argumentA line of reasoning from premises to a conclusion. Like a claim, it belongs to no one who makes it.constitution →
Early CETP outcome trials disappointed despite LDL lowering
forThis argument, if it holds, bears in favour of the claim.constitution →CETP inhibitors substantially lowered LDL cholesterol but failed to reduce cardiovascular events
The argument
Because torcetrapib lowered LDL cholesterol yet increased cardiovascular events and mortality and evacetrapib lowered LDL cholesterol without reducing cardiovascular events, and given that a third agent, dalcetrapib, was likewise stopped for futility, the class's LDL lowering appeared not to translate into cardiovascular benefit.
Does it work?
Not yet evaluated.
Premises
- UnassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →Torcetrapib lowered LDL cholesterol but increased cardiovascular events and mortality
- UnassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →Evacetrapib lowered LDL cholesterol without reducing cardiovascular events
Where it is made
Passages where sources make, criticize or mention this argument. They record where it appears, not how strong it is, and none has precedence over another.
No source is recorded as making it.