This article published in the 'Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons' in 2008 backs up the view that, unless it's since been superceded, using Statins to prevent heart disease is bogus and could be fatal... http://www.jpands.org/vol13no3/peskin.pdf
I draw your attention to several passages...
'The overwhelming evidence demonstrates the best medical advice is to caution patients on the tremendous limitations of statins; specifically, that when 67 patients are treated with a statin protocol over 5 years, 66 patients will experience no benefit—a 98% failure rate. As dismal as this number is, it does not take into account the substantial additional risks associated with prolonged statin usage.'
'While there were significant decreases in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels over the two years of the ENHANCE trial, ...the change in cholesterol levels did not make a difference in preventing atherosclerosis.
'...in 2007, as reported in Lancet, Abramson and Wright conducted a meta-analysis of eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of statins and found a number of disquieting results. First, they determined that total mortality was not reduced. Second, serious adverse events were not reduced either, in the two RCTs that reported such events. Third, the absolute frequency of cardiovascular events was reduced by only 1.5%,....'
'...statin treatment is clearly not effective, but rather a dismal failure.'
'Actually, the... (low effectiveness) of statins is even worse than reported. In describing statin trials, many publications exaggerate the benefits and omit vital information. They contain misleading mortality statistics, misstated risk factors, and hidden bias, leading to erroneous conclusions.For example, the limited statin benefit obtained for high-risk men, as described by Abramson and Wright, is probably no better than could be obtained from a 5-week course of aspirin.'
'... Lowering “bad” cholesterol levels and boosting “good” cholesterol levels (high density lipoprotein cholesterol [HDL-C]) is then supposed to lower plaque build up and prevent cardiovascular disease. Although this assumption is categorically false, the pharmaceutical industry convinced physicians and researchers that it was true.'
'... the entire LDL/HDL/saturated fact theory is physiologically implausible.'
'...artificially decreasing LDL-C is harmful for a number of reasons.'
'Another part of the “cholesterol is bad” theory says that while high levels of LDL-C are “bad,” high levels of HDL-C are “good.” This is incorrect and has no biochemical, physiological, or clinical basis. Attempts to raise HDLlevels using the drug torcetrapib with or without the presence of atorvastatin were very successful: 120mg of torcetrapib daily increased plasma concentrations of HDL-C by 61% and 46% in the atorvastatin and non-atorvastatin cohorts, respectively. Torcetrapib also reduced LDL-C levels by 17% in the atorvastatin cohort. This trial, which began in 2004 and was scheduled to run until 2009 with 15,000 patients, was prematurely terminated since excess mortality started to appear (82 deaths in the torcetrapib group versus 51 deaths in the control group). Patients taking torcetrapib also were more likely to experience heart failure.'