InvestorsHub Logo

rosemountbomber

05/17/21 2:05 PM

#340037 RE: Bill B #340035

DHA f’s it up and Nissen is a tool and a moron.

bidmark

05/17/21 2:10 PM

#340038 RE: Bill B #340035

People like you!

Monk44

05/17/21 2:24 PM

#340043 RE: Bill B #340035

Last sentence from this piece-

"A key limitation of the study is that it is a post-hoc analysis"

From Wiki-
"In a scientific study, post hoc analysis (from Latin post hoc, "after this") consists of statistical analyses that were specified after the data were seen. This typically creates a multiple testing problem because each potential analysis is effectively a statistical test.Multiple testing procedures are sometimes used to compensate, but that is often difficult or impossible to do precisely."

Nissen is a wack job.

CaptBeer

05/17/21 2:38 PM

#340047 RE: Bill B #340035

It's not just EPA levels, it's how you get there. All tertiles of TG levels in REDUCE-IT showed consistent RRR in MACE. In the highest tertiles in STRENGTH (which BTW were way below what was achieved in REDUCE-IT), showed no benefit. WHY?

1. DHA blunted the normally positive effects of EPA

2. Perhaps there were issues with the packaging and preparation of the active ingredients that caused oxidation and contamination.

ralphey

05/17/21 2:54 PM

#340050 RE: Bill B #340035

He says that the highest EPA had no benefit and the highest DHA had no detriment


what he doesnt say and I suspect is the case but have not reviewed the data

is that the highest EPA had the highest DHA therefore neutral and the highest DHA had the highest EPA therefore neutral