New Article is Revealing: Do Statins Really Work?
A new article, by one of UKs most prominent cardiologists, Dr. Aseem Malhotra, was just released. I also saved this article as a PDF, in case it mysteriously disappears, since in the past, articles, podcasts, and similar, have often been pulled by financially negatively impacted people when information like this was released. So in case the article ever disappears, you can find it here: Do statins really work_ Who benefits_ Who has the power to cover up the side effects_with my highlights–the darker the highlight, the more essential the information.
Do We Need to Reduce Cholesterol?
While most doctors follow the mantra that cholesterol should be below some magical number, if you ask them why and to explain how a lower cholesterol may benefit you, they may be dumbfounded, or give you a blanket answer we all are familiar with: cholesterol clogs your arteries, causing plaques, which then cause heart attacks. Sounds reasonable, but is completely wrong. Mind you, this is probably what your doctor learned in medschool. This is not to give them an excuse though, after all, some time ago people were taught that the sun went around the earth, but after several hundred years and the persecution of many, we now know that Galileo was right, even if we would prefer the earth to be the center of the universe. It just isn’t so get used to it.
So do we need to reduce cholesterol? Actually no. No studies have ever been able to show any benefit to health or longevity by lowered cholesterol–be it with statins or by a dietary change from animal fats to plant fats, containing phytosterols instead of cholesterol. They were always able to show reduced cholesterol but never any positive benefit coming from such.
A quick search of PubMed for the term “cholesterol” presented 327948 papers, of which 128954 paper discussing high cholesterol, and 246944 papers discuss cholesterol metabolism, the majority of which discussing how to reduce or prevent cholesterol completely. That’s a hell of a lot of money spent on proving how effectively certain things can reduce cholesterol, without a single paper showing that it is good for anything.
“The benefits of lowering cholesterol have been demonstrated extensively” is part of just about every article, yet there is not a single article showing any benefit anywhere. So what are these papers looking at? Where do they get their information? And why are they pressing benefits that have never ever been shown?
Lying to Survive
“How do you sleep at night?” asked Malhotra from one unnamed researcher. The response: “…he had a mortgage to pay and being on the inside he hoped he could convince the drug companies to behave more ethically.”
He hoped he could convince the drug companies? To behave more ethically? I am sorry… any of you out there not shaking your head?
Pharmaceutical companies seem to run their own clinical trials and they rarely if ever release their data for others to analyze. The one time they did, in the case of Tamiflu:
“Having eventually been allowed access to this raw data they concluded that the drug was no more effective than paracetamol. However, it could cause serious side effects such as kidney failure.”
So this is why general access to pharmaceutical data is usually restricted: the analysis is rigged to favor selling drugs. We cannot trust drug companies: trusting the mouse with the cheese. Very clever.
Read the article. It will highlight the following list and more: cholesterol is beneficial, cholesterol is an essential element without which we don’t live. It is part of everything we do (it is also making up most of our brain–this is not in the article), there is no benefit from taking statins regardless whether one already had a heart attack or not, and in the small cases of benefit, no lives saved–none of us gets out of this alive after all. There was a few days of life extension in small cases, 4 days of extra life after 5 years of daily statin use and the many side effects that comes with. What side effects, other than muscle aches, dementia, and erectile dysfunction, you ask? One of the side effects, just now coming to the surface, is ALS (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis). You didn’t know that? No kidding! Me neither!
What Should You Do if Your Doctor Prescribes Statins?
One thing my friend: find another doctor.
How Can I Reduce Cardiovascular Risks?
Change your diet my friend. Drop all those “heart healthy” grains and carbs, all vegetable and seed oils, and low or fat free foods. Also drop all processed foods, smoothies, shakes, and quick meals. If it comes in a box, don’t buy it.
Instead: eat whole foods, plenty of meat, fish, other seafood, poultry, eggs, organs, animal fat (yep, put on the kitchen counter and start using pork lard, bacon dripping you saved, beef tallow, duck fat, suet, butter, ghee and alike), coconut oil, avocado oil, and olive oil–using oils only cold and cook with animal fat only. If you like veggies, eat as much as you like of low carbs high fiber veggies–not starches. Fruit? Forget it. Just low carbs fruits: tomatoes, peppers, cucumber, zucchini, and similar–yes, these are fruits. You can also eat other fruits like strawberries, blackberries, and raspberries. That’s it.
Drop all sweetened things out of your life and go after nutrition density. Eat high fat low carbs, ketogenic, carnivore, or Mediterranean. Anything but the so-called “heart healthy” because that will hurt your heart.
Comments are welcome, as usual, and are moderated for appropriateness.
Great stuff from Aseem as usual. He regularly gets pilloried in the mainstream media. Surprisingly he is still in Wikipedia though in far from glowing terms. Would be interesting to see the OUTCOMES of his critics compared to his own.
Meanwhile the BBC was pushing “cholesterol injections for those people who can’t take a daily pill, No wonder the NHS is bankrupt, and when you are ill you can’t see a doctor for three weeks because they are too busy running tests for drug deficiencies on well people GRRR!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I dug through most of the references – some of them required Sci-Hub. It really looks like religion vs science. There’s now a LOT of science but the statinistas are becoming more entrenched in their belief.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The references I put at the end usually need access (or Sci-Hub). I have no way to bypass that on the public blog unfortunately and I cannot place Sci-Hub link on the blog–that’s breaking the “academic rules”… and I am a PhD after all so I cannot. Sorry about that.
That’s OK, are you permitted to explain how you use it by typing in the DOI number?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sometimes (often actually) I have no DOI or link because I am using EndNote citation software and it auto-downloads the citation by direct import into it. I don’t type these citations up… these are given this way by the publishers–this is the “preferred” citation for that specific article… and I look for a topic in my citation software and choose from those to cite some. So I often don’t have the link at all. I have access to most of the articles via academic memberships–not all–as I hold memberships in most of the academic associations of my interest. I usually get the printed volume and may not even look for it online. I usually copy-paste the title to find the article online, which is what you do I suppose.
You should see the piles of academic journal I have in my closet… I dump them once they get to be 1 year old… ridiculous. Some give online access automatically but not all. Lots of trees need to still be cut I suppose… 😦
Academic publishing is basically a way to print huge quantities of money, let alone destroy all those trees. I download most studies as pdfs but the live versions often have live links to the references. Much easier to work than in the olden days looking up abstracts then digging out the actual paper in bound volumes, especially when the one you want is in use or misfiled. Once I was going to file all my papers in a database but I never found the necessary circular tuit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very true. Not sure what it will take to have them change. I think sci-hub is one reason they prefer printed volumes