Very accurate! Research is tainted. I don't debate that statins lower LDL, I think they do. This reduction does not equate to reduced morbidity or mortality though. Even through that lens, if you look at absolute risk reduction (instead of relative risk reduction) in these statin trials, it is dismal-as a population, mind you, possibly gain 30 days of life in the most generous interpretation of the data. My wife saw a diagnosis on a patient chart the other day that had a diagnosis of "intolerance to statin". She is a physical therapist who has joined me in the quest for truth. She joked, "it is like you are SUPPOSED to take these medications, your body does not have enough statins." I think this speaks to how far this medical misinformation has gone. I am not afraid to tell my patients that I feel that triglycerides and VLDL cholesterol are more important and a great marker for insulin triggering and glucose load. I explain the VLDL, triglyceride, sugar connection. I also warn them that other doctors will likely immediately recommend you take a statin if they see you. I tell the patients why, so they are prepared, because it is confusing. For me, bitcoin lead me to Twitter. Twitter lead me to stumble across the low-carb, high-fat community and the rest is history. 

 Statins are dangerous metabollic poisons that are contraindicated for primary prevention, and I would even argue for secondary prevention. They do a wonderful job lowering LDL, however.