Quote:
Originally Posted by Redway
I’ve got to be honest, I don’t know a great deal about Statin so I can only say so much but I’ve heard contradictory things about it. Anything that has a chance of substantially reducing heart-attacks/strokes in people vulnerable/predisposed to it has got to be worth looking into on the part of prescribers but at what cost do these apparent benefits come?
Edit: it does look like I’m asking a lot of questions (if I read another one of these posts of mine on here with a question mark I’m going to have head-loss) but I dunno. I guess it’s just interesting to read about people’s experiences with something important but that a lot of people aren’t too religious with.
|
Cholesterol isn't just "bad stuff to have", cholesterol (including LDL cholesterol) has quite a few vital functions, we need it and the only issue is when LDL is too high. OR too low. It's just uncommon for it to be "naturally" too low.
Thus the only time it's appropriate to give statins is in people with cholesterol levels that are raised enough to be a significant concern, to bring it into normal range. The risk of giving it to people who are "borderline" - as is being suggested - is that it'll bring the level too low which yes will vastly reduce the risk of
acute medical emergencies like heart attacks and strokes, but it increases cancer risk, and also affects things like hormone receptors including serotonin receptors.
This plan to hand them out to millions of people who are only at small risk of an acute medical event is specifically designed to take the pressure off emergency medical services by passing the buck onto potential long-term health conditions and depression.
Because the Tories don't care if the proles are long-term sick so long as they're not visibly clogging up A&E's and HDU's, and handing out pills is easier and cheaper than promoting healthy lifestyles and ensuring that people can afford to live them.
It's infuriating.