Magnesium in Buffered Aspirin protects heart

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by Mfg, Dec 18, 2003.

  1. Mfg

    Mfg Guest

    Are you like me, taking aspirin to protect your heart? This article
    presents the hypothesis that buffered aspirin would be better, because
    it's the magnesium in the coating that's doing the work. He also
    suggests dropping the aspirin altogether, and using magnesium with
    some other foods and supplements instead.
    http://www.thincs.org/links.htm#about

    **********************MFG

    There Should Not Be Any Long-Term Use of Aspirin to Prevent Heart Failure

    by Joel M. Kauffman, Ph. D.

    Too many physicians still recommend long-term use of aspirin for primary prevention of stroke
    and myocardial infarction (MI) based on incomplete reporting of results in the media from the
    Physicians Health Group (PHG) trial in the USA. While the incidence of acute MI in the
    "aspirin" group was reduced by 69%, which was significant, total deaths were reduced by 4%
    (RR = 0.96); and neither this nor total cardiovascular deaths nor total stroke were reduced
    significantly. Moreover, there is little attention paid to the use of aspirin containing
    calcium and magnesium in this trial (Kauffman,
    2000) — it was actually Bufferin™.

    Reported in 1998 in Lancet, the Medical Research Council (MRC in the UK) trial on 5500
    physicians with plain aspirin for 7 years gave a 32% reduction in non-fatal MI, a 12% increase
    in fatal MI, and a 6% increase (RR = 1.06) in total death rates. For secondary protection the
    benefits of aspirin taken for about 5 weeks were modest (RR = .80), but significant; and one
    would think that the short exposure period would hold side-effects to a minimum (Meade, 1998).
    It would seem that the meta-analysis of Derry and Loke (2000) was carried out in vain, and that
    the concerns and conclusions of Tramér (2000) were well taken.

    Cogent argument has been made that the 52 mg of magnesium ion in a Bufferin tablet could
    account for the superior results in the PHG trial (Kauffman, 2000). A recent study from the
    Centers for Disease Control reconfirms the inverse relationship between serum magnesium and
    ischaemic heart disease, as well as total death rates (Ford,
    2001).

    The authors of a recent paper in JAMA on all-cause mortality according to aspirin use in a
    prospective, observational, 3.1-year study came to the conclusion that aspirin use was strongly
    protective, cutting the death rate from 8% to 4% absolute (Gum et al., 2001). This contradicts
    both the conclusions of a recent review (Kauffman,
    2002) and the arguments of JGF Cleland (Cleland 2002a, 2002b). In the JAMA paper, Gum et al.
    continued to perpetuate the myth that the PHG trial used aspirin (their Ref. 1), when, in fact
    it used buffered aspirin containing magnesium and calcium. Because Gum et al. did not have the
    attending physicians distinguish between plain and buffered aspirin in their subjects, the
    results of their study are inadequate to make a recommendation for treatment, or to draw the
    conclusions they did on the effectiveness of "aspirin". Another flaw in their study is that
    Gum et al. did not match patients for use of either magnesium (Ford, 1999) or vitamins C
    (Enstrom et al., 1992) or E (Stephens et al., 1996), all of which are more protective against
    cardiovascular disease than plain aspirin. It is quite plausible that subjects conscientious
    enough to take "aspirin" might have taken any or all of these, as well as other supplements.
    Nor were patients matched for alcohol or nut consumption; high nut consumption in one study
    reduced the rate of cardiovascular death (RR = 0.61), and of all-cause death (RR = 0.82) in a
    very old population (Fraser et al.,
    2003).

    The duration of the trial by Gum et al. was much too short at 3.1 years to reveal long-term
    adverse effects, as shown by the greatly increased risk of cataracts in subjects > 55 years old
    who took aspirin for > 10 years (Kauffman, 2000). Gum et al. wrote that "It is less clear if
    aspirin reduces long-term all-cause mortality in stable populations." This was resolved for
    men, at least, in the study on 5,500 male physicians in the MRC trial — it does not in a 7-year
    trial (Meade, 1998). The JAMA study was the first to include women, and the raw data for women
    should not be ignored: 3.8% of "aspirin" users died vs.
    2004.4% of non-users. For the study population as a whole the raw data showed that 4.5% of "aspirin"
    users died vs. 4.5% of non-users. The extreme manipulation of data carried out in the form of
    patient matching to produce a positive result for "aspirin" might have been warranted if the
    obvious confounding variables had been considered, and a much longer time-frame adopted. As it
    is, this study in JAMA is too flawed to show that the conclusions in the JSE Review (Kauffman,
    2005) were wrong.

    A very recent report on a meta-analysis by the Antithrombotic Trialists' Collaboration in the
    UK came to the conclusion, on primary prevention, that "For most healthy individuals, however,
    for whom the risk of a vascular event is likely to be substantially less than 1% a year, daily
    aspirin may well be inappropriate", and that for secondary prevention, "Low dose aspirin (75-
    150 mg daily) is an effective antiplatelet regimen for long-term use" (Baigent et al., 2002).
    This latter conclusion was strongly disputed as being due to bias, including retrospective
    analysis resulting in "resurrection of a number of dead patients"; and that aspirin may lead to
    a "cosmetic" reduction in non-fatal events and an increase in sudden death (Cleland, 2002a);
    and to publication bias (Cleland, 2002b).

    In a Rapid Response to Baigent et al., the results of a meta-analysis of "aspirin" in 5 large
    trials for primary protection, whose duration was 3-7 years (too short), were that there was
    little effect on thrombotic stokes or all-cause mortality, but that both non-fatal and fatal
    myocardial infarction taken together were reduced (RR = 0.72). These results are quite similar
    to the raw results of all 3 earlier studies above. An involved risk-benefit calculation was
    recommended (Pignone et al., 2002) in order to decide which future patients should take
    aspirin; but in view of the unchanging all-cause mortality, this does not make sense.

    A 7-year trial on men (unfortunately) supposedly at risk of CHD, which was double-blind and placebo-
    controlled, using 75 mg per day of aspirin in a controlled-release formulation, resulted in an
    increased risk of stable angina of 39% (RR = 1.39)! (Knottenbelt, 2002).

    No evidence exists that reducing the dose of aspirin or using slow-release formulations would
    reduce the incidence of gastrointestinal haemorrhage (Derry et al., 2000).

    Physicians should recommend magnesium, vitamin C, vitamin E, low-dose alcohol, and eating nuts,
    rather than aspirin for primary protection; and the addition of coenzyme (now vitamin) Q10 for
    secondary protection (Folkers et al., 1990).

    e-mail: [email protected]
    ____________________________________________________________

    Baigent, C., Sudlow, C., Collins, R. and Peto, R. (2002). Collaborative meta-analysis of randomised
    trials of antiplatelet therapy for prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in high
    risk patients. British Medical Journal, 324, 71-86.

    Cleland, J. G. F. (2000a). Preventing atherosclerotic events with aspirin. British Medical Journal,
    324, 103-105.

    Cleland, J. G. F. (2000b). No reduction in cardiovascular risk with NSAIDS — Including aspirin? The
    Lancet, 359, 92-93.

    Derry S, Loke YK. Risk of gastrointestinal haemorrhage with long term use of aspirin: meta-
    analysis. British Medical Journal,
    2005:1:1183-7.

    Enstrom, J. E., Kanim, L. E. & Klein, M. A. (1992). Vitamin C intake and mortality among a sample
    of the United States population. Epidemiology, 3, 189-91.

    Folkers K., Langsjoen P., Willis R., Richardson P., Xia L., et al. Lovastatin decreases coenzyme Q
    levels in humans. Proc. Nat Acad. Sci. USA. 87: 8931-8934, 1990.

    Ford, E. S. (1999). Serum magnesium and ischaemic heart disease: findings from a national sample of
    US adults. International Journal of Epidemiology, 28, 645-651.

    Fraser, G. E. and Shavlik, D. J. (1997). Risk Factors for All-Cause and Coronary Heart Disease
    Mortality in the Oldest-Old. Archives of Internal Medicine, 157, 2249-2258.

    Gum, P. A., Thamilarisan, M., Watanabe, J., Blackstone, E. H. & Lauer, M.S. (2001). Aspirin use and
    all-cause mortality among patients being evaluated for known or suspected coronary artery disease.
    Journal of the American Medical Association, 286, 1187-1194.

    Knottenbelt, C., Brennan, P. J. & Meade, T. W. (2002). Antithrombotic Treatment and the Incidence
    of Angine Pectoris. Archives of Internal Medicine, 162, 881-886.

    Meade, T. W. with The Medical Research Council's General Practice Research Framework (1998).
    Thrombosis prevention trial: Randomised trial of low-intensity oral anticoagulation with warfarin
    and low-dose aspirin in the primary prevention of ischaemic heart disease in men at increased risk.
    The Lancet, 351, 233-241.

    Kauffman, J. M. (2000). Should you take aspirin to prevent heart attack? J. Scientific Exploration,
    14, 623-641.

    Pignone, M. and Mulrow, C. (2002). Aspirin for CHD Prevention in
    Lower Risk Adults. British Medical Journal Rapid Response, 15 Jan.

    Stephens, N. G., Parsons, A., Schofield, P. M., Kelly, F., Cheeseman,
    K., Mitchinson, M. J. & Brown, M. J. (1996). Rendomised controlled trial of vitamin E in patients
    with coronary disease: Cambridge Heart Antioxidant Study (CHAOS). The Lancet, 347, 781-786.

    Joel M. Kauffman, PhD Research Professor Chemistry University of the Sciences in Philadelphia 600
    South 43rd St., Philadelphia, PA 19104
     
    Tags:


  2. Listener

    Listener Guest

    On 18 Dec 2003 16:03:15 -0800, [email protected] (mfg) wrote:

    >Are you like me, taking aspirin to protect your heart? This article presents the hypothesis that
    >buffered aspirin would be better, because it's the magnesium in the coating that's doing the work.
    >He also suggests dropping the aspirin altogether, and using magnesium with some other foods and
    >supplements instead. http://www.thincs.org/links.htm#about
    >
    >**********************MFG

    Do you actually fully understand all these papers you copy and link to? (Have you seen Jum Chinnis's
    resonse to "Statin question"?)

    I'm not a statistician and can honestly say I get a bit lost in the numbers, but certain things do
    jump out. Like "While the incidence of acute MI in the "aspirin" group was reduced by 69%, which was
    significant, total deaths were reduced by 4% (RR = 0.96); and neither this nor total cardiovascular
    deaths nor total stroke were reduced significantly."

    Yes, but if you happened to be one of the people in the 4% whose death was averted you would
    probably feel that taking aspirin WAS significant, wouldn't you?

    Also, isn't reducing acute MI by almost 70% a very good thing?

    Benefit/risk?

    I think these studies have to be read very carefully and with a critical eye. (Although some of them
    get much too technical for me to understand.) I also believe that many of todays "definitive"
    studies become tomorrows disputed studies as new technologies and study practices become more
    advanced and refined.
     
  3. Mfg

    Mfg Guest

    [email protected] (Listener) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > On 18 Dec 2003 16:03:15 -0800, [email protected] (mfg) wrote:
    >
    > >Are you like me, taking aspirin to protect your heart? This article presents the hypothesis that
    > >buffered aspirin would be better, because it's the magnesium in the coating that's doing the
    > >work. He also suggests dropping the aspirin altogether, and using magnesium with some other foods
    > >and supplements instead. http://www.thincs.org/links.htm#about
    > >
    > >**********************MFG
    >
    > Do you actually fully understand

    Kauffman said, speaking of the aspirin used in the trial: "...it was actually Bufferin." Which sets
    up the premise for his article whereby he posits it is the magnesium in the coating of the aspirin
    used in the trial. I also believe he used the phrase "significant" regarding the outcome?

    I thought it might spur intelligent discussion of something appropos of the sci.med.cardiolgoy
    board. Many posters talk about taking aspirin for their cardiovascular risk.

    Do I fully understand?

    I understand it well enough to to see you didn't. MFG
     
  4. Listener

    Listener Guest

    On 18 Dec 2003 22:36:17 -0800, [email protected] (mfg) wrote:

    >[email protected] (Listener) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    >> On 18 Dec 2003 16:03:15 -0800, [email protected] (mfg) wrote:
    >>
    >> >Are you like me, taking aspirin to protect your heart? This article presents the hypothesis that
    >> >buffered aspirin would be better, because it's the magnesium in the coating that's doing the
    >> >work. He also suggests dropping the aspirin altogether, and using magnesium with some other
    >> >foods and supplements instead. http://www.thincs.org/links.htm#about
    >> >
    >> >**********************MFG
    >>
    >> Do you actually fully understand
    >
    >Kauffman said, speaking of the aspirin used in the trial: "...it was actually Bufferin." Which sets
    >up the premise for his article whereby he posits it is the magnesium in the coating of the aspirin
    >used in the trial. I also believe he used the phrase "significant" regarding the outcome?
    >
    >I thought it might spur intelligent discussion of something appropos of the sci.med.cardiolgoy
    >board. Many posters talk about taking aspirin for their cardiovascular risk.
    >
    >Do I fully understand?
    >
    >I understand it well enough to to see you didn't. MFG
     
  5. Listener

    Listener Guest

    On 18 Dec 2003 22:36:17 -0800, [email protected] (mfg) wrote:

    >[email protected] (Listener) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    >> On 18 Dec 2003 16:03:15 -0800, [email protected] (mfg) wrote:
    >>
    >> >Are you like me, taking aspirin to protect your heart? This article presents the hypothesis that
    >> >buffered aspirin would be better, because it's the magnesium in the coating that's doing the
    >> >work. He also suggests dropping the aspirin altogether, and using magnesium with some other
    >> >foods and supplements instead. http://www.thincs.org/links.htm#about
    >> >
    >> >**********************MFG
    >>
    >> Do you actually fully understand
    >
    >Kauffman said, speaking of the aspirin used in the trial: "...it was actually Bufferin." Which sets
    >up the premise for his article whereby he posits it is the magnesium in the coating of the aspirin
    >used in the trial. I also believe he used the phrase "significant" regarding the outcome?

    Again, you paraphrase incorrectly. From the article: "Cogent argument has been made that the 52 mg
    of magnesium ion in a Bufferin tablet could account for the superior results in the PHG trial
    (Kauffman,
    2000)." Note the word "could". Don't you see the distinction?

    >I thought it might spur intelligent discussion of something appropos of the sci.med.cardiolgoy
    >board. Many posters talk about taking aspirin for their cardiovascular risk.
    >
    I get the impression that you really don't want that. You want us to just accept, on face value,
    what you post.

    BTW, I take aspirin daily (I'm an afibber). So I found the article very interesting.

    >Do I fully understand?

    Yes, and I'm beginning to see a pattern here. You post these articles and links and when someone
    questions them you don't respond directly to their comments, or you just post more links...I'm still
    waiting to see your reply to Jim Chinnis "cogent argument" re: Statin question.

    It's one thing to throw all these links and articles at us, it's quite another to intelligently
    discuss and evaluate them.

    >I understand it well enough to to see you didn't. MFG

    Remember when you accused me of personal attack? I guess now I'M "hitting home"....
     
  6. Mfg

    Mfg Guest

    [email protected] (Listener) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > On 18 Dec 2003 22:36:17 -0800, [email protected] (mfg) wrote:
    >
    > >[email protected] (Listener) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > >> On 18 Dec 2003 16:03:15 -0800, [email protected] (mfg) wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >Are you like me, taking aspirin to protect your heart? This article presents the hypothesis
    > >> >that buffered aspirin would be better, because it's the magnesium in the coating that's doing
    > >> >the work. He also suggests dropping the aspirin altogether, and using magnesium with some
    > >> >other foods and supplements instead. http://www.thincs.org/links.htm#about
    > >> >
    > >> >**********************MFG
    > >>
    > >> Do you actually fully understand
    > >
    > >Kauffman said, speaking of the aspirin used in the trial: "...it was actually Bufferin." Which
    > >sets up the premise for his article whereby he posits it is the magnesium in the coating of the
    > >aspirin used in the trial. I also believe he used the phrase "significant" regarding the outcome?
    >
    > Again, you paraphrase incorrectly. From the article: "Cogent argument has been made that the 52 mg
    > of magnesium ion in a Bufferin tablet could account for the superior results in the PHG trial
    > (Kauffman,
    > 2000)." Note the word "could". Don't you see the distinction?

    I didn't paraphrase incorrectly. I quoted his statement that the type of aspirin used was Bufferin.
    "...it was actually Bufferin." That is a direct quote. I then said, and here I quote myself "Which
    sets up the premise...whereby her posits..." Posits means it an hypothesis, a COULD.

    >
    > >I thought it might spur intelligent discussion of something appropos of the sci.med.cardiolgoy
    > >board. Many posters talk about taking aspirin for their cardiovascular risk.
    > >
    > I get the impression that you really don't want that. You want us to just accept, on face value,
    > what you post.

    I expected some intelligent discussion. Not just negative personal attacks.
    >
    > BTW, I take aspirin daily (I'm an afibber). So I found the article very interesting.

    I take Bufferin daily. Not for the reason he states, but to alleivate stomach discomfort. It was
    of interest to me that a man of science would make this hypothesis, and I have seen no further
    discussion of this anywhere. I hoped people here who take aspirin might have some thoughts on
    this article.

    >
    > >Do I fully understand?
    >
    > Yes, and I'm beginning to see a pattern here. You post these articles and links and when someone
    > questions them you don't respond directly to their comments, or you just post more links...I'm
    > still waiting to see your reply to Jim Chinnis "cogent argument" re: Statin question.

    I have not received any comment from a Mr. Chinnis.
    >
    > It's one thing to throw all these links and articles at us, it's quite another to intelligently
    > discuss and evaluate them.
    >
    > >I understand it well enough to to see you didn't. MFG
    >
    > Remember when you accused me of personal attack? I guess now I'M "hitting home"....

    You did not get that he was making an hypothesis that it was the magnesium in the coating of the
    Bufferin used in the study.

    All this drivel and no real intelligent discussion of the hypothesis of this man's study. You do not
    want such. You just want to agitate and bully.

    There are many here with a lot of knowledge. I invite them to share it with me regarding the
    articles I post. I am a learner.

    MFG
     
  7. Mfg

    Mfg Guest

    [email protected] (Listener) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > On 18 Dec 2003 22:36:17 -0800, [email protected] (mfg) wrote:
    >
    > >[email protected] (Listener) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > >> On 18 Dec 2003 16:03:15 -0800, [email protected] (mfg) wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >Are you like me, taking aspirin to protect your heart? This article presents the hypothesis
    > >> >that buffered aspirin would be better, because it's the magnesium in the coating that's doing
    > >> >the work. He also suggests dropping the aspirin altogether, and using magnesium with some
    > >> >other foods and supplements instead. http://www.thincs.org/links.htm#about
    > >> >
    > >> >**********************MFG
    > >>
    > >> Do you actually fully understand
    > >
    > >Kauffman said, speaking of the aspirin used in the trial: "...it was actually Bufferin." Which
    > >sets up the premise for his article whereby he posits it is the magnesium in the coating of the
    > >aspirin used in the trial. I also believe he used the phrase "significant" regarding the outcome?
    >
    > Again, you paraphrase incorrectly. From the article: "Cogent argument has been made that the 52 mg
    > of magnesium ion in a Bufferin tablet could account for the superior results in the PHG trial
    > (Kauffman,
    > 2000)." Note the word "could". Don't you see the distinction?
    >
    > >I thought it might spur intelligent discussion of something appropos of the sci.med.cardiolgoy
    > >board. Many posters talk about taking aspirin for their cardiovascular risk.
    > >
    > I get the impression that you really don't want that. You want us to just accept, on face value,
    > what you post.
    >
    > BTW, I take aspirin daily (I'm an afibber). So I found the article very interesting.
    >
    > >Do I fully understand?
    >
    > Yes, and I'm beginning to see a pattern here. You post these articles and links and when someone
    > questions them you don't respond directly to their comments, or you just post more links...I'm
    > still waiting to see your reply to Jim Chinnis "cogent argument" re: Statin question.
    >
    > It's one thing to throw all these links and articles at us, it's quite another to intelligently
    > discuss and evaluate them.
    >
    > >I understand it well enough to to see you didn't. MFG
    >
    > Remember when you accused me of personal attack? I guess now I'M "hitting home"....

    **********************

    Listener said: It's one thing to throw all these links and articles at us, it's quite another to
    intelligently discuss and evaluate them.

    You have done none of that.

    You answer my call for discussion (is that not what I did?) with snide remarks, anger, aggression,
    sarcasm. You are just a bully looking for a fight. Look somewhere else.

    You have diverted this that might have been a helpful discussion. You have diverted my
    limited energy.

    I sought to post something that the intelligent people I see here might discuss and from which I
    could learn. I have real concerns, real needs and come here as some do to find help. You not only
    don't offer any you jump right up, first post, and bash. There are so many other discussions on this
    board that your style would fit into. Go there.

    I see this pattern in all your posts: you attack people, agitate, name call, bully and abuse. You
    offer nothing positive. I have offered an article. It is meant as invitation to discussion. You say,
    do I fully understand the articles I post here: No. Of course not. That's why I post them here. For
    intelligent discussion and learning. I thought that was the purpose of this board! Do you mean I am
    ony allowed to post here if I understand it fully, wait for someone to say something that disagrees
    with my understanding and then put them down with my greater scientific knowledge? But you haven't
    even done that. You just jump on one word I missed, or one posting protocol I misunderstand. What
    the hell is the matter with you?

    I would like to point out that statin induced aggression is one of the side effects that Beatrice
    Golomb is studying.

    I will not respond to your posts anymore because there is no purpose to them. They are only abusive.

    www.pubmed.org

    STATINS AND NON CARDIAC ENDPOINTS Authors:

    GOLOMB BA

    Author Address: UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO, 9500 GILMAN DRIVE, LA JOLLA, CA 92093-0995

    Source: Crisp Data Base National Institutes of Health

    Abstract:

    DESCRIPTION (adapted from investigator's abstract): A relation of lowered cholesterol to increased
    aggressive behaviors (including suicide) and impaired cognition has been variably demonstrated and
    remains to be established or excluded with confidence. HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors ("statins") are
    the most widely used agents and their effects are of special interest. Purpose: To examine the
    effect of statins on aggressive responding, cognition, and serotonin in individuals with moderate
    LDL and no identified cardiovascular disease
    (CVD). Hypothesis: Statin therapy will INCREASE AGGRESSIVE RESPONDING on the PSAP (Point Subtraction
    Aggression paradigm, a standardized AGGRESSION measure that correlates with both VIOLENT
    BEHAVIOR and serotonin); will reduce measures of cognition (including psychomotor speed and
    attention); and will change serotonin (gauged by whole blood serotonin), which may be a
    mediator of effects on behavior and perhaps cognition. Secondarily, it is hypothesized that
    simvastatin (lipophilic) will exert more potent effects on cognition (and perhaps aggression)
    than pravastatin (hydrophilic); that serotonin (5HT) changes will related to changes in
    aggressive responding and perhaps cognition; and that a "susceptible subset" may be defined by
    baseline characteristics including biochemistry, mood, personality, and extremes of
    cardiovascular reactivity.

    Keywords:

    serotonin

    hydropathy

    blood chemistry

    antihypercholesterolemic agent

    clinical trial

    drug adverse effect

    oxidoreductase inhibitor

    human subject

    HMG coA reductase

    aggression

    cognition

    psychomotor function

    human therapy evaluation

    violence

    clinical research

    behavioral /social science research tag

    Language: English

    Publication Types:

    Research

    Supporting Agency: U.S. DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; NATIONAL
    INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE

    Country or State: CALIFORNIA

    Entry Month: August, 2001

    Zip Code: 92093-0995

    Year of Publication: 2000

    Secondary Source ID: CRISP/2000/HL63055-02

    Award Type: G
     
  8. listener

    listener Guest

    On 19 Dec 2003 12:00:49 -0800, [email protected] (mfg) wrote:
    >
    >I will not respond to your posts anymore because there is no purpose to them. They are
    >only abusive.
    >

    I'm sorry you preceive me as bullying. Perhaps it's because you don't like it when others
    contradict or question you. Your posts tend to be one-sided with distorted commentary. Maybe that's
    a side-effect of Statins! :) That's all I was responding to and I think I handled it with
    intelligence and maturity.

    Guess it got just a bit too hot for you in the kitchen. Oh, well.

    BTW, here is the response I was alluding to:

    [email protected] (mfg) wrote in part:

    >Dr. Wright, just prior to the publication of Therapeutics Initiative Letter #48 on statins, sent a
    > warning letter to all physicians in British Columbia about statin side effects, and how little
    > understood they were. He was warning the doctors to look closely at prescribing, because his
    > group had found no reason to prescribe statins for prevention of cardiovascular disease.

    In looking over the "meta-analysis" provided in letter #48, it appears that a more careful pooling
    of the study results would show significant benefits from statins in primary prevention, even over
    the very short time periods of treatment.

    A quantitative analysis, such as a Bayesian one, would be very time-consuming, but a few things leap
    out at me:

    The Relative Risk result for primary prevention (MI and stroke) in the three studies described in
    detail (in the order they are described) are: 0.94 (100% primary prevention), 0.91 (86% PP), 0.82
    (82% PP). The authors state that when two other previous trials are included, the RR obtained from
    the pooled data is 0.84 [0.78-0.90 0.05 confidence interval]. That represents a 16% reduction in MI
    and stroke after treatment for only 2-5 years in a mainly primary prevention population.

    After demonstrating this remarkable, positive result, the authors examine the data concerning
    mortality. To show such benefits would require a long period of treatment and observation--not the
    3-5 years of the studies available. Even so, the result they calculate is an all-cause mortality
    relative risk of 0.95 [.88-1.02]. The 5% reduction in deaths with 2-5 years of treatment is not
    (quite) statistically significant at 0.05.

    My own analysis would lead me to conclude that the meta-analysis of the five studies strongly
    supports the benefit of statins in primary prevention.
    --
    Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
     
  9. Once upon a time, our fellow mfg rambled on about "Re: Magnesium in Buffered Aspirin protects
    heart." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

    >Listener said: It's one thing to throw all these links and articles at us, it's quite another to
    >intelligently discuss and evaluate them.

    So, you have noticed!

    Science geeks are unable to intelligently discuss anything. Synthesizing on science ngs is a
    strictly prohibited activity.

    Making a decision, for a Geek, gets them banned from their Medical Scientism local.

    Didn't you know that?
    --
    John Gohde,
    Feeling Great and Better than Ever!

    Natural health is an eclectic self-care system of natural therapies
    that builds and restores health by working with the natural
    recuperative powers of the human body.
    http://tutorials.naturalhealthperspective.com/definition.html
     
  10. listener

    listener Guest

    On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:48:57 GMT, John 'the Man' <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >Once upon a time, our fellow mfg rambled on about "Re: Magnesium in Buffered Aspirin protects
    >heart." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
    >
    >>Listener said: It's one thing to throw all these links and articles at us, it's quite another to
    >>intelligently discuss and evaluate them.
    >
    >So, you have noticed!
    >
    >Science geeks are unable to intelligently discuss anything. Synthesizing on science ngs is a
    >strictly prohibited activity.
    >
    >Making a decision, for a Geek, gets them banned from their Medical Scientism local.
    >
    >Didn't you know that?

    I don't think mfg is a science geek. As far as I can tell this is a person who has experienced side
    effects from taking a statin (or at least thinks it was statin-induced) and is now on a crusade
    against the medical community at large - or at least that part of the medical community that
    purports to find anything positive in statin use.

    It's sort of understandable, in that context.
     
  11. Once upon a time, our fellow [email protected] rambled on about "Re: Magnesium in Buffered Aspirin
    protects heart." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

    >As far as I can tell this is a person who has experienced side effects from taking a statin (or at
    >least thinks it was statin-induced) and is now on a crusade against the medical community at large

    You mean that Twit didn't know that conventional medicine can kill?

    Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
    --
    John Gohde,
    Feeling Great and Better than Ever!

    Natural health is an eclectic self-care system of natural therapies
    that builds and restores health by working with the natural
    recuperative powers of the human body.
    http://tutorials.naturalhealthperspective.com/definition.html
     
  12. listener

    listener Guest

    On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:04:03 GMT, John 'the Man' <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >Once upon a time, our fellow [email protected] rambled on about "Re: Magnesium in Buffered
    >Aspirin protects heart." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
    >
    >>As far as I can tell this is a person who has experienced side effects from taking a statin (or at
    >>least thinks it was statin-induced) and is now on a crusade against the medical community at large
    >
    >You mean that Twit didn't know that conventional medicine can kill?
    >
    >Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

    Uh, oh......
     
  13. ReadOnly

    ReadOnly Guest

    On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:50:44 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

    >I don't think mfg is a science geek. As far as I can tell this is a person who has experienced side
    >effects from taking a statin (or at least thinks it was statin-induced) and is now on a crusade
    >against the medical community at large - or at least that part of the medical community that
    >purports to find anything positive in statin use.

    I really appreciate the information mfg posts. There is an increasing awareness of the influence of
    big money on medical research. I have seen first-hand how corporate sponsored "research" can be
    distorted. The more this becomes public, the better off we all will be.

    As with Enron, it is VERY difficult to get accurate information as to what is really going on. There
    will always be secrecy and an alternate plausible explanation that sounds good. That's the nature of
    shady deals. <g>

    Thanks, mfg. Keep it coming. Matt
     
  14. "John 'the Man'" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Once upon a time, our fellow mfg rambled on about "Re: Magnesium in Buffered Aspirin protects
    > heart." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
    >
    > >Listener said: It's one thing to throw all these links and articles at us, it's quite another to
    > >intelligently discuss and evaluate them.
    >
    > So, you have noticed!
    >
    > Science geeks are unable to intelligently discuss anything. Synthesizing on science ngs is a
    > strictly prohibited activity.

    And Johnny Gohde follows his rule; albeit, he occassional slips and makes some sense.

    >
    > Making a decision, for a Geek, gets them banned from their Medical Scientism local.

    Unfortunately that is all to accurate.

    >
    > Didn't you know that?
    > --
    > John Gohde, Feeling Great and Better than Ever!
     
  15. Larry Curcio

    Larry Curcio Guest

    The article said that deaths were not reduced significantly. In StatSpeak, that means the 4%
    reduction may well have occurred at random, and cannot be attributed to the treatment.

    If you are one of the 4%, therefore, it's sufficient to kiss your rabbit's foot.

    -Larry Curcio

    "Listener" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > On 18 Dec 2003 16:03:15 -0800, [email protected] (mfg) wrote:
    > >
    > I'm not a statistician and can honestly say I get a bit lost in the numbers, but certain things do
    > jump out. Like "While the incidence of acute MI in the "aspirin" group was reduced by 69%, which
    > was significant, total deaths were reduced by 4% (RR = 0.96); and neither this nor total
    > cardiovascular deaths nor total stroke were reduced significantly."
    >
    > Yes, but if you happened to be one of the people in the 4% whose death was averted you would
    > probably feel that taking aspirin WAS significant, wouldn't you?
     
  16. Mfg

    Mfg Guest

    "Larry Curcio" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > The article said that deaths were not reduced significantly. In StatSpeak, that means the 4%
    > reduction may well have occurred at random, and cannot be attributed to the treatment.
    >
    > If you are one of the 4%, therefore, it's sufficient to kiss your rabbit's foot.
    >
    > -Larry Curcio
    >
    >
    >
    > "Listener" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > On 18 Dec 2003 16:03:15 -0800, [email protected] (mfg) wrote:
    > > >
    > > I'm not a statistician and can honestly say I get a bit lost in the numbers, but certain things
    > > do jump out. Like "While the incidence of acute MI in the "aspirin" group was reduced by 69%,
    > > which was significant, total deaths were reduced by 4% (RR = 0.96); and neither this nor total
    > > cardiovascular deaths nor total stroke were reduced significantly."
    > >
    > > Yes, but if you happened to be one of the people in the 4% whose death was averted you would
    > > probably feel that taking aspirin WAS significant, wouldn't you?

    Four per cent for the aspirin is still significantly higher (Bufferin, with the active ingredient in
    context being magnesium?) than all cause mortality reduction from STATINS.

    MFG
     
Loading...