Tuesday, 14 June 2016

Is Cholesterol harmful? Do we need Statin drugs?

Conventional drug-based medicine is supposed to be based on science. The pharmaceutical companies tell us this all the times. My last blog raised the question - how secure is this science? It did so in relation to a single, alcohol dependence drug, Nalmefene.

Now, the same question needs to be asked about the medical science that for decades has been telling us that cholesterol, especially LDL cholesterol, was harmful, and that to counter the dangers of cholesterol we should all take statins.

Now, a new paper has been published by the BMJ (the British Medical Journal). It is called "Lack of an association or an inverse association between low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol and mortality in the elderly: a systematic review." A group of international scientists reviewed 19 studies into the effect of LDL cholesterol on mortality. Contrary to what doctors have been telling us for over 40 years, they found that in most studies there was actually an inverse relationship between LDL cholesterol levels and mortality for those over 60. The authors concluded that "our study provides the rationale for a re-evaluation of guidelines recommending pharmacological reduction of LDL-C in the elderly as a component of cardiovascular disease prevention strategies."

The study has been discussed in the Telegraph, on BBC News, and in the doctors e-magazine, Pulse, and in each the study has been heavily criticised by the conventional medical establishment. Pulse provides us with a statement from the British Heart Foundation, which is typical of the reaction:

          "There is nothing in the current paper to support the author’s suggestions that the studies they reviewed cast doubt on the idea that LDL Cholesterol is a major cause of heart disease or that guidelines on LDL reduction in the elderly need re-valuating."

In contrast, the authors of the paper provide us with a forthright and contrary view.

          "Lowering cholesterol with medications for primary cardiovascular prevention in those aged over 60 is a total waste of time and resources, whereas altering your lifestyle is the single most important way to achieve a good quality of life."

So, one part of the conventional medical establishment is advising patients that to avoid heart disease we are all need to take Statin drugs, because they are very effective. Another part is saying statins are 'a total waste of time and resources'!

So who is right? Who are we to believe? And where is the science behind the assertion that cholesterol causes heart disease? And that statins prevent heart disease?

Two things are certain about this 'debate' going on with the conventional medical establishment , and neither of them are 'scientific'.

  • The first is that the response to the new paper is not that it has raised important doubts that require further investigation. It is straight denial, an outright refusal to investigate further. As the British Heart Foundation has said - the study does not cast doubt on previous finding - and there is no need to re-evaluate.
  • The second is that nowhere, in any of these discussions, is there any mention of the serious and harmful side effects that statin drugs are now known to cause - including dementia, diabetes, liver and kidney disease, et al (see 'The Dangers of Statin Drugs')
Medical science is no guarantee of the safety or the effectiveness of drugs. It is not a reliable informant about the causes of illness.

Medical science has, for too long, been the creature of the pharmaceutical companies, who have used their massive wealth to purchase the science it has wanted to sell its drugs.
  • we have a drug that can reduce cholesterol? Well, let's tell patients that cholesterol causes heart disease so that we can sell the drug to huge numbers of patients!
  • let's also tell patients that the drug is 'entirely safe', that everyone should be taking it, even after it has proven to cause serious illness and disease to patients who take it regularly.
This is not a 'scientific' disagreement. It is not even a 'scientific' discussion. It is a demonstration that conventional medical science has been bought and paid for by pharmaceutical money for decades. This new study suggest that what I, and many other people having been saying about cholesterol and statins for many years is true. It shows the extent to which the public has been duped into thinking that statin drugs have been beneficial to our health. But this possibility will be studiously ignored!

What it demonstrates is that when 'science' might result in a reduction of drug or vaccine sales it is routinely castigated and ignored. Only the 'science' that supports pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, and can be used in their promotion, is considered to be 'scientific'.

It is not science that underpins conventional medicine, it is drug promotion!

What this situation demonstrates is that no-one should believe anything that the conventional medical establishment tells us about our health!