Doctors all knew that niacin helps - until the AIM-HIGH study. It was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2012. Even though the study author warned against the mistake of over-simplifying to patients' disadvantage, the medical standards groups did it anyway.

Did they "throw the baby out with the bathwater?" What was it about the AIM-HIGH study that confused the issue? too short a time frame? the extended-release component? the statin intervention? How about the safety signal? This video covers these issues and more.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1311039

If AIM HIGH weren't enough, then HPS2-THRIVE came along, also showing negative results for a niacin trial. Again, this was with a supplement known for decades - and with dozens of studies - to work. What was it this time? Laropripant? Time frame? We also do a brief preview.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1300955

Read more about the niacin debate here:

https://prevmedhealth.com/does-niacin-work-the-great-niacin-debate/