Statins do have some benefit, but not very much and probably not for the reasons that are claimed (i.e. benefits from cholesterol lowering). The side effects are seriously under reported because 'statins have minimal side effects' therefore anyone presenting side effects for statins isn't presenting them because 'statins have minimal side effects'.
Here is a famous and old study (1995) that helped open the flood gates for statin use for everybody;
It is the West Of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NE ... 1163332001
The conclusion reads 'Treatment with pravastatin significantly reduced the incidence of myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular causes without adversely affecting the risk of death from noncardiovascular causes in men with moderate hypercholesterolemia and no history of myocardial infarction.'
Fantastic stuff eh?
But here are the actual numbers (from the same study):
The absolute risk reduction of all cardiovascular death was only 0.7% and absolute risk reduction of all cause death was only 0.9% over 4.9 years. Thus, 100/0.7 = 142 men have to take pravastatin for nearly five years
to prevent 1 cardiovascular death and 100/0.9 = 111 men have to take pravastatin for nearly 5 years
to prevent 1 death overall.
(My bold)
That is frankly rubbish; and it must be related to something other than cholesterol lowering because everyone who takes statins has their cholesterol lowered.
Sounds fishy? That's because it is fishy.
From memory the top of the range statins only improve your chance of CVD/death in absolute terms by about 1% now.
If I sold you a mobile phone that only had coverage 1% of the time you wouldn't use it even thought it has significantly better coverage than not using a mobile phone.
Statins are a joke and alas we are not the ones laughing.
Dillinger