3 Responses to “new things”

  1. steve September 14, 2012 at 12:45 pm #

    Hi Margaret – I think one of the telling questions patients should ask their docs is “what would you do?”
    If I was aksed that about “statins for all” I would say “I wouldn’t take them”. I recently had I guy in about the same age as me (late 40s). Like me he was quite fit and well and had no significant family history. He wanted his cholesterol checked because of some article in the “Daily Moan”. I advised him it wasn’t necessary, to which he replied “So what is you cholesterol level?”, to which I replied “I don’t know – I’ve never had it checked and, unless I have a stroke or heart attack or I develop diabetes I have no intention of ever having it checked”. After that he decided he didn’t want it checked anymore.
    I’m forever fighting against irrationality in healthcare – this call for statins for all is just another sad example that will do little for you and me but will make some in Big Pharma quite a lot of money thank you.

  2. steve September 14, 2012 at 8:07 pm #

    To put a more statistical slant on things the benefits of using statins in this manner (i.e. for primary prevention) do NOT outweigh the risks. So for those who take statins for 5 years for primary prevention:

    – 98% will see no benefit

    – no lives will be “saved”

    – 1.6% (i.e. 1 in 60) will be helped by preventing a heart attack

    – 0.4% (i.e. 1 in 268) will be helped by preventing a stroke

    – 1.5% (i.e 1 in 67) will be harmed by developing diabetes

    – 10% (i.e. 1 in 10) will be harmed by muscle damage

  3. Malvolio September 28, 2012 at 7:48 pm #

    Why would steve check his cholesterol after those maladies, if he wouldn’t before? I thought the modest benefit of statins after vascular events and diabetes was independent of the cholesterol lowering.effect.