Having had a nice luxury stay in a single room @ Scripps Memorial last weekend to get an angiiogram (all is good, but I have some work to do), I've been doing a lot of homework about cardiovascular health.

Two of my newfound takeaways are genetics play a huge role, and certain statins are beneficial no matter the cholesterol levels as they fix the calcium to the plaque on the walls of the arteries reducing the likelihood of a stroke.

This books expands and further explains what the cardio docs explained to me.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0316705551...heart%20helath

https://mortality.org/Home/Index

Register, then go to each of the countries, look for the life tables, decide if you want both sexes combined or each sex separately. You want the 1x1 tables. The column you want is ex, the row you want is for age 40. Repeat that for each year and all those countries.

There's an R package (if you know R) that will help in the extraction: HMDHFDplus.

In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue...

This statement is not logical. No, it represents the consensus at a given point in time. That's all. It does NOT NECESSARILY represent the "best" knowledge if we assume "best" means closest to the truth. A non-consensus theory may actually be the "best" knowledge at a given time. The statement may sound good to you but it is nonsense.

I know a couple like this too. They are basically paranoid about mainstream science, but paradoxically appear to trust the alternative scene without question.

I think it would be logical to presume that a current scientific consensus among the most qualified professionals in their field is more likely to be closer to the truth than any single controversial theory. Especially whenever you are weighing it up as an unqualified layman in the subject.

I think it would take a very highly qualified, experienced professional in the relevant field of study to back a non-consensus theory with any degree of confidence. Or just someone who liked the sound of it and was very easily persuaded.

The "best" knowledge may come from someone who hasn't even studied the relevant discipline. But it's highly unlikely.

Science progresses, and today's consensus on anything will likely change. But what good is that future consensus to you, when you have to make decisions today?

I suggest that relying on consensus is not always the best bet, but it's the safer bet.

The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong but that's the way to bet.

You'll pardon me if I laugh up my sleeve at the phrase, "Do your own research", because so often it is used by people who think "doing their own research" means finding a YouTube video with someone who sounds credible telling them what they want to hear. Doing your own research properly involves being able to read and evaluate the primary sources and their data, and whether they designed their studies in such a way that they're meaningful, and whether the conclusions they reach are justified by the data they show. It's a skill that can be learned, and not enough people learn it.

It's also not about kneejerk rejection against what "the scientific establishment believes". You got better data? Show them. You DON'T have better data? Well then, that's a lovely handwaving dance.

“But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”
― Carl Sagan

I'm 77, physically fit, not overweight. My high blood pressure is well controlled with drugs. Normal cholesterol levels. I cycle, hike, walk, ski (both cross country and downhill) eat right and don't drink a lot. Last November I had a stress test that resulted in an angioplasty: 99% blockage in my left anterior descending artery and some blockage of less than 60% in two other spots. I received a stent as well as a prescription for atorvastatin to get my LDL down below 70. Currently it's 18 as a result. I came very close to a heart attack, so I'm not arguing with the cardiologist about prescriptions. He said that keeping my LDL low would benefit me. I believe him. But what is the difficulty with statins? Are there serious adverse side effects? I see that some posters say they can't take statins. Why not? I'm lucky to be alive and have no qualms in following advice from the cardiologist.

The internet can be your friend. Choose your sources carefully, though. I figure the Mayo Clinic is probably reliable There are side effects, some very serious, but relatively rare.

My sister was put on Lipitor a couple years ago and suffered rapid, severe muscle wasting that left her weak and skeletal-looking for the months it took to recover. A rare side effect to be sure, but potentially a fatal one.