Another Study On Statins

Maybe statins aren't so bad as some of the Internet book and supplement selling docs wold have us believe. Indeed they can have good effects:

[www.latimes.com]

Gordon

While I'm certainly not pushing the benefits of statins, I take 20mg of Crestor on a daily basis, and I have had no side effects that I can notice. The anti-inflammatory benefits are attractive to me, but both my brother and my son swear that statins cause many types of pain and refuse to take them.

Jmdos pesos

The Great Cholesterol Con* is at the point of why bother - almost.

It's impossible to shut off the body's 'mevalonate' biosynthesis pathway for Coenzyme Q10 and dolichols (probable others) with a statin inhibitor without dire consequences somewhere down the line, early on or many years later. The website of astronaut-physician Dr. Duane Graveline goes into all this perfectly: [www.spacedoc.com]. And consider this: the actual 'bad guy' in CVD is homocysteine, not cholesterol -- problem for the 'Powers That Be' is that homocysteine is readily lowered using un-patentable/un-profitable vitamins B6 and B12, and Folate.

Sorry, that article has the distinct odor of BigPharma/FDA.

Be well!

Erling

*<[www.afibbers.org];

Erling: You got an odor of big Pharma from that article but I wish you'd explain how. The study was done by the American Heart Association and covered products from two very competitive companies.

It wasn't one of those narrow one product studies done by the company owning the product.

Gordon

Hi Gordon.

The short answer to why the article has the odor of BP & FDA is that it flies in the face of overwhelming science to the contrary.

A longer answer is that there is zero justification for trusting a BigMedia article at 'face value', e.g. 'Operation Mockingbird':
[www.lust-for-life.org].

The long answer, again, is the totality of the extended contents of [www.spacedoc.com] from where one can branch off to spend days - literally - becoming convinced by the facts of cholesterol / statin science vs. its for-profit soulless propaganda:

[www.spacedoc.com&] lead-page roster of scientist/researchers, plus a few select writings: (linked to on the web page)

- Dr. Ernest N. Curtis, M.D.

The Cholesterol Delusion 1
The Cholesterol Delusion 2
==========
- Dr. Dwight C. Lundell, M.D

The Statin Scam
Saturated Fat and Heart Disease
==========
-Dr. Stephen Sinatra, MD, FACC, FACN

Statins, CoQ10, and Carnitine
Heart Health - Q and A
==========
- Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, MD.

"The Great Cholesterol Con". Dr. Kendrick looks at Cholesterol.
==========
- Dr. Paul J. Rosch, MD, FACP

Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Do Not Cause Coronary Heart Disease
Cholesterol Causes Heart Disease?
==========
- Dr. Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PhD, noted physician, researcher, founder of The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics - THINCS. (see [en.wikipedia.org])

The Benefits of High Cholesterol [first sentence: "People with high choleaterol live the longest". Please read entire article: <[www.afibbers.org];]
Saturated Fat is Good for You - 1
Saturated Fat is Good for You - 2
Saturated Fat is Good for You - 3
The Real Cause of Heart Disease?
==========
- Dr. Kilmer McCully, MD

Cholesterol - Part 1
Cholesterol - Part 2
Homocysteine - Part 1
Homocysteine - Part 2
==========

- USAF Flight Surgeon/ former astronaut Duane Graveline:

My first book, Lipitor, Thief of Memory, was written after my two bouts of transient global amnesia (TGA) associated with the use of Lipitor in the years 1999 - 2000. Predictably at that time, I was focused on cognitive dysfunction and Lipitor.

I soon realized the adverse reactions involved far more than impaired cognition, including personality change, myopathy, neuropathy and a chronic neuromuscular degeneration similar to ALS, and all statins were contributing to these adverse reactions, not just Lipitor.

It was in this climate that I wrote my second book, Statin Drugs Side Effects. This is when I learned what reductase inhibition really meant. The reductase step blocked by statins was at the very beginning of the mevalonate pathway.

This pathway to cholesterol synthesis is also shared by many extremely important biochemical substances, including coenzyme Q10, inhibition of which was the cause of many of these side effects.

One cannot reduce cholesterol by the use of statins without simultaneously blocking these other biochemicals sharing the mevalonate pathway. My third book, the Statin Damage Crisis, was written to help people understand this.

In attempting to explain why many statin drug side effects such as neuropathy and myopathy often tended to persist regardless of CoQ10 supplementation, I discovered something far more ominous was going on.

Excessive CoQ10 inhibition was resulting in buildup of free radicals resulting in increased mitochondrial DNA damage and mutation, primary factors in how we age. Statin drugs were thereby enhancing aging. Statin associated CoQ10 inhibition was leading directly to increased mitochondrial DNA damage and premature senility. My fourth book that covers this is titled The Dark Side of Statins.

Duane Graveline, MD, MPH
==========

Be well!

Erling

[www.afibbers.org]

103 good things to explore - ("depends on what the meaning of 'good' is").

Thanks for putting these references in one place, Erling.

We're going to see a lot more press on statin "benefits" now that they are suggesting that children be screened starting around age 9. Once they find elevated cholesterol levels, you know what the next step is... drugs for life. Oh boy.

Since I bear the consequences of mitochondrial damage from a short trial of statins over 20 years ago, I shudder to think how many young people will be damaged for life as a result if their parents follow in blind faith as I did back then. In young people, blocking the important steroid hormones will have disastrous long-term consequences. ie, pregnenolone (precursor to and essential building block for steroid hormones such as cortisol, DHEA, estrogen, progesterone and testosterone.

We can only hope that dietary changes and exercise will be emphasized rather than resorting to statins as a preventive measure.

Jackie

Hi Gordon and all -

The study that Shari Roan wrote up in The Los Angeles Times is this NEJM online article: <[www.nejm.org];. It was "designed by the Cleveland Clinic Coordinating Center for Clinical Research in collaboration with the sponsor, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals" [the maker of Crestor (rosuvastatin].
"The institutional review board at each site approved the protocol". The "primary efficacy end-point" of the study, "percent atheroma volume (PAV)... decreased by 0.99%" for both Crestor and Lipitor (atorvastatin).

Less than 1% plaque reduction from two years of high dose statin use seems nothing to brag about. The report doesn't consider that, over time, all statins cause loss of "quality of life" and increased mortality.

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals appears to be in some trouble: [www.cbsnews.com].
A clue to its reason for sponsoring the study might be glimsped in this newsletter article - just change 'Time magazine' to 'Los Angeles Times':

William Campbell Douglass II, MD:

Newsrag begs you to take your meds

"It's downright impossible to sort the news from the ads these days. Just look at Time magazine, which has resorted to begging its readers to take cholesterol meds - it even called the supposedly low numbers of statin users "depressing".

Last I checked, docs were giving statins to practically anything with a pulse - making them some of the top-selling drugs in the world, including the best-selling drug in human history. If you're a drug company, the only thing "depressing" here is that the patents are running out and many of these meds are now going generic.

But don't tell that to Time. They've come up with an article that looks like a collection of talking points from a Big Pharma marketing session - and since it was based on a recent World Health Organization report, it practically was. That report supposedly found too many people with undiagnosed high cholesterol in some nations, and too many people in other nations who are diagnosed but not treated. (continue -> <[www.afibbers.org]

Erling.

=========

Please note that the study's sponsor was AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, maker of the statin Crestor, in collaboration with the Cleveland Clinic Coordinating Center for Clinical Research. The American Heart Association was not involved.

==========

More clues to why a Big Pharma company - AstraZenaca (Crestor) - would need to sponsor and advertise yet another statin study --

Lipitor (atorvastatin) is "the best selling drug in human history":

"... since its launch in 1997, it has generated more than $80bn in sales for Pfizer, far outstripping all other blockbusters... By 2004, Pfizer could boast that Lipitor had become the world's first "mega-blockbuster", generating annual revenues of more than $10bn. Last year, they exceeded $12bn.

But the monopoly rights that made Lipitor so lucrative are now set to disappear. Once its patents expire in 2011, generic drug manufacturers will be able to sell it far more cheaply. That is good for patients, but bad for Pfizer as it struggles to maintain its pre-eminent industry ranking. It is also a sobering moment for the entire pharmaceutical industry: many believe that the circumstances that gave rise to Lipitor's extraordinary success may never occur again."

(from <[www.ft.com]

==============

The following is from an insightful article by Julian Whitaker, MD, on statins, CoQ10, and the two 1990 Merck Co. patents for a statin/CoQ10 combination product* -- (the 2002 International Coenzyme Q10 Association conference in London, UK.)

Coenzyme Q10: Miracle Nutrient

Excerpts:

"A few years ago, I delivered a speech at the third conference of the International Coenzyme Q10 Association, which was held in London. This conference was attended by acclaimed researchers and clinicians from all over the world who shared their experiences and studies on this unique and beneficial element.

"In 1990, two patents were issued covering the use of CoQ10 in combination with statin drugs to prevent, treat, or ameliorate the complications brought on by the drugs. The first patent (US Patent #4,929,437), issued to Jonathan A. Tobert and assigned to Merck & Co., clearly states that by lowering CoQ10, the statin drugs can cause predictable elevations of liver enzymes with liver damage. It also states that by giving CoQ10 along with the drugs this complication can be prevented, or treated if it already exists.

A month later, a second patent (#4,933,165) was issued to Nobel laureate Michael S. Brown, MD, well known in scientific circles for his work in fat and cholesterol metabolism. This patent, which was also assigned to Merck, states that statin drugs, by causing a reduction in CoQ10, can produce complications of muscle pain, weakness, and myopathy. The patent covers a combination product of CoQ10 added to a statin to prevent these complications, plus the use of CoQ10 for the treatment of these complications.

Incredibly and inexplicably, Merck never exercised these patents, never made combination CoQ10-statin products, and even more ominous, never attempted to educate physicians or patients about the very dangerous statin-CoQ10 connection. Even though patients are informed of potential side effects of muscle weakness and soreness and liver enzyme elevation, they are not told that this is likely due to the drug’s reduction of CoQ10. Nor are they told that by supplementing with CoQ10 they could prevent or eliminate these problems. And there have been consequences."

[www.whitakerwellness.com]

*
- US patent 4929437 [www.freepatentsonline.com]
- US patent 4933165 [www.freepatentsonline.com]
==========

The 2001 LETTER TO FDA REGARDING STATIN ISSUE

Following the recent events regarding serious side-effects related to statins (the Baycol issue) the International Coenzyme Q10 Association released an official statement (see below) which was sent to the Food and Drug Administration. The same letter will be sent to the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medical Products and to the equivalent Japanese agency.

(Continue -> [www.icqa.org])

Jackie: People do get damaged and even die from dietary and exercise issues, too. Some people on this board even got afib from too much exercise.

Not every mainline doctor or hospital is on the dole from Big Pharma. Certainly no individual can employ the resources of Big Pharma to do studies and publicize the result they like. Still, it appears the majority of cardiologists continue to recommend statins for many. Childhood diets causing obesity to increase at the rate it now is may indeed find statins to be a help if not a solution.

I appreciate you doing such good research that points out alternative ways of solving issues that work for many. I personally probably would be continuing to have way too many PVC's if it wasn't for your groundbreaking work on elctrolyte needs and balance.

Exercise and diet are not total replacements for medications. Not everyone is capable of realistically adopting healthy diet and exercise programs to the level where they have significant benefit. It seems to me that we need to be more moderate about this issue.

A point to be considered is that there's no one solution that works for everyone and you have to evaluate the good vs. bad results from any program to see if it might work for you.

Gordon

Gordon - I can appreciate your viewpoint. Excess of anything is apt to be detrimental either to a minor or major degree.

My comment was directed at childhood obesity which is now rampant thanks to bad food choices, the increasing prevalence of indoor activities - computer games etc, (sitting and low physical exertion) and even the cancelling of school gym classes, coupled with terrible dietary choices on school menu... (witness the recent Congressional skirmish over eliminating pizza and french fries from school food and classifying pizza as a vegetable.) A high carb diet - especially in lunchrooms where there is no activity afterward to burn off the glucose - is a recipe for disaster....and all we have to do is look around and observe the truth of that fact.

It would be criminal to use statins on children rather than emphasize diet and exercise. Remember, it's the impaired methylation process that causes the damage and statins do nothing to support methylation. They will, however, help keep the coffers healthy for Big Pharma and that's really what drives the motivation for the testing which also brings in additional revenue for the labs and medical clinics. For them, it's a good thing; not so for innocent children who are victims of their environment.

While some people may eventually have to rely on medications, all too often drugs are the easy-out, first choice rather than make the effort to correct the medical problem at its source. The problem, then becomes, the adverse effects brought on by one drug which leads to prescribing another, and another etc.

More physicians need to learn less from drug companies and more about Functional Medicine.

Jackie

Gordon,

Respectfully, please read carefully the following by a preeminent cardiologist. I too want the clear conscience of knowing I at least tried to penetrate the fog of illusion.

Erling
=====================================

July 8, 2002
STATIN-INDUCED CARDIOMYOPATHY
INTRODUCTION TO THE CITIZEN'S PETITION ON STATINS
By Peter H. Langsjoen, MD

The medical profession has, after more than 30 years of excellent propaganda, successfully created the wholly iatrogenic "pseudo-disease" dubbed "hypercholesterolemia" and the associated malady "cholesterol neurosis". After decades of dismal failure to cure this "disease" of numbers with low fat diets and a host of cholesterol lowering drugs, the medical profession stumbled upon the magic bullet, the cure for this dreaded artificial disease - statins (HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors). First released on the US market in 1987, statins have rapidly grown into one of the most widely prescribed class of drugs in history. Statins do three things:

1. They block the body's ability to make cholesterol, thus lowering the blood level of cholesterol, thereby curing cholesterol neurosis. Doctors and patients equally neurotic have immediate gratification. The "evil" high cholesterol has been dramatically lowered and the future is bright and promising. So far...so good.

2. Unrelated to their cholesterol lowering, statins have been found to have anti-inflammatory, plaque-stabilizing properties which have a slight benefit in coronary heart disease.

3. Statins kill people - lots of people - and they wound many, many more. All patients taking statins become depleted in Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10), eventually - those patients who start with a relatively low CoQ10 levels (the elderly and patients with heart failure) begin to manifest signs/symptoms of CoQ10 deficiency relatively rapidly - in 6 to 12 months. Younger, healthier people who's only "illness" is the non-illness "hypercholesterolemia" can tolerate statins for several years before getting into trouble with fatigue, muscle weakness and soreness (usually with normal muscle enzyme CPK tests) and most ominously - heart failure.

In my practice of 17 years in Tyler, Texas, I have seen a frightening increase in heart failure secondary to statin usage, "statin cardiomyopathy". Over the past five years, statins have become more potent, are being prescribed in higher doses, and are being used with reckless abandon in the elderly and in patients with "normal" cholesterol levels. We are in the midst of a CHF epidemic in the US with a dramatic increase over the past decade. Are we causing this epidemic through our zealous use of statins? In large part I think the answer is yes. We are now in a position to witness the unfolding of the greatest medical tragedy of all time - never before in history has the medical establishment knowingly (Merck & Co., Inc. has two 1990 patents combining CoQ10 with statins to prevent CoQ10 depletion and attendant side effects) created a life threatening nutrient deficiency in millions of otherwise healthy people, only to then sit back with arrogance and horrific irresponsibility and watch to see what happens - as I see two to three new statin cardiomyopathies per week in my practice, I cannot help but view my once great profession with a mixture of sorrow and contempt.

Statin-induced CoQ10 depletion is the topic of a recent petition to the FDA requesting that this drug/nutrient interaction be identified in a black box warning as part of statin package insert information. A comprehensive review of animal and human trials addressing this issue has been submitted to the FDA as a supporting document. We, of course, do not expect any response from the FDA, but 10 years from now when the full extent of statin toxicity becomes painfully evident, at least we can, in good conscience, know that we tried and who knows, sometimes small sparks may spread in dry grass.

Erling: I did read your excerpts and Googled Dr. Langsjoen to look at some of his publication abstracts.

It appears to me he's primarily focused on lack of COQ10 in one's system, particularly the heart, and why COQ10 is necessary.

In the your posting above, Dr. Langsjoen mentions good that statins do and it seems to me he's saying that COQ10 needs to be consumed whenever one is taking a statin. He's certainly also saying that statins are overprescribed as well. I wonder if he uses statins at all in his practice.

Here's a link to the latest appearance of Dr. Langsjoen, in September of this year. [www.prescription2000.com] Can 99.9% of physicians all be wrong?

You and Jackie have often mentioned the multitude of benefits of COQ10 and I believe you and take it. Indeed one of its benefits to me early on was the elimination of bleeding gums. I don't think there's any controversy about the value of supplemental COQ10.

Gordon

Thanks for that current link, Gordon. Dr. Langsjoen's experience and study with statin-induced cardiomyopathy is something we can't ignore, especially since so many people are undoubtedly marginal in CoQ10 and then taking a statin puts them on a downhill slide quickly.

I have a couple of old interviews with Dr. Langsjoen .. so old they are on audio tape! He is well indoctrinated in the importance of CoQ10 since his father was one of the initial pioneers along with Karl Folkers and others (Littarru) researching the function of CoQ after Fredrick Crane first isolated it. They've had many decades of observing hopeless patients improve significantly and some of the stories of how they initially consumed it are humorous... as are those of current researcher William V. Judy, PhD.

It seems incredible that mainstream medicine is so reluctant to buy into how critical ubiquinone is for everyone; yet knowing the financial motivations and the patent limitations on natural substances, it's perfectly logical to see why it's not being promoted to keep people healthy.
Funny part is, when physicians are surveyed...especially cardiologists... they all own up to taking CoQ supplementally. What does that tell you?

[faculty.washington.edu]

Jackie

Hi Gordon,

Thanks for the Dr. Langsjoen interview - it was good to hear him discussing this.

You can be sure that Dr. Langsjoen sees nothing good in statins - no clear headed science-trained person can. Easy perhaps to misconstrue his cynical comment: "They block the body's ability to make cholesterol, thus lowering the blood level of cholesterol, thereby curing cholesterol neurosis" - which is true: the whole cholesterol/statin con is intentionally induced paranoia neurosis.

I just watched a video where he tells about 100% of his new patients being taken off statins immediately - which brought to mind excellent physician Ron Rosedale: "Whenever I see a patient on any of those medications they're off the very first visit. They have no place in medicine." (<[www.afibbers.org]

If one examines closely this towering statin/cholesterol edifice it becomes obvious that it's built on sand - lies for $$. I've been looking at it for many years, all the while adding my tiny bit to tearing it down. It began in '95 when I came down with a bad case of AF, and out of necessity got into studying medical matters - the science. Since then 100% of the doctors I've paid to see tried their best to have me take a statin because my lipid numbers are higher than their numbers (on fear of bad hings like death -- they never mention the bad things from CoQ depletion). So I can't question Langsjoen's 99.9%. Of course I refuse - I know too much for their con...

The statin edifice had its beginning with the discovery of the naturally occurring poisonous chemical lovastatin in some obscure plant/fungus (in Asia was it?) called Aspergillus terreus. Realizing that it poisons the enzyme HMG-CoA reductase in the cholesterol synthesis pathway made it a perfect partner with the infamous "lipid hypothesis" about arterial plaque - and soon the gold rush was on. Merck was first with the lovastatin they named Mevacor - 'Meva' in honor of the mevalonate pathway it poisons, I suppose. Never mind that it also poisons CoQ10 synthesis. Of course Merck took out patents adding CoQ10 to statins, but never acted on them - "ominous" said Dr. Whitaker.

Take care, and be well!

Erling

================

The lipid hypothesis The Blog of Michael R. Eades, MD (July 2005)

"The lipid hypothesis of heart disease is, as Dickens wrote of Scrooge’s partner, Jacob Marley, dead as a doornail, yet, like Marley’s ghost, it continues to haunt us. Why?" (continue: [www.proteinpower.com])

Someone asks: So from your response is it correct to infer that you would now never prescribe statins, regardless of how high the patient’s total cholesterol was, provided the triglycerides, HDL and LDL particle size were in what you consider healthy ranges or ratios?

Dr. Eades: I probably wouldn’t prescribe statins no matter what.

Another question: Are we living the last days of the Lipid Hypothesis?

Dr. Eades: We can only hope. But as long as there are lipid-lowering drugs to sell, the lipid hypothesis will have legs.

Please read this article carefully. It's hugely important, and entertaining, too!
=============================

Author of The Great Cholesterol Con, Dr. Malcolm Kendrick M.D. looks at Cholesterol (http://www.spacedoc.com/malcolm_kendrick_cholesterol)

As a Scotsman of a certain age, I have always found heart disease fascinating. This is possibly because of the fact that, in my youth, Scotland had the highest rate of death from heart disease (by which I mean coronary artery disease/ atherosclerosis) in the world.

When I went to medical school I was told that the very high rate of heart disease in Scotland was caused by a diet containing far too much saturated fat. This raised our Scottish cholesterol levels. The excess cholesterol was, in turn, deposited in the artery walls, thus narrowing them to the point where they blocked up - causing angina, heart attacks and death.

The answer, therefore, to preventing heart disease was to eat less saturated fat, thus lowering cholesterol levels. Or, if you couldn't get people to eat less fat, then simply lower cholesterol level with drugs. It all seemed very simple and exceedingly straightfoward. Why look anywhere else, when the answer was clear.

For years I did not question this orthodoxy. Then, one day, I was on holiday in France. Whilst chewing on a fatty steak, dripping in butter, it suddenly struck me that the French ate rather a lot of saturated fat. As I peered through the smoke filled restaurant I also recognised that they smoked quite a bit too. However, their rate of heart disease was one tenth that of Scotland (age and sex-matched).

I then looked at the other classic ‘risk factors' for heart disease in France e.g. blood pressure, HDL ‘good cholesterol' levels, body mass index (BMI), amount of exercise taken. I found that, in comparison to the Scots, the French ate significantly more saturated fat, had the same cholesterol levels, the same blood pressure and the same HDL ‘good cholesterol' levels. They also had the same average BMI and took slightly less exercise (on average). They smoked considerably more. In short, much worse classical ‘risk factors,' one tenth the rate of heart disease.

I was not the only person to notice this. Another Scots doctor, Hugh Tunstall-Pedoe also noted that - according to their risk factors - the French ought to have significantly more heart disease than the Scots. Rather than the actual figure of ten times less. He termed this anomaly the ‘French paradox', and set out to explain it. Or, to be more accurate, he set out to explain it away. It is clear that he had no interest, whatsoever, in attacking the status quo. The world famous ‘experts' all knew what caused heart disease, and he wasn't going to rock the boat. No way. Professorships are not handed out to mavericks.

So, the soon to be Professor, Hugh Tunstall-Pedoe looked at the French, and their diet, and came to the conclusion that the French were protected against heart disease by their high consumption of garlic, red-wine and lightly cooked vegetables (full of anti-oxidants, don't you know). Very soon after this, it became a ‘fact' that these three factors were protective against heart disease.

One slight problem is that there never was, and still is not, the slightest evidence that any of these three factors provides any protection. I write this in the certain knowledge that many of you are absolutely convinced that garlic, red-wine and anti-oxidants truly are protective, and that many studies have proved it. To which I would say..... ‘show me the studies'. [Do not rely on such statements as ‘it is widely accepted that.' These statements mean nothing].

In fact, I have since discovered that the entire field of heart disease research is packed full of facts that do not (when you start looking properly) exist. Female sex hormones protect against heart disease? For many years this 'fact' was just known to be true. One slight problem. There never was any evidence to support it. Unlike most ‘facts' in heart disease, it was spectacularly disproved.

To give another example of facts that aren't true. Namely, that saturated fat intake raises cholesterol levels. The Framingham study, the longest lasting, most respected study into the causes of heart disease (started in 1948) reported that ‘In Framingham, Massachusetts, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower people's serum cholesterol.' Dr William Castelli - director of the Framingham study at the time - 1992.

What was the effect of such a startling finding. Absolutely nothing at all. Complete silence. To quote Winston Churchill: 'Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.' How true.

More recently, a major eight year long interventional study on fifty thousand women (the Woman's Health Intervention) found that a 25% reduction in saturated fat intake had no effect on LDL ‘bad cholesterol' levels, or heart disease rates. [One of many studies that have shown the same thing].

Commenting on this study, the director of the National Heart Lung and blood Institute stated that: ‘The results of this study do not change established recommendations. Women should work with their doctors to reduce their risks for heart disease including following a diet low in saturated fat, trans fat and cholesterol.' Never let the facts get in the way of a good recommendation, I say.

The cholesterol hypothesis is, perhaps, the greatest ever example of a medical hypothesis that has become too powerful to die. Too many vested interests are intertwined with it. World famous experts would look incredibly stupid if the hypothesis were to be accepted to be wrong. An entire industry of cholesterol lowering would fall apart. Hundreds of billions of dollars of statin sales are at stake. Worse, much worse, the medical profession would end up with a few million eggs on its face. Perish the thought. Much better that millions die, surely.

In fact, I have come to realize that there is, literally, no evidence that can dent the cholesterol hypothesis. Believe me, I have had a good go. For example, here is another quote from the Framingham study on the impact of cholesterol levels themselves. There is a direct association between falling cholesterol levels over the first 14 years of the study and mortality over the following 18 years. 11% overall and 14% CVD death rate increase per 1mg/dl per year drop in cholesterol levels

In short, once your cholesterol level starts to fall, you are much more likely to die from heart disease. A 150% increase in relative risk for every 10 % fall, approximately. Add this to another very big study of the elderly, published in the Lancet: Our data accord with previous findings of increased mortality in elderly people with low serum cholesterol levels, and show that long term persistence of low cholesterol concentration actually increases the risk of death. Thus, the earlier that patients start to have lower cholesterol concentrations the greater the risk of death.

The effect of this study on the cardiovascular research community was.....as you would expect...nothing at all. A deafening silence. Cholesterol continues to be demonised as the terror, killer substance. Statins are pushed more and more widely to lower cholesterol levels even further. When I tell people that the higher their cholesterol level they longer they will live, they look at me in a way that suggests they believe that my medication is clearly not working.

Now that I know that cholesterol has nothing to do with heart disease, and that lowering it with statins is a complete waste of time, I find myself in the position of the little boy who points out that the Emperor has no Clothes. With one rather important difference.

Even though the ‘experts' have been made aware of it many times, they care not that this particular emperor has no clothes. Or, to be more accurate, they cannot and will not allow themselves to accept that it might be true. For to accept this would be far too humiliating for the great and the good. Which, I suppose, is why people become so enraged when anyone dares to point out the truth.

It is a slight comfort to know that in fifty years (hopefully many fewer than this), people will look back at cholesterol lowering and say ‘You did WHAT?' Were you MAD? Don't you know that cholesterol is absolutely vital for human health? Didn't you realise that blocking cholesterol synthesis would directly lead to nerve cell damage, muscle destruction, liver obliteration and cancer?

My God, you presided over the greatest iatrogenic medical disaster ever.' I, of course, will probably be dead by then. But at least I will not have poisoned my metabolism with statins.
==========

Dr. Malcolm Kendrick (MbChB MRCGP) M.D.
Dr. Kendrick has worked in family practice for almost twenty years.
He has specialized in heart disease and set up the on-line educational website for the European Society of Cardiology.
He is a peer-reviewer for the British Medical Journal.

Excellent posts Erling... I certainly enjoyed Dr. Kendrick's commentary and I wanted to learn more about him. In my search, came across this 22-page article by Dr. Robert Rowen, titled:

" Statins - Did your doctor tell you? " Nice addition to this thread.
[www.second-opinions.co.uk]

Jackie

Thank you, Jackie -

Gads, we've been doing this for a very long time, repeating the same life-saving truths in as many ways, by as many scientist as we can find. Your new offering is excellent, the End-notes providing nearly endless verification of the obvious. Maybe Frank at the thread's beginning will now 'get it' in spite of his stubbornness to accept the wisdom of his brother and son? If this hasn't convinced him, nothing will.

Frank, there couldn't possible be a worse anti-inflammatory than a statin drug!

Erling

Erling - your comment about the antiinflammatory properties of statins reminds me of the directives given to me after my ablation procedure. I was to use a statin just for that reason. They are just so entrenched in mainstream medicine it's maddening.

Being a good, compliant patient wanting the best possible outcome and even though I knew I had existing statin damage in muscle cells, I filled the Rx and gave it a try... same symptoms only very rapid onset. After a day or two, I couldn't climb the stairs. I even tried the 'natural' version... the Red Yeast Rice..... same thing.... so quit and did heroics with all of the other natural anti-inflammatories starting with CoQ10, vitamin C, curcumin, vitamin D, and so on which apparently worked very well as I had a speedy recovery and little signs of ablation irritation after the first week.

Thanks for reminding me that we have an arsenal at hand at iHerb.

Jackie

You can find an extensive selection of natural anti-inflammatories here: [www.afibbers.org]

Hans

THINCS is The International Network of Cholesterol Sceptics: [www.thincs.org]. Links at top of page.

Many Essays by Malcolm Kendrick, MD: [www.thincs.org]

An interview with Duane Graveline, MD: [www.medicationsense.com].