Another new study
by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick [1]
DrMalcolmKendrick.org [1]
Excerpts:
Question: If a tree falls in the forest, and there’s nobody around to hear, does it make a sound?
This is a philosophical question that has been around for some time. I shall change it slightly to the following: “If a journal publishes a study, and it doesn’t make a noise, can it make a difference?”
A couple of weeks ago the Lancet published a ridiculous study with the snappy title:
‘Application of non-HDL cholesterol for population-based cardiovascular risk stratification: results from the Multinational Cardiovascular Risk Consortium.’
Which created headlines around the world – most of which failed to understand the difference between LDL (‘bad’ cholesterol) and non-HDL cholesterol. Which may, or may not, have been deliberately done.
This study was reported as saying that twenty-five-year olds should get their cholesterol checked, because raised cholesterol is far more damaging, at a young age, than previously thought. All based on, pretty much nothing at all. I critiqued it in my last blog [2]. It was, to use a word I rather like … bilge!
Then another study came out last week to which I was pointed by a reader of this blog… thanks. It had the even snappier title:
‘Association between hyperlipidaemia and mortality after incident acute myocardial infarction or acute decompensated heart failure: a propensity score matched cohort study and a meta-analysis.’ 1
You know that title really does not scream ‘READ ME!’ What is it about medical journals, and medical writing, which demands all enthusiasm and interest is sucked out, leaving only the driest, of dry, husks. I call it mummified prose.
What I first noticed was that it did not appear to make any headlines, anywhere, at all. Of course, making enough noise to be heard, in today’s jittery, overloaded information world, takes a lot of money and effort. Which is why the Lancet study got blanket coverage. Someone, somewhere, will have been paid a lot of money to ensure that it happened.
The money was paid because there are people who stand to make billions and billions from increased cholesterol testing, including younger people, and suggesting that “raised” cholesterol must be ‘treated’ from an ever-younger age. Perhaps you would like to guess who those people may be.
On the other hand, the study ‘Association between hyperlipidaemia and mortality after incident acute myocardial infarction or acute decompensated heart failure: a propensity score matched cohort study and a meta-analysis.’ could result in the loss of billions and billions.
Because what they found, was that, after an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and in people with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) – normally caused by a previous MI – the higher the LDL level, the lower the overall mortality. They called a higher LDL level hyperlipidaemia (HLP), but it was a high LDL a.k.a. ‘bad’ cholesterol.
The ‘association’ of which they spoke, is in the exact opposite direction to that in the Lancet study. Just to repeat their main finding. Those with higher LDL levels lived the longest. Full stop, exclamation mark.
Of course, the comment is couched in such diplomatic language that I am not absolutely sure what is meant by it, although I am pretty sure.
On that basis, I shall wind up the emotion of the language somewhat. ‘These poor people, who are dreadfully ill, who have suffered the agony of a heart attack, or severe heart failure, fare so much better when they have a high LDL level. So, for pity’s sake, I beseech thee in the name of God, do not try to lower their LDL level you mad fools. Aaaaaarrrrrrrrggggghhhhh! Gasp, bonk.’
Maybe a touch too emotive? Oh well – after reading too many clinical papers, the temptation to shout become irresistible. Creeping around in the grey and lifeless world of the passive voice is not really my style. Science should not be a place of hushed diplomacy. Science should be lively and stimulating, nay argumentative. If you’ve got something to say, shout it out. Fight for it and debate it properly.
Anyway, my original question was the following. ‘If a journal publishes a study, and it doesn’t make a noise, can it make a difference?’ The answer is, almost certainly, no. Hopefully, however, I have now made a bit of noise, and maybe this study can make a bit of difference.
1: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/9/12/e028638.full.pdf [3]
[4]Dr Malcolm Kendrick – a GP in Lancashire – is the UK’s most determined and informed critic of statins – The Great Cholesterol Con – as well as other medical obsessions such as health checks and mammograms. He campaigns for a more balanced approach to health at drmalcolmkendrick.org [5]The Great Cholesterol Con
The Truth About What Really Causes Heart Disease and How to Avoid It
by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick
[6]
More Info [6]
See Also: