Read this article in the copy of The Mail "Most GPs snub advice to prescribe more statins"

Most GPs snub advice to prescribe more statins: Two thirds of doctors remain concerned about potential side-effects and 'medicalization' of otherwise healthy people

By Ben Wilkinson for the Daily Mail

Read more: dailymail.co.uk/health/arti...

Please check with your GP if you are offered statin!

Skip

Featured Content

Living With High Cholesterol?

Connect with people like you to get support, advice and tips towards improving your health.

Get started!

Featured by HealthUnlocked

7 Replies

oldestnewest
  • I read a similar piece in the Daily Telegraph at the weekend.

    At least they say that "they are not forcing them down people's throats".

    The words cost effective also sound a bit chilling. Is it worth being "cost effective" if a few individuals suffer severe side effects or are they dismissed for the greater good.

  • They work for me so maybe I am the greater good

  • In what way do they work for you?

  • They help to lower my cholesterol to a good level.

  • The MHRA's own statement in May said that statins are effective in preventing a heart-attack, stroke or CVD mortality for 450 in 10,000; that's 4.5%. That means they aren't effective for 95.5%, and since three quarters of those who have heart attacks have total cholesterol levels below 'normal', cholesterol alone is a pretty poor indicator of heart health.

  • AND what does that have to do with me.

    Or

    Maybe w

    you wasn't talking to me.

  • Bala, I think the yardstick of total cholesterol of 4.0 or less is confusing for both GP's and patients.

    Supposedly, the HDL should be 'high'; i.e. more than 1.5.

    My HDL is 1.7, and my LDL 3.1, tric .9, which gives a TC at 5.2.

    If, e.g. my HDL was .7 - everything else being the same - I would move away from the 'at risk' group.

    It does not make sense to me.

You may also like...