> However while statins are shown to lower blood cholesterol, benefits in terms of reduced heart disease are not necessarily clear, especially in people with no

> However while statins are shown to lower blood cholesterol, benefits in terms of reduced heart disease are not necessarily clear, especially in people with no other history of heart disease. That's simply not a balanced summary of the literature. On balance, statins reduce both secondary events (heart attacks after your first one) and primary events (first-ever heart attacks). Even conservative groups such as Cochrane agree that, based on the scientific literature, statins are both efficacious and cost-effective for primary prevention [1]. Also, trying to throw away the cholesterol/heart-disease hypothesis is sort of like trying to throw away evolution. If you're right, that's Nobel worthy; but you're not right. > A recent study found that "Statin use is associated with an increased prevalence and extent of coronary plaques" That's not clear from the article you've cited, despite quoting a part of the abstract. You have left off an important qualifier that ends the sentence. Here is that full sentence, emphasis mine: "Statin use is associated with an increased prevalence and extent of coronary plaques possessing calcium." The abstract does not state that statin use is associated with an increased prevalence and extent of coronary plaques overall. (I don't have access to the rest of that article from my hotel room, so if the article itself does state so, please feel free to quote it in reply.) Also, this appears to be, effectively, a case/control study. The studies supporting statins are randomized, controlled trials -- the strongest form of evidence. Case/control studies suggest follow-ups, but are by no means equivalent to studies of highest-grade evidence. 1 = http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004816/statins-for-the-primary-prevention-of-cardiovascular-disease http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004816/statins-for-the-prima...