Skip to content
Latest Data From The NIH/CDC
avatar
iride6606 posted:
Below is the latest data from the NIH showing the rate of deaths from heart disease through 2010. You will notice a modest drop beginning in the 1970s which is consistent with the drop in the number of men and women with high risk cholesterol levels during the period. After that you will see another increase which I'm guessing is due to a deterioration of our collective lifestyles including an increase in the amount of fast food consumed during this time as pointed out on a previous graph posted here. What I find interesting is the sharp decline in all lines of the graph starting around the year 200 and continuing today. Some have said it has been a steady decline which as we can see from the latest data is not correct, there is a dramatic drop after the year 2000. When were the most prescriptions for statins written? Between the year 2000 and 2010. I pulled this data today, I find it very telling.

[a name="gr6">
Reply
 
avatar
bobby75703 responded:
There are different graphs. This graph is deaths in thousands. It does not take into account the population, which is why I prefer to use death rates per 100,000 population.

When we look at the death RATE per 100,000 people, we show a steady decline since 1968.

Death RATE is the gold standard for comparing heart disease within different populations.
 
avatar
bobby75703 replied to bobby75703's response:
 
avatar
bobby75703 replied to bobby75703's response:
Now we are on correct graph which displays death rate per 100,000 population.
 
avatar
iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
Sorry, this is the DEATH RATE data, not the rate of heart disease only,it really doesn't matter if you look at it as a total deaths relationship or in terms of per 100,000. Statistically, my first chart is the standard in the research world. The problem with your graph is that is is old. I assumed you were showing current data, you're not. I googled your chart and you've been using it for years, it is outdated. It ends in 2007 which means it is as of 2009. If you would prefer, here it is based on deaths, per 100,000, either way it shows the same sharp decline starting in 2000 which is when statin prescriptions peaked, not the constant gradual decline the outdated info shows in your older graph;

[a name="gr7">
 
avatar
bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
Bingo! That's better.

The NIH graph I posted on heart disease is only missing the last three years from 2007-2010. This does not make the rest of history from 1900- 2007 obsolete.


The graph you posted above this reply is one I use as well, with the only difference being the tail end of the last 3 years. Again that doesn't makepreceding years obsolete. Its a great graph because it breaks down the stats into 4 segments.


I use this graph to depict the casual relationship between vascular disease and air pollution in the 50's and 60's.
 
avatar
iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
Apples and oranges.The number of people dying of cardiovascular disease is going down. There is no relevance or need to compare it to the general population.
 
avatar
bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
Oh my God!
 
avatar
iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
Explain why it is necessary as the population is not a constant. The population increases by approx 1% per year and even so the numbers of deaths are dropping. The number of people dying is an independent correlation and represents the desire end point to be followed. That being said, it doesn't really matter as the deaths per 100,000 is also decreasing at a higher rate every year. Calling out to a Deity won't change that fact. The deaths and the death rates are dropping at a higher rate during the period of time when statin prescriptions peaked. Of course it could be due to less indoor fires I suppose.

Here it is again for you;




Notice I don't just cherry pick one line, I include all the data.
 
avatar
bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
Both NUMBERS graphs and RATE graphs are important.
However Rate graphs paint a more complete picture.


Rate graphs help demonstrate what percentage of a given population dies from a disease.


Because a population is constantly changing, and population varies from one country to another, rate graphs help us to determine which countries have the higher percentage of people dying from a given disease.


Its a remarkable tool to help identify problem areas, and offers vital clues to finding a cause.


You have represented yourself as a professional researcher. Why would you even ask?
 
avatar
bobby75703 replied to bobby75703's response:
Better stated: Rate graphs paint a more complete picture within a given population.
 
avatar
iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
Actually, for the sake of this discussion a graph that only represents atherosclerosis related deaths and eliminates deaths form genetic, congenital and non-atherosclerosis related deaths is more useful;

 
avatar
bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
Your graph is Number of Deaths, but does not take in account the rise in US population over 110 years.

When we factor in the rise in population, a more complete picture is presented as Death Rates presented as per 100,000 population.


Featuring Experts

There are no Expert stories for this community right now

Helpful Tips

Lower cholesterol without drugs
I also had cholesterol numbers that kept inching higher. At 237 my dr. suggested meds. I don't want to go that route so took a good look at ... More
Was this Helpful?
20 of 22 found this helpful

Related News

There was an error with this newsfeed

Related Drug Reviews

  • Drug Name User Reviews

Report Problems With Your Medications to the FDA

FDAYou are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.