>>>>>>>Do those antistatic rags help in this case?
>>>>>
>>>>>Depends who you believe- some evidence now that antistatins actually don't carry the benefit that was thought.
>>>>
>>>>FWIW, Antistatins reduce cholesterol level in the blood (that I know on my own example and unscientific testing). I have not heard of any studies that say that high cholesterol level does not pose any risk.
>>>
>>>I'm not sure what studies John is referencing, but I suspect the issue here isn't that the drugs don't reduce cholesterol, but that the people taking them don't have any better outcomes than the people who don't.
>>>
>>
>>Unless I see/read results of the scientific study that high cholesterol does not pose a risk, what John is saying is simply his opinion. And you know what they say about opinions :)
>>
>>>Assuming that's the case, it's one of those typical medical conundrums. We learn that people with condition X are at higher risk for outcome Y, so we find a treatment that reduces condition X. But that doesn't automatically mean that we reduce outcome Y.
>>>
>>>Tamar
>
>Yes, high cholesterol does pose a risk to certain problems.
>
>Unfortunately, the favorite flavor of drugs to treat high cholesterol have "may cause type II diabetes" - along with "possible muscle mass loss".
>
>It's completely amazing to me how many people suddenly are diabetic after they've been taking cholesterol meds for 6 months - year.

I talk to my doctor every year (at physical) and talk to many other doctors (my extended family is full of doctors). But I have never heard the connection between antistatins and "diabetes and muscle mass loss". You may have access to the research they don't have.