In my last video, I tried to quantify the benefits of starting cholesterol-lower-lower-lowering

statin drugs, but that's only half the equation.

The number one reason people may refuse to take statins or stop taking them is a concern

about side effects.

Statins are considered mandatory for secondary prevention for those with known cardiovascular

disease to prevent a second heart attack or stroke, but primary prevention, trying to prevent

our first event, is more of a gray area.

A hundred adults between the ages of 1575 without known cardiovascular

disease would have to be treated with a statin for 2.5 years to prevent one major adverse

cardiovascular event like a stroke or heart attack. That's the upside. The downside, if you treated

10,000 such people for a year, the statins would

be expected to cause 15 cases of muscle symptoms, 8 cases of liver dysfunction, 12 cases

of kidney dysfunction, and 14 more eye conditions, while at the same time preventing

19 heart attacks, 9 strokes, and eight cardiovascular deaths.

So approximately the same risk of having a major side effect or a major benefit.

But a benefit like preventing a heart attack or death is more important than avoiding a case

of blurred vision.

So these reviewers suggest cardiovascular benefits of statins outweigh adverse effects

in primary prevention.

But wait, there were only 15 cases of muscle symptoms out of 10,000 people treated?

That is based on the clinical trials that found approximately 1 in a thousand users,

over a 10-year period, develops serious muscle disease.

...