Statin drugs shown to be largely ineffective for the majority of
people who take them, but why does this fact seem to have passed
researchers by?

http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2007/0...argely-ineffec\
tive-for-the-majority-of-people-who-take-them-but-why-does-this-fact-seem-to-hav\
e-passed-researchers-by/

"The study found that risk of cardiovascular events such as heart
attacks and strokes were reduced by statin therapy, but that this
amounted to a real reduction to the tune of 1.5 per cent. These
results become even less impressive when you consider that 8.5 per
cent of the individuals in these 8 studies were actually in the
secondary prevention category. What is more, 67 individuals would need
to be treated for 5 years for just one `event' to be prevented. One of
the most startling findings of this review was that there was no
apparent benefit see in women (of any age) nor men under the age of
about 70"

Get that last line?????

I've sent him an email asking that he address statin side effects in a
future post. WE know about the side effects, but I'd like him to post
about them as he didn't address that part of the issue at all.