Cholesterol Support

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:

Please check with your GP if you are offered statin!

7 Replies

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

1 like

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.


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...