[haldujai]

As stated thennt is from 2013, many statin trials have come out since.

2% diabetes is overstated as in link 1 except you discount it because of declared disclosures despite the fact that it’s one of the most highly cited papers on the subject in the last 10 years and the study was a review.

You also discount a well respected guideline on lipids out of principle.

Then you cite unrelated data from 2006 as a good reference for an unknown reason?

Finally, you disregard the opinions of a Cochrane review in an unrelated patient population which directly contradicts your misinterpretation of the data (clearly have no concept of NNT/NNH as you just make capricious interpretations of ARR) yet cite yourself as more of an expert than the Cochrane authors.

For what it’s worth since you focus on conflicts it’s to my financial benefit if you don’t take your statins (and pharma pays me nothing), so by all means skip the statin at your own risk.

This really doesn’t seem like an open discussion so I’ll stop engaging. But you’re spreading misinformation for any reader, statins save lives.

[rgbgraph]

I cannot make it anymore clearer: statins reduce your absolute risk of mortality by at most 2%; not smoking reduces your absolute risk by 7%. Statins provide meager benefit for the associated risks. It does not take an expert to do math.

[haldujai]

I must have missed the clinical practice guideline that said keep smoking just take a statin instead.