Originally Posted by SSP

Sounds like a reasonable risk-reward ratio to me...I'd rather take something that reduced my chances of a heart attack by 2.2% than play the odds that I'm going to be one of the 97.8% who wouldn't benefit. My father died from a heart attack at age 47, so I'm rather cautious when it comes to cardiac risk factors.

BTW - something the slate article doesn't address is the cost-benefit ratio. Treating 100 people to prevent 2 heart attacks is likely to be a very good deal if you compare the costs of the drug treatments to the medical costs involved with treating a heart attack.