>>>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 :)
>
>Tamar and Dorris have the flavor of what I was suggesting. Doubting Dmitrys might consider articles such as this by a Harvard professor http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6123 that argue that antistatins do not affect mortality for most of the population. FWIW, this article itself now is under attack.
>
>The issue is that today's truth can be tomorrow's fable. Facts about the human body are not decreed by parliament, learned judges or pharmaceutical companies, they are set by God and altered by things we do to ourselves, while practitioners peer at complex issues through a glass darkly. And the problem with focusing only on a blood test reading is that it can give credence to logic along the lines of "the treatment was a success though the patient died." Outcomes of treatment go well beyond the particular blood test or organ system IMHO.

I guess if Tamar's or Dorris' husbands get a blood test results showing high level of cholesterol (which I do not wish them at all), they could suggest to the husbands NOT TO WORRY and not to take antistatins since "human body are not decreed by parliament, learned judges or pharmaceutical companies, they are set by God and altered by things we do to ourselves, while practitioners peer at complex issues through a glass darkly."