Magnesium in Buffered Aspirin protects heart



M

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
 
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.
 
[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
 
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
 
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"....
 
[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
 
[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
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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......
 
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
 
"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!
 
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?
 
"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