What? "Unintended?" It's headlines like these that make me wonder just how long ago the risks were 'uncovered,' ya know? Did they know about them after the first long-term trial? Did they know about these risks after 5 years? After 10 years?
I like this quote, "On the positive side, the analysis also showed no significant association between the use of statins and the risk of Parkinson's disease, rheumatoid arthritis, blood clot, dementia, osteoporotic fracture, or many cancers including gastric, colon, lung, renal, breast or prostate."
It basically says they haven't seen a significant risk of parkinsons, R.A, clots, dementia, fracture, or cancers...YET! 6 years is not a very long 'long term study,' especially when you consider that we have patients who have been on statins for 15-20 years (the first FDA approved statin was Mevacor, in 1987).
But what I think is the most interesting is the ratio of benefit to side-effects: In women, there was a reduction of 279 events (esophageal cancer and cardiovascular disease) BUT an INCREASE of 442 side-effects, many causing death. THE MEN FARED MUCH WORSE, with 552 side-effects!
I don't know, do you think I'm off-base in presenting this information? Please don't read me incorrectly - I'm not saying statins are the bane of civilized healthcare, but I am saying that statins are a horrible alternative to simply taking control of your health and diet.
If you have questions about this, please feel free to contact me.