, so society should follow the precautionary principle. Also, forcing people who can't take whatever drug is in the water to buy bottled water just seems wrong, making a problem worse. Aren't doctors meant to try to avoid hurting people? "But it's for the greater good" does not fit with "I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone." (the Hippocratic Oath - it's sad but I couldn't find similar clear instruction in the General Medical Council equivalent... which may be why mass medication through the water supply is even considered?)
To be fair, I think this was meant as a joke, albeit not a very funny one. I think the British public have a fear of mass medication, do you remember all the fuss about putting flouride in water.
I have campaigned against putting flouride in water. It harms a few people (including through treatment works errors) and mainly helps people who won't help themselves who I don't have much sympathy for - it's not that hard to brush your teeth!
