Vorpal wrote:AlaninWales wrote:softlips wrote: When we talk about the biggest positive impact in cardiology over our lifetimes, statins nearly always come out on top.
Really? So Statins have a bigger impact on cardiology than diet? Or environmental pollutants? Or exercise?
Can you link to the evidence for that please?
Evidence? Unfortunately, it's mixed, even if softlips is a fan.
There are large numbers of studiesthat show reduced cardiovascular events for those on statins. As result, most studies and literature reviews are like that linked above: very positive about the benefits.
When it comes to mortality, however, the efficacy of statins is limited. http://www.positivehealth.com/article/h ... -deception has a good summary, although the author may be biased against the use of statins, his statistics is sound. I've seen other experts put the mortality benefit at around 1 death prevented for every 500 people treated. Either way, it's much lower that you might expect, reading the first atricle. The first study seems to indicate that many of the side effects associated with statins have other causes, but https://www.statineffects.com/info/ found otherwise.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... ool=pubmed could be one reason for some of the differences in results.
I'm aware evidence is mixed and I have (at the moment) no skin in this game as my Dr is happy with my cardio exams. However it is such massive overstatement (IMO) by 'experts' that causes the current mistrust of such. I am fairly sure that diet and exercise have the greater potential for "positive impact" because their benefit is more than a suppressant of something that is assumed to be causative of cardiovascular disease, but would be interested if there is positive evidence that this apparent wellness pill is of more benefit.