- Uffe Ravnskov, independent researcher (uffe.ravnskov@swipnet.se)
- Magle Stora Kyrkogata 9, S-22350, Lund, Sweden
EDITOR—Mann et al and Hu et al list several shortcomings in the trials reviewed by Hooper et al that explain why dietary treatments for patients with coronary heart disease were ineffective.1–3 Inferior studies with negative results are prevalent, but where is the positive evidence that justifies the dietary recommendations?
Mann et al point to the improved outcome in the subgroup analysis of the five prolonged trials. But in that analysis Hooper et al excluded the Sydney diet-heart study, where total mortality was significantly increased, …
Sign in
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
The word parameter is almost always wrong.
Published 25 May 2012
Re: Television shows and education about sexually transmitted infections: no laughing matter
Published 25 May 2012
Re: David Morrell
Published 25 May 2012
Re: Time to end the distinction between mental and neurological illnesses
Published 25 May 2012
Re: Are we nearly there with tranexamic acid?
Published 25 May 2012
Most responses
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (12 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (8 responses)
Published 2 May 2012
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27