Talk:American Heart Association

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Stub	This page has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality assessment scale
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance assessment scale

[edit] Dubious statements

The summary of the AHA's "recommendations" is misleading. They advocate limits on dietary cholesterol and saturated fat, not a diet "high in carbohydrates" (unless perhaps you have a source somewhere?) Also, the summary of their position on lipid-lowering therapy is completely misleading. I've tagged it to request sources - if none are forthcoming, I'll remove it. The AHA's recommendations can of course be summarized if properly sourced. MastCell ^Talk 02:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

I restored the section on "Controversy" and included (as MastCell recommended) both statements of statin benefit as well as the negative. There are nine sources referenced. The thrust of the section, however, starts with criticism of the AHA for their apparent stand against supplements for many years, but does include the fact that they favor statins, which must be avoided by many people (e.g. those who have severe kidney problems, have liver disease, are pregnant or have given birth recently, are breastfeeding, or simply want to avoid statin side effects of kidney disease and pancreatitis). Gekritzl 23:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Still needs work for balance and undue weight. The AHA advocates the use of statins, which are proven to lower the risk of heart attacks in high-risk individuals with a reasonable side effect profile. Statin-induced pancreatitis, kidney disease, or liver disease are quite rare. The AHA does not advocate the use of vitamins, which have never been proven to lower the risk of heart disease. This is an evidence-based stance, but your paragraph makes it out to be something sinister and makes statins sound like poison, both of which are inaccurate and non-neutral. MastCell ^Talk 23:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. It's hard to retain NPOV on something that has some negative effects that should be noted. I would be happy for you to attempt to tone it more toward NPOV. Thanks again. Gekritzl 23:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

First, I'd like to see a citation to where the AHA actually "pushes" statins (i.e. recommends them more aggressively than other major medical organizations). My take, from their website, is that they recommend being aware of cholesterol as one of many risk factors and dealing with it in a variety of ways, including diet, exercise, and statins if necessary. Also I'd like to see where they "suppress" vitamins. These are not major positions of the AHA, and I'd prefer that this article not be diverted to become a platform for pushing the fringe views of the Life Extension Foundation or other minoritarian anti-statin, pro-supplement organizations. MastCell ^Talk 03:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick comment from an anonymous surfer who happened upon this Wiki article on the AHA: I see that "Newstarget" is referenced and externally linked. Follow the link and read the commentary. The person who wrote the commentary uses himself as a "one data-point study" to support his point of view. This is considered a credible argument?