What is unusual here is that normally only those with an elevated risk of heart attack are eligible for this therapy, but the authors of this study are advocating that everyone over 50 should be given this as a matter of course on the basis that it would prevent a large number of heart attacks and be cheaper. In the words of the authors: "This benefit [of reduced risk of heart attacks] greatly exceeds any known hazards of statin therapy." Note the use of known.
Now, I don't really have a problem with drugs being used to help people reduce their risk of heart disease when other options aren't available, but this is another example of a pattern I've noticed in how we use medicine today: masking. By which I mean, we are happily using drugs to mask our symptoms, rather than treat the underlying cause. "Now hang on!" I hear you cry... "Surely this is just a disease of old age? Doctors wouldn't prescribe a drug if it wasn't necessary....would they?"
They would, and they do. Not intentionally you understand, but they do.
By way of example, consider how a diet based programme which has been scientifically proven to reverse heart disease (developed by Dr Dean Ornish, follow this link to study: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(90)91656-U) has been approved and funded by Medicare in the United States since 2010. Note that this diet can reverse this condition in people already suffering from severe heart disease, and was shown to be more effective than medication. In fact, in the trials, people on standard treatments actually carried on getting worse, not better. So if you are offered statins, there is a chance that you could do the same or better with a change in diet, plus you'd have the benefits of an improved lifestyle. Will you be offered this programme instead of medication here in the UK? Nope. Much cheaper to give you some pills - only £18 a year in fact! Plus, there are no known hazards, right?
Maybe this is a good suggestion. Maybe it is foolish to think that we should be telling people about the real effects of their diets and of the difference this could make. But the reality is that the conclusions being taken by these doctors are misleading. They are implying that there is something unavoidable about the elevated risk of a heart attack. In fact they say that, as most people over 50 will have at least a 10% risk of a heart attack or stroke, you may as well just use age as the sole determining factor of whether to use the therapy. But the fact is that age is only a factor because of how we choose to live. I remember reading in The China Study that if the US had the same rates of heart disease as found in rural China, 80% of all heart units in America would have to close. And those Chinese didn't need statin therapy, they just needed the absence of a Western diet.
By taking pills, you aren't actually changing the factors which give you an elevated risk of a heart attack or stroke, you're just masking them. It may be harder, but I would rather have doctors tell people what they can do to deal with the root cause of heart disease, rather than have them give up and rely on mass medication of people with pills to hide the symptoms and cut their costs.
