Skip to content


    Exciting News for WebMD Members!

    We've been busy behind the scenes building new message boards for you. You'll have new and easier ways to find messages, connect with others, and share your stories.

    And, this will all be available on your smartphone or other mobile device!

    What Do You Need to Do?

    The message board you're used to will be closing in the coming weeks. While many of your boards will be making the move to our new home, your posts will not. Want to keep a discussion going? Save posts you want to continue (this includes your member profile story), so that you can re-post them in the new message boards.

    Keep an eye here and on your email inbox, we'll be back in touch soon to give you all the information you need!

    Yours in health,
    WebMD Message Boards Management

    Chasing cholesterol levels...
    bobby75703 posted:
    Chasing cholesterol levels for better cardiovascular outcomes is like a dog chasing his tail. Professor Joel Kaufman is in hot pursuit of the silent killer, but the public isn't interested. Most would rather chase their tails believing what they have been sold for the last 40 years.

    In the following video, Joel Kaufman discusses the current research into air pollution and cardiovascular disease.
    iride6606 responded:
    So help me quantify all this discussion about air pollution. I didn't watch the video as I've read Joel's work and agree to an extent except his stand on cholesterol.

    So let me understand, from your links we're talk about a possible 2% increase in risk. Do you know what that means statistically? That's a 2% Relative Risk Increase or RRI as relative risk can be calculated as an increase (RRI) or a reduction (RRR). There have been some here that don't think much of RRR calling it hype;

    This is where marketing hype paints an unrealistic picture of statins, shining the spotlight on Relative Risk Reduction

    Yet some are quick to point out a 2% RRI in cardiovascular disease from pollution as fact. That being said, if RRI is believed as fact then RRR must be believed as well. After all, relative risk works the same way, the math is the same and by definition RRI and RRR are the same thing, Some call it RR /-.

    So I ask, if it's possible to agree that a 2% RRI exists, why can't some believe that a 42% RRR exists when it comes to lower cholesterol and cardiovascular disease?

    Since we all now acknowledge that relative risk is factual and correct, which measurement would a reasonable person work towards:

    1. Taking steps to achieve a 2% RRR by watching what we breath in order to prevent cardiovascular disease.

    2. Taking steps to achieve a 42% RRR by lowering one's cholesterol.

    Which one should the government invest in? The one with the greater good. The same with the medical profession, why spend time and money trying to reduce a person's risk 2% when you can help them reduce it 42%?

    I'm glad we're in agreement now.

    Featuring Experts

    There are no Expert stories for this community right now

    Helpful Tips

    Statin use is generally safe, and NOT associated with cancer and myopathy
    This network meta-analysis study provides evidence on the comparative tolerability and harms of individual statins. Overall, statins as a ... More
    Was this Helpful?
    1 of 2 found this helpful

    Helpful Resources

    Be the first to post a Resource!

    Related Drug Reviews

    • Drug Name User Reviews

    Report Problems With Your Medications to the FDA

    FDAYou are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.