Why Do Some Medical Practitioners Consider Statin Drugs a Dangerous Hoax?
What if your were prescribed statin drugs to lower your risk of a heart attack because your health profile demonstrated cardiovascular potential health risks? After all, the person prescribing is an MD, who should know, right? Wrong!
Other health experts who are not tied to Big Pharma or under medical licensing limitations know that not only are statin drugs dangerous with their side effects, they don’t even work!
Satin drugs are have been the largest source of revenue for drug companies over the past decade. Their sales for the risk factors recommended are promoted by medical committee members who have pharmaceutical affiliations that lead to financial perks.
Their foundation for public acceptance is based on the myth of cholesterol as a source of cardiovascular disease, which has been
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 drugs 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 claims that the side effects of statin drugs are exaggerated and the benefits outweigh the risks.
But the Cochrane Group, an independent overview ombudsman (critical independent public advocate) of pharmaceutical studies has a second opinion. Here’s their conclusion of the most recent update on reviewing pharmaceutical studies.
“Sponsorship of drug 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.” (Source)
In other words, you cannot completely trust these drug studies. Maybe you’re not aware of these not highly publicized 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 dollars (U.S.) for every drug they approve and license to market.
You also may not know of either of these other studies or reviews because they were not publicized much by mainstream media outlets. But the most recent critiques of statin drugs were presented in some UK 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:
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 drugs 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 drugs for primary prevention do not benefit from it yet still suffer the side effects. (Source)
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.
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’. (Source)
These are excepts you can follow up on or explore further 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. Do your due diligence and question the matter by researching outside the matrix of conventional “wisdom”.