August 04, 2017; by Paul Fassa, Natural Health Journalist (Silver Bulletin e-News Magazine, UtopiaSilver.com) What if you were prescribed Statin medicines to lower cholesterol because your health profile demonstrate cardiovascular potential health risks? After all, the person prescribing is an MD, he should know, right? Wrong! Other health experts who are not tied to Big Pharma or under medical licensing limitations and/or the AMA know that not only are statin medicines dangerous with their side effects, they don’t even work! [The truth is that Statins may be downright dangerous.]
Oh sure, they’ll lower your cholesterol readings, but that’s the wrong target. We all need cholesterol to convert sunlight into vitamin D, to construct new cell wall membranes, to build new brain cells and protect our nervous systems. Cholesterol is vital for human life.
The typical side effects of statin medicines include memory loss, early onset dementia (Alzheimer’s), torn tendons, weaker bones and lower immunity to infectious disease because of low vitamin D levels. And the topper is that heart disease is caused by coronary and arterial inflammation, not arteries clogged from cholesterol.
Studies Pro and Con
You may have read or been told about a Lancet Medical Journal review that claimed the side effects of statin medicines are exaggerated. That the benefits outweigh the risks. You can look over that review in #1 of the sources listed below.
But the second source or #2 link is from the Cochrane Group, an independent overview ombudsman (critical independent public advocate) of pharmaceutical studies. Here’s their conclusion of the most recent update on reviewing pharmaceutical studies.
“Sponsorship of medicine and device studies by the manufacturing company leads to more favorable efficacy results and conclusions than sponsorship by other sources. Our analyses suggest the existence of an industry bias that cannot be explained by standard ‘Risk of bias’ assessments.”
In other words, you cannot completely trust these medicine studies. Maybe you’re not aware of these facts:
- Pharmaceutical companies either do all or most of their studies
- Or, they pay universities to do some or all of their studies (rember the cynical version of the “golden rule” – they who own the gold make the rules)
- The FDA doesn’t do safety studies, they simply accept industry studies
- And the FDA gets paid slightly over a million bucks for every medicine they license to market
You may not know of either of these studies or reviews because they were not publicized much by mainstream media outlets. But the most recent critiques of statin medicines was, mostly in Great Britain press outlets. Perhaps the cholesterol statin hoax is finally beginning to lost its mythical power on consumers and doctors.
Here’s an excerpt from the study reported on Dangerous Medicine: (Source #3 below)
Dr. Esther van Zuuren, a senior researcher from [Netherland’s] Leiden University, said: “It’s time we look at the evidence and stop letting the pharmaceutical companies and food industry pull the wool over our eyes.
The [study] paper even went so far as to say that quitting statins could actually save more lives and improve the quality of life for people who take them, pointing out that statins cause side effects in 29 percent of users and only offer “the illusion of cardiovascular protection” in those who are obese.
Not only do these medicines not help those who have had a heart attack, but they also fail to provide benefits when used as a preventive measure. One out of every five Americans aged 40 to 75 is taking statins to prevent an initial stroke or heart attack, even though most people who take these medicines for primary prevention do not benefit from it yet still suffer the side effects.
If that wasn’t damning enough, this one carries it one step further, titled: “The cholesterol and calorie hypotheses are both dead — it is time to focus on the real culprit: insulin resistance”, published in the Pharmaceutical Journal July 2017. Excerpt from this review below, which critiqued several studies. (Source #4 below)
Using the lowering of LDL-C as a surrogate marker, accomplished through either diet or medicines, has proven to be, at best, inconsistent and, at worst, misguided. Furthermore, using weight or body mass index (BMI) as a surrogate marker has been uniformly ineffective. While some people lose weight acutely through self-imposed dieting, they routinely gain it back, often with worsening of their metabolic state.
Rather, we should examine other risk factors, which more clearly drive the aberrant pathophysiology. The risk factor that has been most consistently associated with CVD, type 2 diabetes and obesity is ‘insulin resistance’ — defined as an impaired biological response to insulin. In fact, insulin resistance plays a primary and causative role in the pathogenesis of hypertension, dyslipidaemia, fatty liver disease, and type 2 diabetes, collectively termed ‘metabolic syndrome’.
These are excepts you can follow up on or explore further in some of my articles on this site if you still believe your doctor who was trained by pharmaceutial company representatives while in med school, and who dares not step out of the box he or she was placed into for fear of losing his/her license to practice medicine.
You may have a doctor who has stepped out of the box and he or she may know of the cholesterol statin scam. But it’s your choice ultimately.
We simply cannot ignore the probability that Statins may be not only useless but downright dangerous.