New analysis shows statins have "minimal" benefits
Substack,
by
Robert W. Malone, MD, MS
Original Article
Posted By: Judy W.,
5/7/2023 8:34:18 AM
My friend and colleague, Dr. Maryanne Demasi has been studying the use of statins for years. She just had her meta analysis published in "JAMA Internal Medicine." This is an extremely important paper.(snip)The public health mantra about cholesterol has always been “the lower, the better.” This has been reflected in expert guidelines which have called on doctors to aggressively lower their patient’s ‘bad’ LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) with statin drugs to prevent heart disease. However, our new analysis published in JAMA Internal Medicine (paywalled) challenges that notion. Over the years, influential researchers such as the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists (CTT) at Oxford University, have monopolised the scientific debate on statins. But there are three problems with the various CTT analyses:
Reply 1 - Posted by:
jntsrgn 5/7/2023 8:45:24 AM (No. 1464525)
I made the exact same points in this article to a colleague of mine, who is a cardiologist almost 5 years ago. He laughed and called me an idiot and told me to stick to bones. So many of my colleagues are bought and paid for by big Pharma. There is so much money in consulting for these drug companies that are killing us all.
35 people like this.
Doctors tried both hubby and myself on statins and the side-effects were awful. Needless to say we decided that high cholesterol was less of a risk than the side-effects of the statins. We also found natural supplements that help and changing some of our food habits. Now we have acceptable cholesterol limits.
17 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
udanja99 5/7/2023 9:15:50 AM (No. 1464544)
I took statins for almost 20 years after my mother died at 66 from irregular heartbeat caused by seriously clogged arteries and my doctors reported that my cholesterol level was 340. My HDLs were off the charts great but they said that my LDSs were too high to be offset by the HDLs. Fortunately, I never had any side effects but I was always uncomfortable about taking them.
A couple of years ago I was talking about it with a radiologist friend who asked to see my lipid profile. It did not include my HDL/Triglyceride ratio but he quickly calculated it and said that it was beyond good and that I didn’t need to be on statins at all. I went back through my lipid profiles from previous years and none of them contained that one ratio. Now I believe that it is left out on purpose so that doctors can prescribe statins. Hello AMA and Big Pharma.
I quit taking the statins that day and when I went for my annual physical a few months later, told my GP about it and asked why that particular ratio was not included in my profile. She didn’t give me an answer but did agree that it was fine for me to no longer be taking statins.
Is it any wonder that so many of us, especially after covid, no longer trust the medical field at all?
42 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Jesuslover54 5/7/2023 9:38:21 AM (No. 1464560)
It's nearly the ideal pharma drug. Vague improvements, everyone must take it for a lifetime and lots of side effects to treat. Unlike something like antibiotics you only have to take for a few days, and nowadays they are recommending even fewer daysstatins are every day - so enjoy your muscle cramps.
15 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
Corndoggies 5/7/2023 9:39:51 AM (No. 1464563)
I’ve known statins were bad for you years and years ago. I had a mother in law that was skin and bones but her doctor was always on her about her cholesterol. I tried to inform her of the dangers of margarine and tried to get her to eat healthier options like real butter but she was brainwashed. She also smoked like a chimney and died of lung cancer in 2010 so maybe cholesterol was the least of her problems.
15 people like this.
Total cholesterol upper limit used to be 249. Mine has been around that for many years, but when upper limit was reduced to 200, my doctor wanted me to take meds. I asked if there was any other test to show plaque buildup. Guess what? There is, but insurance wouldn’t pay for it because it’s “inconclusive.” Only costs $100, so I paid for it myself. It’s a scan that gives you a cardiac calcium score that measures plaque buildup around the heart. Mine has been ZERO every year for the past six years! My doctor no longer hounds me about taking cholesterol meds!!!
14 people like this.
My cardiologist and my own research inclines me to believe keeping HDL high and VLDL (not LDL) is key, and both can be done with supplements (olive leaf, garlic, artichoke, broccoli, and various other antioxidant, Flavonoids, Polyphenols, compounds.
It works.
8 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
jeffinitely 5/7/2023 10:18:18 AM (No. 1464588)
#6, I participated in a community health faire in the early 1980s and at the cholesterol test station, we were told to provide materials (and warnings) if any test result was above 300. I guess that was just not profitable enough for Big Pharma!
7 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Kate318 5/7/2023 10:23:36 AM (No. 1464595)
Thank you, OP. I’ve refused statins every time they were suggested, and insisted my husband refuse them, as well. Like most of American medical research, there is no causative research that proves cholesterol causes heart disease. None at all. Most of our chronic diseases in the US are simply diagnoses to deliver pharmaceuticals.
15 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
JimBob 5/7/2023 10:26:34 AM (No. 1464597)
The 'numbers game' between RRR and ARR illustrates something my Dad taught me, many years ago.
"There are Liars, D@mned Liars, and Statistics."
In everyday news articles, watch for similar numbers games.
"There was a 100% increase in murders in city 'A' in 'yy' year".
Unmentioned was that the number went from 1 to 2, in a city of 500,000 people.
Meanwhile, in city 'B' of the same size,
"There was a 20% decrease in murders in city 'B' in 'yy' year".
Unmentioned is that the number went from 1,000 to 800.
A reader, not knowing the actual numbers, would think that city A was terribly dangerous, and that city B was safer.
As you read the news, watch for the patterns, particularly percentages without the actual numbers.
13 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
paral04 5/7/2023 10:30:41 AM (No. 1464599)
No kidding, but the drug companies got very much better.
7 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
LC Chihuahua 5/7/2023 10:30:48 AM (No. 1464600)
In my case, I had high triglycerides and low good cholesterol. I was put on a med (not a statin) over 20 years ago, and the doctors haven't complained since.
One thing I notice is how the medical industry plays number games with blood pressure and cholesterol. What was good at one time is no longer good now. End results: Tens of millions of new patients.
16 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
DVC 5/7/2023 11:01:05 AM (No. 1464636)
Bull hockey. I went onto a 40 mg statin after a heart attack nearly 20 years ago, which required a single stent be installed. With that low dose of statin plus a regular doses of fish oil, I moved my total cholesterol from 150 with an HDL of about 35, sadly a bit short of the desired 40 level, to a total of about 100 with good HDL at about 42, leaving the bad LDL at under 60. That 35 HDL was with a lot of bike riding, over 30 miles per week for many years.
This very good HDL/LDL ratio has continued for nearly 20 years now and without any more needs for any stents, and with very good health. Last summer, in my early 70s, I biked just under 1,000 miles for the summer, two or three times a week.
It may not work for everyone, but it works great for me. And one reason that it doesn't work for many is that Vitamin D3 substantially interacts with statins. I have been taking 3,000 units a day for most of that20 years, upped to 5,000 units in early March 2020, you can guess why.
Do what you want, it may not work for you, and apparently many have muscle pains with it. I wonder if the fact that huge numbers of people in modern societies are chronically short on D3, and most docs think in terms of the amount of D3 needed to prevent rickets, which is not a normal, healthy level of D3, may be a substantial factor in "ineffectiveness" and "problems" with statins.
6 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
DVC 5/7/2023 11:02:20 AM (No. 1464637)
Try statins plus 3,000 units of D3 every day. D3 is the key, IME.
6 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
DVC 5/7/2023 12:39:47 PM (No. 1464727)
They want more of us dead. So they "reinterpret" things that work and cancel them.
And more will die. And the anti-human ecocrazies smile.
6 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
udanja99 5/7/2023 12:55:57 PM (No. 1464744)
#5, weight and lifestyle have little to do with high cholesterol. When mine was diagnosed the doctors questioned me about my activity level and my eating habits. I have (successfully) fought against gaining weight my entire life. They said that there was nothing in my lifestyle which contributed to high cholesterol and that mine was purely hereditary. My mother’s death confirmed that they were right. See my post above.
2 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
ThreeBadCats3 5/7/2023 12:58:33 PM (No. 1464747)
As a family physician for 45 years, I’ve been subjected to the same war on cholesterol. My own trial of statin resulted in about 15 years of myalgia, which finally stopped when I stopped the statin, fifteen years ago. I’m still healthy, other than back pain, at 79, but father died of tobacco age 66. Physicians are browbeaten to prescribe, and may be subject to lo litigation if somebody has a cardiovascular event and you “failed” to prescribe a statin. I regularly get notices from various insurance etc parties reminding that a patient should be prescribed a statin, shame on me. Almost like the cursed vaccine hoax.
8 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
Farmwife1 5/7/2023 1:15:04 PM (No. 1464754)
Every new doctor I've seen wants to put me on statins almost the very first thing. They like their kickbacks. Also, I don't trust any of them since the scamdemic. They used to say "sex sells." Now it's fear.
6 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
Strike3 5/7/2023 2:32:46 PM (No. 1464794)
I have ignored medical advice on the dangers of cholesterol and BP over 120 for years, never took a drop of their medicine and saved a pile of money. When I turn 95 I intend to write an editorial entitled "I win, you lose."
6 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
Roscoelewis 5/7/2023 4:10:53 PM (No. 1464850)
The liver produces cholesterol. Sometimes it makes too much. Statins limit the amount of cholesterol the liver makes.
1 person likes this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
Heartdoc 5/7/2023 7:36:36 PM (No. 1464960)
I am a cardiologist. First, statins are all generic and are dirt cheap and doctors make zero money prescribing them. Second a metamalysis is a combination of multiple studies to prove an effect usually used when independent studies do not give an answer. With statins, meta analysis is not done because each individual study shows statins reduce the risk of heart attack, stroke , and cardiac death. This is true of everyone. Relative risk is the percent of risk reduction. If the relative risk reduction is 20% then if your risk of a cardiac event is 20% over the next five years of a cardiac event and then the absolute risk reduction risk of having an event in 100 patients is 4 patients. That is for every 100 patients treated you help 4 patients. 26 patients will have an event anyway. 80 patients will have nothing happen. The number of patients benefiting increases as time goes by. It is up to the patient to decide to take the risk. In very high risk patients statins should be used. In low risk patients, the likelihood they will help is much less. Since statins are cheap, and most people do not have side effects the threshold for using them is low. If your cholesterol is high and you don’t want to take statins you can get a ct calcium score which will let you know if cholesterol is getting on your arteries and slid there is none the. Statins s will do no good. The internet is full of BS in medicine.
1 person likes this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
MickTurn 5/8/2023 12:45:46 PM (No. 1465460)
Statins work about as well as a Satin Rugby uniform...RIPP/TEAR, he's Naked, but look at him RUN!
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Judy W."
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
Anyone who has been following doctors and scientists outside the pharma-controlled majority knows that cholesterol is not the most important thing in preventing heart attacks. In fact, the number for acceptable cholesterol levels is set far too low, so that many more people will be told they must take statins. And low cholesterol is harmful, but rarely mentioned. It is a gigantic scam that isn't often remarked upon. I hope this article will be a start.