Recent flip-flop on aspirin recommendations for heart disease is a sign of good science at work. Here’s why

Credit: Creaky Joints
Credit: Creaky Joints

When it comes to preventive health, few tenets are as entrenched as daily aspirin. For more than 30 years, many people have relied on the pain reliever for added protection against a first heart attack or stroke.

So it came as a shock to many this month when an influential expert panel, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, seemed to reverse decades of medical practice, announcing that daily low-dose aspirin should no longer be automatically recommended in middle age to prevent heart attack.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

At a time when many people already feel whipsawed by shifting pandemic advice (on masks, viral transmission and booster shots), the new aspirin recommendations left some shaking their heads.

But experts say it should be reassuring to patients to know that even the most trusted medical guidelines are being reviewed and updated as scientific understanding evolves.

“It seems like it happens overnight, but this is how science works,” Dr. Sophie M. Balzora, a gastroenterologist at N.Y.U. Langone Health, said. “If we had the same guidelines all the time, then the question would be: Are we really advancing science? Are we really learning more?”

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here.

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Screenshot-2026-05-01-at-1.29.41-PM
Viewpoint: What happens when whole grains meet modern food manufacturing? Labels don’t tell the whole story.
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-27-2026-11_47_30-AM-2
FDA’s expedited drug reviews are hailed in some quarters but other approval practices are problematic
ChatGPT-Image-Apr-13-2026-02_20_22-PM
Viewpoint: Misinformation infodemic? Why assessing evidence is so challenging 
Farmers can talk to plants
Farmers are a major source of misinformation—about farming
S
As vaccine rejectionism spreads, measles may be taking a more dangerous turn
What explains Homo sapiens’ huge brains? Ancient climate change played a role
Viewpoint: Internal White House documents detail administration’s strategy to undermine climate science
ChatGPT-Image-May-7-2026-11_28_04-AM-2
‘Conflict entrepreneurs’ are driving disinformation and shaping public opinion
Screenshot-2026-04-20-at-2.26.27-PM
Viewpoint — Food-fear world: The latest activist scientists campaign: Cancer-causing additives
bigstock opioids on chalkboard with rol
GLP podcast: 'Safe injection sites': enabling drug addiction or saving lives?
ChatGPT-Image-May-6-2026-03_41_05-PM
‘Protecting the integrity of science’: Kennedy’s FDA blocks release of taxpayer-funded studies finding COVID and shingles vaccines safe
Screenshot 2026-05-06 at 2.19
Vaccine shootout at the CDC 
Screenshot-2026-05-06-at-2.07.43-PM
Manufacturing a conspiracy: The timeline of how  the White House embraced the fringe claim that scientists are being mysteriously murdered
circular-bioeconomy-should-focus-on-sustainable-wellbeing
GLP podcast: What's wrong with 'doomsday' environmentalism? It's false.

Sorry. No data so far.

glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.