If you have high cholesterol levels you should take a statin right? That is the mantra promoted by conventional medicine. In fact, statins have become the most profitable class of medications sold by The Big Pharma Cartel.
I have seen countless patients who have been told by their doctor that if they don’t take a statin drug they are putting themselves in line for heart attack.
However, that is not what the research has found. Did you know that:
1. There is no indication for taking a statin drug if you have not had a cardiac event.
2. If you are a man and have had a cardiac event, the best the statins drugs can promise you is approximately a 1-5% reduction in preventing a non-fatal heart attack.
3. Even though they have been around for over 15 years, statin drugs have never been shown to prolong lives.
4. In women there are no solid studies that demonstrate that it is beneficial to take a statin drug for any purpose.
The Cochrane Collaboration, an independent group that is not associated with Big Pharma money stated, “Statins do not have a proven net health benefit in primary prevention populations and thus when used in that setting do not represent good use of scarce health care resources.” (1)
A recent (2013) study found that high cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol levels in subjects over 50 years was associated with lowered all-cause mortality. (2) Compared to those with cholesterol <190mg/dL, those aged 60-70 years with a cholesterol level from 190-230mg/dL had a 32% lowered mortality rate. Those with a cholesterol level from 230-308mg/dL had a 33% reduced mortality rate. For male subjects with a cholesterol over 308mg/dL, there was an insignificant 2% increase risk for all-cause mortality. Women fared better. Compared to those with a cholesterol of less than 190mg/dL, women with cholesterol levels from 190-308mg/dL had a 41-43% reduction in all-cause mortality. Similarly to men, cholesterol levels over 308mg/dL had an insignificant (2%) rise in all-cause mortality.
Folks, this study is nothing new. Low cholesterol levels are associated with an increased risk of cancer, neurological disorders and muscle disorders. There are many studies showing increased longevity in older people (over 59 years old) who have higher cholesterol levels. Keep in mind that cholesterol is needed by every cell in the body to optimally function.
I stated in my book, Drugs that Don’t Work and Natural Therapies That Do, “You can’t poison a crucial enzyme and expect a good long-term result.” Statins poison a crucial enzyme in the body—HMG CoA Reductase. The result of poisoning this enzyme is disastrous—the chemical lowering of cholesterol is associated with disorders of the neurological and muscular systems.
The promotion of statins defies logic. The widespread use of this class of medications doesn’t make either biochemical or common sense. Mark my words; In the future, the widespread use of statins will be shown to be a drastic mistake in medicine.
(1) Therapeutics Letter 77/ March-April 2010
(2) Scandinavian J. of Primary Health Care. 2013;31:172-80
“Folks, this study is nothing new. Low cholesterol levels are associated with an increased risk of cancer”
Errr… cancer CAUSES low cholesterol. It’s not the other way around.
Dr. Fung,
It is true that cancer can cause low cholesterol levels, but low cholesterol levels have been shown in numerous studies to be associated with the development of cancer.
DrB
I take red yeast rice in lieu of statins. Is that a mistake?
Jon,
Red yeast rice works with the same mechanism of statin drugs. Therefore, if my premise is correct, I would say that red rice yeast should be avoided.
DrB
We should also look at the Number Needed to Treat (NNT). According to MinnPost.com:
“Sixty people would have to take a statin for five years for one to avoid a heart attack; 60 is the NNT for avoiding this outcome. And 268 people without heart disease would need to take a statin for five years for one person to be saved from a stroke; 268 is therefore the NNT for avoiding this outcome.” Not very impressive, I’d say.
Dear B,
You are right. When I lecture, I teach docs how to calculate NNT. The average NNT for most statin studies is around 100. This means 100 people have to take the drug in order to prevent one non-fatal heart attack. That means the drug has a 99% failure rate as 99 took it without benefit.
In the study you quote above, 60 need to take it for five years to avoid one non-fatal heart attack. That means this drug (according to this study) has a 96% failure rate (65/66) as 65 out of 66 people received no benefit.
Not very impressive is an understatement.
DrB