Yes, exactly right. Because they don’t work that well in this interventionist mode when they are prescribed to already treated patients.
The study you shared talks about primary and secondary prevention in a clinical setting. So this is for people who either have heart disease or are likely going to develop it. At that point, it seems like it is already too late and I would say primordial prevention[0] is better. When I say prevention, I speak as not a medical professional, and I mean it in the common sense of the word, which aligns with primordial prevention.
There seems to be extensive research that they work well if prescribed preventatively decades in advance, and it’s covered in a few recently popular books by doctors on the topic of lifespan vs. healthspan. For example, Outlive: The Science and Art of Longevity by L. Attia.
Moreover, the study you quoted shows a 9-29% relative reductions of the outcomes. About 1% is absolute. For the entire population, 1.3% fewer will die from a myocardial infarction. But it is a 29% reduction in the sub-population that would die from it. And those are fantastic results with only primary and secondary prevention. Unless I misunderstand something.
The study you provided is relevant and valuable for critical reading of such books as the aforementioned. Thank you.
