Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2007;334:1087 (26 May), doi:10.1136/bmj.39224.456632.59
In the online poll following our 12 May Head to head debate (BMJ 2007;334:982-3), 19% of 184 respondents said yes and 81% said no. Here are some of the comments we received:
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
NO "The benefit is too small compared to possible disadvantages."
YES "Statins are safe and effective drugs. No one disputes their effectiveness in reducing cholesterol, a known cardiovascular risk factor. To prevent global epidemic of cardiovascular disease (CVD), statins should be offered to all eligible patients, along with interventions to improve adherence."
NO "In Western society we are overmedicating in so many ways. Let's get back to lifestyle basics. Cholesterol lowering therapy is notoriously poor for patient adherence, which means that it's unlikely to be cost effective."
NO "If women don't carry any mortal risk factors, and the level of cholesterol isn't very high, I think any cholesterol lowering drug mustn't be given easily before trying to change lifestyle."
YES "Everyone should be entitled to standard treatment to prevent CVD. Even though women may be protected by oestrogen till menopause there may be other risk factors such as hereditary factors,
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati What's this?