Recently there was a very eye-catching article in WeChat, read by more than 100,000 people within a week, about the various side effects of statins, entitled “Red alert: Statins may speed up the aging process”, which mentioned that statins have some rare side effects including: cancer, cataracts, diabetes, cognitive impairment and muscle pain (myositis and myolysis). At first glance, I was shocked and wondered if there was some new scientific discovery that we had not yet been informed of. I immediately checked Pubmed and saw no new articles on the subject. There were no similar reports on the relevant medical websites, but rather the same articles about the possible side effects of the above-mentioned statins and whether the above-mentioned effects existed or not. These articles were mostly from 2002 to 2006, with fewer articles addressing statin side effects after 2010, and the final conclusion was always similar: because cardiovascular disease is currently the number one threat to human health, some potential or mentioned problems with statins are recommended to be treated differently compared to stabilizing plaque and inhibiting atherosclerosis, reducing morbidity and mortality from cardiovascular disease. Strict indications, timely detection of risk factors, control of drug strength and dose, and close follow-up are recommended. These issues were already known to physicians and were being closely monitored in clinical practice. Why is someone suddenly bringing these things up again from “private sources”? For example, the effect on cognition (observation, memory, comprehension), on the one hand, it is thought that statins improve blood supply to the brain, which improves cognition, and on the other hand, it is thought that statins reduce mitochondria in brain cells, which may affect cognition, and the result of the comparison between the two sides is that in real life population observations no difference in brain function was found in statin users compared to non-users. This is strange, why some laboratory findings can not explain the reality of the problem? Because the human being is a whole person, many drugs are very important for one part of the person, while for other organs will be slightly adverse or not beneficial, then it is necessary for the doctor to grasp, what kind of people with benefits, unnecessary use is not necessary to take the risk. In short, it is still a question of benefit and risk ratio. It is important not to take it out of context. There is a lot of data from the clinical practice of statins to support their cardiovascular and cerebrovascular protective effects. In the United States, cardiovascular morbidity and mortality have been declining for the past 20 years since the use of statins, and life expectancy in the country has increased significantly by nearly 10 years over the past 20 years (of course, this is related to improvements in medical conditions, but ultimately, it is achieved with various drugs), not without the role of statins. This is because after a heart attack or brain attack, doctors tend to keep patients on statins for years, which greatly reduces the risk of reinfarction and significantly extends the life expectancy of this group of people and, of course, the overall life expectancy of the population. So do statins have a pro-cancer effect? There is currently no evidence that LDL-C above 1 mmol/L has an immune-lowering effect, although clinicians will decide on the scale of cholesterol reduction and the drugs and doses to be used based on the patient’s specific circumstances. Do statins damage the liver and kidneys? The current method used in clinical practice is to monitor liver function after administration of the drug. A very small percentage of people (1-3%) develop liver enzyme abnormalities after statin use, often those with hepatitis or occult hepatitis, and they need to be cautious with any drug. In my 20 years of clinical practice, I have seen several cases of patients with fatty liver whose liver enzymes decreased instead with statins. So people with elevated liver enzymes due to fatty liver can also use statin on a monitored basis and may benefit instead. When it comes to the kidneys, statins are clinically available before dialysis, and their safety is evident. In diabetic patients, atherosclerosis progresses more rapidly than in the general population, so the use of statins at the right time, while paying attention to the intensity and dosage of use, is a constant concern for physicians. Atherosclerosis can start as early as 20-30 years old, and generally reaches a certain level in 40-50 years old, when some key areas of blood vessels (such as carotid arteries, cerebral arteries, coronary arteries and even lower limb arteries) have a narrowing level of 20-30% in mild cases, and more than 50% in severe cases, and some more severe cases have already started to have infarction of important organs, even leading to premature death. Therefore, anti-atherosclerosis treatment can be said in a sense to be one of the modern magic weapons to prolong life. The discovery and use of statins is also a landmark advance in the last 20 years in the fight against aging and ischemic diseases in humans. I have observed in my own clinical practice that the ischemic symptoms of patients with statins tend to be reduced within 1-3 months, such as dizziness, chest tightness, and cool numbness and pain in the lower extremities, and with continued use, they can often be expected to be further reduced or even disappear in about 1 year. Of course, some other anticoagulant (called “blood activation” in Chinese medicine) treatment should be used at the same time. In any case, the symptoms of ischemia will be reduced naturally after the blood circulation is improved, and these months may be exactly what is needed for vascular changes and blood flow improvement. On the contrary, the so-called aging and increased tumorigenesis were not observed. At the same time, in order to consolidate the “fruits of victory”, the continued use of statins is needed, and in the process of continued use, patients do not show a decline in brain function, but rather many patients have changed from being upside down (a manifestation of poor brain function) to laughing and smiling (a manifestation of improved brain function). When I see articles like this come out, I pay close attention, as do many patients who are using statins. After years of being baptized by similar news, I have formed the habit of analyzing and discussing more, observing more practice, and listening less to “expert” assertions and taking less for granted. Metformin has been questioned for no reason before, but at Concord we have never listened to them. We do not blindly believe in the propaganda of pharmaceutical companies, nor do we believe in the so-called health articles. Believing in science means collecting information, analyzing it, formulating hypotheses, repeatedly verifying it, making adjustments, and reverifying the whole process. So when I read this article, I felt that as a clinician, I had a responsibility to speak up. There are two sides to any drug, including food, and everything in this world. Everything needs to be considered in a holistic, big-picture and long-term perspective, and one should neither be biased nor choke on it. This is why you need to see a doctor if you are sick, not just watch TV and read the news. Because the doctor will use his knowledge and experience to build a treatment plan in the context of your body and constantly adjust it through observation, but the biggest basic point is to facilitate the construction of health and the treatment of disease. I think doctors need to use their own minds to think, use their own experience to pave the way, use their own feelings to practice, in order to truly achieve the purpose of healing and saving people, and how to remove the falsehoods and keep the truth is really need to constantly strive to do. Finally, I advise patients who are taking statins not to blindly stop the drug because of an article, which may cost some people their lives, go to the doctor and ask, remember!