--that can be Googled, that cholesterol levels by themselves have little correlation with bad coronary events, and that yes, the C-reactive protein levels (and other inflammatory markers) are more prognostic. Moreover, triglyceride levels seem to be more important than cholesterol levels. And, within cholesterol analysis, there are several kinds of both high-density (HDL) AND low density (LDL), and not all subtypes of LDL are apt to cause plaques.

The situation is really much more complex than is reported generally, and still under investigation.

The problem has been that statins, which ARE effective in lowering cholesterol, are a big money maker out there. And, as with any pharmacuetical profit center, they will tend to be prescribed more often than they should be. But, as Mrs. D points out, the question is still open as to whether it is the cholesterol lowering effects of statins that are the real mechanism for reduced coronary events. I suspect, from some preliminary stuff that's been published, it may actually be the anit-inflammatory effects of some statins that are more helpful. (The Brian Lehrer show had a segment on this on public radio just yesterday, interviewing several doctors/researchers to get their takes on this--it can be found by going to the WNYC station website and looking up the shows archives by date--2/29/12--if anyone is interested.)

And, of course, statins do have side effects, as do all medications, and a risk/benefit analysis should always be done before people start taking them. There are alternatives for reducing cholesterol--niacin, fiber, etc.--and for reducing inflammation--fish/flax oil, vitamin D, etc.--that have lower side effect profiles.