Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Anybody have ready comparison numbers for "modern miracles" like statins and ACE inhibitors? Because 24% reduction in mortality is, in medicine, a staggering number when you're looking at something as prevalent as heart disease (roughly 50% of people will die of an heart attack).

Edit, here's some starters:

ACE inhibitors: 5% (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23750680)

Statins: no benefit (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...)

Aspirin: might actually be bad for you (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1803955)

Well, to start, you can't compare an intervention (starting an ACE inhibitor treatment) to an existent factor (they already own a dog). If you're going to compare apples to apples, you've got to compare starting an ACE inhibitor treatment to starting to own a dog.

It may sound farfetched, but there's nothing in the OP that indicates the direction of causality to me, so it's possible that lower cardiovascular risk causes people to go out and get dogs, or that there's some root cause which causes people to both have lower cardiovascular risk and higher chance of owning a dog.

Only a matter of time until the U.S. government classifies dogs as a "Schedule I Substance" and these positive health-related research statistics begin to disappear.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact