>My comment was
>
>>>Depends who you believe- some evidence now that antistatins actually don't carry the benefit that was thought.
>
>The reality is that you express far more certainty on this topic than I do. My "take" in healthcare has been for years that the more I know, the more I realize I don't know. Rarely do I encounter universal thundering truths that never will change. That's not an argument against established practice as you choose to interpret it, it's an argument against blind dogma.
>
>IMHO the best approach is to follow the advice of your practitioner if you are satisfied that s/he keeps up-to-date and gives you confidence, while realizing that there's constant churn in understanding so that today's truth may be tomorrow's fable. That's it. No need for attacks and invective: in the end the animal is always right in science no matter how aggressively a point is put. Dragan would argue that big Pharma conspires to ensure that messages are channeled in a certain fashion, but that's another topic.

My point is that antistatins reduce the level of cholesterol when diet and exercise does not work. I agree (if this is your point) that reduced level of cholesterol does not guaranty immunity from a heart attach or a stroke. God only knows what causes the body to malfunction. But I believe (from what I am told by doctors and read) that high level of cholesterol greatly increases chance of a heart attach or a stroke. The side effects of antistatins are not yet scientifically proven to cause more harm than benefit of reduced cholesterol. This is the opinion of my doctor and many others. And of course, you will find those who disagree (but take antistatins, just in case :).