Well,the statin debate is a very controversial one. But the opposers are also quite extreme. I hope there will be a middle ground in the future about the levels. Above 300 cholesterol levels looks dangerous for any of my patients but yeah bringing it down to some guideline recommendation of below 70/100 in some patients increases the risk of side effects. The most notable side effect is myalgia and other muscle symptoms. Rarely serious rhabdomyolysis can also occur. Other side effects include neuropathy,new onset diabetes mellitus(again controversial) and others. I believe it s all about trade offs between higher cholesterol levels leading to increased cardiovascular risk versus statins side effects. A recent article in lancet also echoes the same view. The article is titled “interpretation of the evidence for the efficacy and safety of statin therapy” and here is the gist -This Review is intended to help clinicians, patients, and the public make informed decisions about statin therapy for the prevention of heart attacks and strokes. It explains how the evidence that is available from randomised controlled trials yields reliable information about both the efficacy and safety of statin therapy. In addition, it discusses how claims that statins commonly cause adverse effects reflect a failure to recognise the limitations of other sources of evidence about the effects of treatment. Large-scale evidence from randomised trials shows that statin therapy reduces the risk of major vascular events (ie, coronary deaths or myocardial infarctions, strokes, and coronary revascularisation procedures) by about one-quarter for each mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol during each year (after the first) that it continues to be taken. The absolute benefits of statin therapy depend on an individual s absolute risk of occlusive vascular events and the absolute reduction in LDL cholesterol that is achieved.