That's a contradiction instructing us to check our premises.

Ed, you wild-eyed radical.  How dare you suggest that people question the policy of doling out billions of dollars a year for medications that have more negative side effects than benefits.

The truth, however, is that a great many people have long been questioning the merits of the cholesterol guidelines written as part of the National Cholesterol Education Program in 2001. The specious conclusions of their clinical trials were that statins alone could prevent coronary heart disease, and that doctors should focus on all patents found to have LDL cholesterol levels of 130 mg.DL or higher—even though more than half of adult Americans over the age of 35 have LDL levels that high.  Most doctors probably felt that reading the full 284 page version of the NCEP expert panel’s report wasn’t necessary.  They began focusing on lowering LDL levels almost exclusively rather than adopting a more balanced approach to coronary heart disease prevention, and it became standard practice.

Here’s a quote from John Abramson, in Overdosed America:

“Most heart attacks are not caused by a gradual build-up of plaque.  The more frequent scenario is that a smaller area of plaque for unknown reasons breaks open (“fractures”) or becomes eroded on its surface.  This causes the tiny platelets circulating in the blood to become sticky and form a small blood clot or thrombus on top of the plaque.  Without any warning thrombus formation can quickly and completely obstruct the flow of blood through a coronary artery causing a heart attack.  (Aspirin decreases the risk of heart attack by decreasing the stickiness of platelets, thereby making thrombus formation less likely…” (p. 132)

In my opinion, this is only one of many areas where medicine—doctors in collusion (conscious or otherwise) with “Big Pharm”—push pills as a solution to manufactured illnesses, and where the so-called “cure” is worse than the disease.  There is evidence that the symptoms of conditions such as osteoporosis and irritable bowel syndrome, among others, would be much better treated by alternative approaches. And I am strongly inclined to believe that the whole modern day fad of Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder—both for children and adults-- is largely a fraud.

At the same time, most of the medical profession scoffs at vitamins as a “placebo” of no genuine medicinal value.  Unbelievable.

Yeah, I would say it is high time for both patients and doctors to begin checking their premises. 

I don’t know if the study you’re referring to was bank-rolled by Big Pharm, but if it was, that factor alone would outweigh any other findings in favor of the null hypothesis.

And a single study is of doubtful importance.  Michael Fumento reports that “a 2002 analysis of 48 studies regarding a possible ETS [second hand smoke] link to lung cancer found 10 that were significantly positive, one that was actually significantly negative, and 37 that… were insignificant either way.”

Some people questioned those results because some of the funding came from the tobacco industry.  I would question any study funded by Big Pharm showing a statistical correlation with no scientific evidence of causality for the same reason.

Thanks for the detailed response, Ed.  I regret to say that I do not fully understand your comments about the Wiki quote.  To me, the statement that “statistical significance says nothing about the practical significance of a difference” simply means that correlation says nothing about causality, and a grasp of causality is necessary for a genuinely meaningful conclusion.

I get the idea of checking the conflicts of interest between competing stakeholders in a matter…

All I am saying is that I do not trust Big Pharm to do statistical studies where they have a vested interest in the outcome.  I question if there was really that much difference in outcomes based on statin use (the null hypothesis meaning zero difference).

Are you comparing the study cited above with the reams of inductive evidence supporting the belief that race has little or nothing to do with intelligence and self-responsibility?   Not sure I see how thousands of years of human history compares to a single study of 430 people.  And I don’t get how such a statistical study would ever qualify as a “crucial experiment” disproving an otherwise unsubstantiated theory.  Sorry if I am missing something.

….there's a consilience of evidence that actual heart disease is heavily inflammatory in nature…

Perhaps so.  You are obviously more knowledgeable on this topic than I am.  I was just questioning the merits of using this particular study as a justification for reliance on statins as a preventative measure for heart disease.  I strongly believe that lifestyle (i.e., diet and exercise) are far more important to longevity than pills.

Pharmacotherapy for obesity.

Drugs. 2005;65(10):1391-418.

Pharmacotherapy for weight loss in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Jan 25;(1):CD004096

Pharmacological and clinical studies of ephedrine and other thermogenic agonists.

Obes Res. 1995 Nov;3 Suppl 4:537S-540S.

The acute and chronic effects of ephedrine/caffeine mixtures on energy expenditure and glucose metabolism in humans.

Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1993 Dec;17 Suppl 3:S73-7; discussion S82.

The effect and safety of an ephedrine/caffeine compound compared to ephedrine, caffeine and placebo in obese subjects on an energy restricted diet. A double blind trial.

Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1992 Apr;16(4):269-77.