SEARCH
Statins might not slash the risk of dying from heart disease: study claims the cheap cholesterol-busting pills offer 'no consistent benefit'
Related: assembly-line medicine, atherosclerosis, cholesterol, ethics in medicine, gears of the machine, health, nutrition, statin
I am not a doctor! Do not follow my advice! Trust your drug pusher doctor who does everything solely with your best interests in mind based on advice from those fine people at CDC/FDA/AHA, etc.
I’ve studied the research on statins extensively. Being trained in statistics and critical thinking, and having a world-class bullshit meter, I can say unequivocally that statins are one of the biggest frauds in medical history.
Actually, that’s too kind: they are actively damaging tens or hundreds of millions of people in just about every area of health, degrading a critical area of physiological function and thus affecting everything in a bad way (except perhaps a mild anti-inflammatory benefit, which is probably the only benefit they have).
But... your doctor is under considerably pressure to prescribe statins: paint-by-numbers assembly-line medicine with real consequences for not following guidelines. Few doctors can resist those pressures.
Very few doctors have ever done a critical-thinking study of statins in order to make an informed decision, relying instead on dogmatic assertions by an unethical medical establishment. Fewer still have ever questioned the increasingly weak cholesterol hypothesis. The evidence is just not there, and the glaring flaws in financially and ethically corrupt studies are glaring. Then again, very few doctors have any critical thinking skills, sad to say.
If you speak to doctors off the record (I have) you’ll get a very different message than in an official setting. If you raise the glaring problems with studies, you’ll find that no doctor will be able to assert any persuasive argument when it comes to statins—at best you’ll get a “might help in some extreme cases” response, at least if the doctor is honest.
All about statins and statin reading list.
BMJ: Hit or miss: the new cholesterol targets
Emphasis added.
...These population studies suggest that, despite the widespread use of statins, there has been no accom- panying decline in the risk of cardiovascular events or cardiovas- cular mortality. In fact, there is some evidence that statin usage may lead to unhealthy behaviours that may actually increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.
The evidence presented in this analysis adds to the chorus that challenges our current approach to cardiovascular disease prevention through targeted reductions of LDL-C. Given the lack of clarity on how best to prevent cardiovascular disease, we encourage informed decision-making. Ideally, this includes a discussion of absolute risk reduction and/or number needed to treat at an individual patient level in addition to reviewing the potential benefits and harms of any intervention.
WIND: note the refreshing sanity check of "absolute risk reduction”, versus the unethical (highly misleading) relative risk reduction approach quoted by statin makers and most doctors. While the conclusions are weak sauce, the massive harm that is being done makes any voice that questions the wisdom of poisoning a key biological system very welcome.
Even with this voice of sanity, the limited analysis that is being done is ludicrous because 75% of the story is missing—at a minimum, 75% of statin side effects are never reported—and that has been proven in multiple studies—doctors just do not bother and frequently dismiss complaints. Not to mention the damage that is done is rarely if ever diagnosed properly and attributed to the true root cause—statin usage.
Below, I’m quoting here below from The Daily Mail—not exactly my preferred source—but I’ll find the original studies and read up on the apparent re-awakening to actual scientific analysis.
Daily Mail: Statins may not slash the risk of dying from heart disease: Controversial study claims the cheap cholesterol-busting pills offer no 'consistent benefit'
Scientists analysed 35 studies into the effects of the drugs which lower 'bad' LDL cholesterol and found the pills have no consistent benefit.
The research, published in the British Medical Journal, found three quarters of all trials reported no reduction in mortality among those who took the drugs.
...
Lead author Dr Robert DuBroff, from the University of New Mexico School of Medicine, said that 'it seems intuitive and logical' to target LDL cholesterol because it is considered essential for the development of cardiovascular disease.
But, they added: 'Considering that dozens of trials of LDL-cholesterol reduction have failed to demonstrate a consistent benefit, we should question the validity of this theory.
Commonly reported side effects include headache, muscle pain and nausea, and statins can also increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, hepatitis, pancreatitis and vision problems or memory loss.
WIND: what they did NOT study was the myriad and horrible side effects of statins!
Side-effects are under-reported by at least 75%. Zero benefit, myriad problems, some horrible and debilitating life changing problems. Prescribing statins is with rare exception medical malpractice, by any objective standard.
Commonly reported side effects include headache, muscle pain and nausea, and statins can also increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, hepatitis, pancreatitis and vision problems or memory loss.
