Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sriram on March 18, 2019, 05:34:03 AM
-
Hi everyone,
Here is the latest on aspirin and heart disease. Aspirin doesn't help...!
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/17/health/aspirin-heart-disease-guidelines/index.html
If these guys keep changing their stand so often...it becomes problematic.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
This is a topic of particular interest to me at the moment! I'll have a look at the article later.
A soluble aspirin has been added to my pill intake since December in order to help thin the blood. The aspirin does not help prevent or cure heart disease as far as I know, but if it helps thin the blood to enable it to pass through the smallest capillaries, then I am very happy to take one a day.
-
Sririam you are misrepresenting the article. It clearly says that for people with some pre-existing heart conditions aspirin does help. As in this quote from the article:
However, for anyone who has had a stroke, heart attack, open-heart surgery or stents inserted to open clogged arteries, aspirin can be life-saving.
I love the sound of axe grinding this early in the morning.
So aspirin does help in some circumstances.
-
If these guys keep changing their stand so often...it becomes problematic.
The reason why science is successful is because, when the evidence says so, scientists are collectively prepared to admit they were wrong. This is why we aren't stuck with the geocentric model of the Universe, or phlogiston or caloric or the luminiferous aether.
It only becomes problematic the minute science stops changing its stand in response to evidence.
-
The reason why science is successful is because, when the evidence says so, scientists are collectively prepared to admit they were wrong. This is why we aren't stuck with the geocentric model of the Universe, or phlogiston or caloric or the luminiferous aether.
It only becomes problematic the minute science stops changing its stand in response to evidence.
I agree that all scientific findings are tentative. The problem is the authority that science tends to have.
It doesn't matter in such things as the Big Bang or sub atomic models. But if it is to do with health, diet, medication and such things, it does matter if science....in spite of all the years of clinical trials and so on....is wrong. And so often too! Every other day we see some reversal or withdrawal of earlier findings/conclusions.
It only shows that all the studies, trials and research are not as conclusive or fool proof as people like to think. We seem to be incapable of seeing the long term effects of most things (ecological disasters and climate change being major examples).
Industry and its part in sponsoring or directing research is also a matter of concern.
-
I think aspirin is helpful where heart disease is concerned, and if one is prescribed it, take it, unless you are allergic to the drug as unfortunately my husband and I appear to be. :o
The people who do the damage are people like Sriram who take more note of dodgy claims. That was particularly the case where the anti-vac brigade were concerned! >:(
-
I think aspirin is helpful where heart disease is concerned, ...
Why do you think that?
-
Why do you think that?
Because I know a number of people who have been prescribed it and it appears to have been helpful for them, they are still alive.
-
I agree that all scientific findings are tentative. The problem is the authority that science tends to have.
It doesn't matter in such things as the Big Bang or sub atomic models. But if it is to do with health, diet, medication and such things, it does matter if science....in spite of all the years of clinical trials and so on....is wrong. And so often too! Every other day we see some reversal or withdrawal of earlier findings/conclusions.
It only shows that all the studies, trials and research are not as conclusive or fool proof as people like to think. We seem to be incapable of seeing the long term effects of most things (ecological disasters and climate change being major examples).
Industry and its part in sponsoring or directing research is also a matter of concern.
All those things are of course problems.
So is misrepresentation.
-
I agree that all scientific findings are tentative. The problem is the authority that science tends to have.
It doesn't matter in such things as the Big Bang or sub atomic models. But if it is to do with health, diet, medication and such things, it does matter if science....in spite of all the years of clinical trials and so on....is wrong. And so often too! Every other day we see some reversal or withdrawal of earlier findings/conclusions.
It only shows that all the studies, trials and research are not as conclusive or fool proof as people like to think. We seem to be incapable of seeing the long term effects of most things (ecological disasters and climate change being major examples).
Industry and its part in sponsoring or directing research is also a matter of concern.
What would you prefer scientists to do? Go on pretending that such and such a result is correct or admit their mistakes and back track?
Whatever you say about science, and it does have shortcomings with respect to clinical trials, it has been remarkably successful at freeing us from disease.
-
Science is a "best effort" endeavour. What alternative is there?
-
What would you prefer scientists to do? Go on pretending that such and such a result is correct or admit their mistakes and back track?
Whatever you say about science, and it does have shortcomings with respect to clinical trials, it has been remarkably successful at freeing us from disease.
No. Scientists can't do much more than what they are doing, I agree.
Its a matter of trust.
Aspirin, cholesterol, statins, saturated fats and many more areas where science in spite of years of clinical trials and research has been found to be wholly or partly wrong. People have been taking aspirin in spite of stomach problems, thinking that it helps in preventing heart disease. Now it is not so.
Every such 'mistake' reduces trust and makes every future medical recommendation that much more doubtful.
-
No. Scientists can't do much more than what they are doing, I agree.
Its a matter of trust.
Who would you rather trust: somebody who admits their mistakes when they are discovered or somebody who denies it is a mistake?
Aspirin, cholesterol, statins, saturated fats and many more areas where science in spite of years of clinical trials and research has been found to be wholly or partly wrong. People have been taking aspirin in spite of stomach problems, thinking that it helps in preventing heart disease. Now it is not so.
We've already established that you are misrepresenting the report in your first post.
-
From the above link....
"Three recent studies found that taking a daily low-dose aspirin is, at best, a waste of money for healthy older adults. At worst, it may raise their risk of internal bleeding and early death."
Which part of that don't you understand?
-
From the above link....
"Three recent studies found that taking a daily low-dose aspirin is, at best, a waste of money for healthy older adults. At worst, it may raise their risk of internal bleeding and early death."
Which part of that don't you understand?
And, from the above link:
"However, for anyone who has had a stroke, heart attack, open-heart surgery or stents inserted to open clogged arteries, aspirin can be life-saving."
Sriram, your source is not authoritative. It is a news item from a site run by CNN, an American television network. It reports selected findings from documents originating from authoritative sources. What ... to make its story ... has it left out? My suspicion is that what you appear to see as clearly black and white in reality is rather grey.
-
And, from the above link:
"However, for anyone who has had a stroke, heart attack, open-heart surgery or stents inserted to open clogged arteries, aspirin can be life-saving."
Sriram, your source is not authoritative. It is a news item from a site run by CNN, an American television network. It reports selected findings from documents originating from authoritative sources. What ... to make its story ... has it left out? My suspicion is that what you appear to see as clearly black and white in reality is rather grey.
Yes... I agree that aspirin could be useful for people with heart disease & surgery. But what is the difficulty is accepting the fact that aspirin is not useful in preventing heart disease as earlier thought and that millions of people have been taking aspirin and probably suffering other consequences with no benefit whatsoever!?!? That is what the article says!!
And blaming the media in such matters is naive.
-
I'll go by the NHS Guidelines which doesn't suggest that healthy individuals should be taking aspirin. As far as I know this advice has been available a lot longer than the article you refer to.
https://www.nhs.uk/medicines/low-dose-aspirin/
-
Yes... I agree that aspirin could be useful for people with heart disease & surgery. But what is the difficulty is accepting the fact that aspirin is not useful in preventing heart disease as earlier thought and that millions of people have been taking aspirin and probably suffering other consequences with no benefit whatsoever!?!? That is what the article says!!
And blaming the media in such matters is naive.
And where do I blame the media? All I am saying is that the media has different objectives from scientific journals.
For the record, I have been taking low-dose aspirin - on prescription - for many years with no negative consequences.
-
Industry and its part in sponsoring or directing research is also a matter of concern.
Yes, I work for a pharma company, we do lots of research, the end products of which help people. But our portfolio of products is derived from the profit motive, rather than clinical need - we only invest R&D dollars in areas where we think we can make a good return on that investment. Clearly we need to do that, the alternative would end in bankruptcy. So we end up with a portfolio of products that address many trivial conditions whereas more serious but unprofitable conditions lack corresponding therapies. We get the politicians we deserve, so they say, and likewise, we get the drugs we deserve.
-
Yes... exactly! Not only are the less important drugs being sponsored, but they could even be lax about the outcomes because of time or money constraints.
The long term outcomes are rarely understood properly.
Many people now take most research findings with a pinch of salt. You never know when it will be reversed.