[flenserboy]

numbers often quoted in favor of statins use relative instead of absolute risk. when seen in absolute terms there is little case for statins except in some possible particular cases. they also do little, if anything, when it comes to life extension — the expected lifespan of a statin user is often estimated to be four days longer than that of those who do not use them. not only is this essentially statistical noise, it discounts the lowered quality-of-life side effects experienced by many who have been put on statins.

[Buttons840]

This is all true. If you take a statin and it causes no issues, you're... maybe (30%, yay!) better off for it.

If a statin makes you feel miserable, I think any doctor would sympathize with a calculated decision to stop them. There are many types of statins to try though, so hopefully one would work without side effects.

[marcosdumay]

> There are many types of statins to try though

Most with efficacy determined by the proxy variable of LDL-C levels, and with even more questionable results in actual lifetime improvement.

I too really wanted not to be that skeptical about medicinal research. But if I had high cholesterol and a doctor recommended newer statins to me, I don't think I would take them.

[Maxion]

AFAIK statins show better numbers for secondary prevention. For primary prevention its a toss up.