Monthly Archives: January 2008

Medical lay suspicion

Here’s an interesting story:

He found no benefit in people over the age of 65, no matter how much their cholesterol declines, and no benefit in women of any age. He did see a small reduction in the number of heart attacks for middle-aged men taking statins in clinical trials. But even for these men, there was no overall reduction in total deaths or illnesses requiring hospitalization—despite big reductions in “bad” cholesterol.

When I hear a drug doesn’t work that well, I usually assume it doesn’t do what it is supposed to.  But that is not the case for Statin.  The issue is the theory itself: what the drug does successfully isn’t really as significant as has been assumed.

Back in the 90’s I heard a contrarian doctor compare the current views of cholestoral to doing a study that discovered that tall people had longer pant legs and then suggesting they could be made shorter by cutting three inches off the bottom of their pants.

hat tip

Was he accountable or not?

If this report is remotely true (and it may not be), I think the hospital is going to lose their case. I am sympathetic to the plight of doctors in worrying about lawsuits and resorting to “defensive medicine.” But you can’t claim the right to make someone’s medical decisions for him (“You need a rectal exam and aren’t competent to understand.”) and also charge him with assault, (“You should not have hit us and must be held accountable.”) It is one or the other.

Sound bitter?

Writers always need to beware of revealing more about their private lives and thoughts while thinking they are revealing something about a public issue.  A case in point:

Here’s some advice for married men who will turn 62 this year: If you want to make up for all the times you came home with beer on your breath, left your socks on the bathroom floor or gave your wife a DustBuster for Valentine’s Day, hold off on filing for your Social Security benefits.

hat tip

(On the other hand, people don’t read boring columns.  So maybe the writer is just being savvy.)

The Dems want to continue the Iraq war but pretend that they are different than the Republicans

And the anti-war groups, being leftist first, and anti-war second, are going to give them cover.

I’m not commenting on the ethics of the war here. I’m just stating the obvious. The Dems can still continue and expand our interventions without those “agreements” that Bush wants to make with the Iraqis. So the difference may well be meaningless. But this allows the Democratic candidate to continue self-righteous posturing over against the Republicans.