*http://pharmacy.oregonstate.edu/drug_policy/pages/dur_board/newsletter/articles/volume4/4_1.html
The above article comes from Oregon State University, which is a conservative and highly respected place.
The bottom line in the above article is that while some studies show that an LDL of below 125 incurs benefit in the prevention of heart disease, other studies show that lowering LDL to less than 125 does not provide additional benefit in the prevention of heart disease.
In my view, having had severe side effects from statins while my LDL was 120 and I was in good health before taking statins, I do not believe it is worth the risk of prescribing statins for a patient with no heart disease whose LDL is below 125.
The new guidelines the medical community is proposing for an LDL of 70 for everyone does not seem wise, since there will likely be huge numbers of people prescribed statins who will develop serious side effects with that as the goal.
I hope someone in authority is reading these messages and is paying attention, and will take action to correct the guidelines physicians receive for prescribing statins. Clearly statins are beneficial for some. But in the same sense that you don't give birth control pills to a three year old, statins, I believe, should not be prescribed for people who don't need them.
My only goal is to prevent much suffering, which I'm concerned will take place if these new statin guidelines (LDL of 70) are put in place. In fact, it seems to me that the goal, according to the above study, should be an LDL of 125, not 100, and definitely not 70.
Have a nice day. If you know someone in medical authority, please link this post to them so they can confirm or deny the truth in it as they see fit. And if my position is correct, someone with the power to change things should do so ASAP.
Thanks.
pops