Relentless Statin Junk Science Continues

What a load of Cholesterol and saturated fat hogwash. Using statins at such high dose makes theses drugs anti-inflammatory medications and that might be the reason why there is a reduction in heart attacks and strokes. Even that is a very expensive and highly dangerous form of anti-inflammatory medication given that there are so many safer ways to reduce inflammation. Further the 29% reduction mentioned is a meaningless number. 29% of what? For example if the target population is only 1% then a reduction of 29% this means didly squat!


FAQ about Cholesterol & Heart Disease

What's a little cholesterol amongst friends?

Imagine lowing cholesterol to below 75, which should be a sure recipe for depression, amnesia and cancer. Only the pharma Mafia could consider this a great benefit to risk ratio. Billions of dollars world wide benefit to their bottom line that is.

Not to mention vitamin B and Coenzyme 10 (CQ10) depletion due to their use leading directly to congestive heart failure besides muscle, liver and kidney damage. Exactly what your pharma doctor needs to keep her/him rich and happy for ever and ever!


Statin Drugs & Memory Loss

Statins May Cause Nerve Damage

Cholesterol Drug & Muscle Pain

Muscle Side Effects Of Statins

Statin Drugs & Breast Cancer

High Homocysteine Due to Low B Vitamins

(how statins deplete Coenzyme Q10)

Safe nutritional based solutions such as Orthomolecular Solutions to Heart Disease are naturally never mentioned!

Given the perceived benefits of lowering cholesterol borders more on speculation then in fact (mostly from manipulated statistics) it is surprising that there is a need to reduce cholesterol at all. Yet Dr. Mirkin still seems to feel the need to do so indicates how ingrained the cholesterol lowering mantra has taken hold in the medical community.

Dr. Mirkin and his ilk seem also to be totally oblivious on the importance of saturated fats in health then what else is new?


The Benefits of Saturated Fats

"Dr. Mirkin's cavalier, dumbed-down explanation of the PERMANENT damage caused by statins wrecking the delicate mitochondrial machinery that provides glucose and oxygen to working muscle is typical of the allopathic model: the chemical becomes the inviolate standard which is never at fault, and the response to the chemical is judged instead. So if statins ruin your muscles and you are too sore to lift a glass of water, and you die of a stroke despite rock bottom cholesterol, you are a "poor responder" and the drugs are blameless." Aliss Terpstra

So so true. Blame the victim strategy is so convenient and hence endemic in our society that it has pretty much become the norm for just about anything, all the way from fluorides to pesticide poisoning etcetera etc.

Statins May Cause Nerve Damage

"Researchers showed that people taking statins were 4 to 14 times more likely to develop polyneuropathy than those who did not take statins. Statins include Lescol, Lipitor, Mevacor, and Pravachol. Statins are highly effective in preventing heart attacks, so you should not stop taking them"

Here is a perfect example how the cholesterol myth has taken a life of its own. The lack of proof to support a link between cholesterol and heart disease does not deter the brainwashed proponents even when contrary evidence is starring them in the face.

Class Action - Statins Increases Heart Disease By 10% In Women

Chris Gupta

See also: Bad News About Statin Drugs


by Gabe Mirkin, M.D.

A Danish study reports that a small percentage of people who took statin drugs for several years to lower cholesterol developed a type of nerve damage called polyneuropathy.

Polyneuropathy is characterized by tingling, numbness and burning pain as well as decreased sensitivity to temperature or pain. When a person suffers nerve damage, a doctor is supposed to look for a cause, such as diabetes, lack of vitamin B12, Lyme disease, kidney disease, thyroid disease or alcohol abuse. People who had taken statins and developed polyneuropathies were checked for known causes of nerve damage. Researchers showed that people taking statins were 4 to 14 times more likely to develop polyneuropathy than those who did not take statins. Statins include Lescol, Lipitor, Mevacor, and Pravachol. Statins are highly effective in preventing heart attacks, so you should not stop taking them unless you develop aside effects such as polyneuropathy. Check with your doctor about any side effects from your medications.

Neurology May 14, 2002;58:1321-1322, 1333-1337


Neurology 2002;58:1333-1337 

© 2002 American Academy of Neurology

Statins and risk of polyneuropathy

A case-control study

D. Gaist, MD PhD, U. Jeppesen, MD PhD, M. Andersen, MD PhD, L. A. García Rodríguez, MD MSc, J. Hallas, MD PhD and S. H. Sindrup, MD PhD

From the Department of Neurology (Drs. Gaist, Jeppesen, and Sindrup), Odense University Hospital; Epidemiology (Dr. Gaist) and Clinical Pharmacology (Drs. Andersen, Hallas, and Sindrup), Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark; and Centro Español de Investigación Farmacoepidemiológica (Dr. García Rodríguez), Madrid, Spain.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. David Gaist, Epidemiology, Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Sdr Boulevard 23A, 5000 Odense C, Denmark; e-mail: dgaist or dg

Background: Several case reports and a single epidemiologic study indicate that use of statins occasionally may have a deleterious effect on the peripheral nervous system. The authors therefore performed a population-based study to estimate the relative risk of idiopathic polyneuropathy in users of statins.

Method: The authors used a population-based patient registry to identify first-time-ever cases of idiopathic polyneuropathy registered in the 5-year period 1994 to 1998. For each case, validated according to predefined criteria, 25 control subjects were randomly selected among subjects from the background population matched for age, sex, and calendar time. The authors used a prescription register to assess exposure to drugs and estimated the odds ratio of use of statins (ever and current use) in cases of idiopathic polyneuropathy compared with control subjects.

Results: The authors verified a diagnosis of idiopathic polyneuropathy in 166 cases. The cases were classified as definite (35), probable (54), or possible (77). The odds ratio linking idiopathic polyneuropathy with statin use was 3.7 (95% CI 1.8 to 7.6) for all cases and 14.2 (5.3 to 38.0) for definite cases. The corresponding odds ratios in current users were 4.6 (2.1 to 10.0) for all cases and 16.1 (5.7 to 45.4) for definite cases. For patients treated with statins for 2 or more years the odds ratio of definite idiopathic polyneuropathy was 26.4 (7.8 to 45.4).

Conclusions: Long-term exposure to statins may substantially increase the risk of polyneuropathy.

Armed with the above information, Now you can interpret the following propaganda of which mainstream media whore, Gina Kolata, is so expert at dispersing:

Experts Set a Lower Low for Cholesterol Levels

July 13, 2004

Federal health officials yesterday sharply reduced the desired levels of harmful cholesterol for Americans who are at moderate to high risk for heart disease.

The new recommendations call for treatment with cholesterol-lowering drugs for millions of Americans who had thought their cholesterol levels were fine. Already more than 10 million people take the drugs. But now, more should start, the recommendations say. For people at the highest risk, they suggest that the target level of L.D.L., the type of cholesterol that increases the likelihood of heart disease, should be less than 100. That is 30 points lower than previously recommended. (Why don't you offer to talk about what made those people the "highest risk?" Why don't you offer alternatives to taking these drugs?)

For people at moderately high risk, lowering L.D.L. to below 100 with medication should be seriously considered, the report said. (Why should they be seriously considered?) The advice for people at low risk remains unchanged.

The recommendations were published today in the journal Circulation and endorsed by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology. The authors said the change was prompted by data from five recent clinical trials indicating that the current cholesterol goals were not aggressive enough and that more intense drug treatment led to better results. (Why don't you give us details about those clinical trials? Where's the link to this "data" so the public can examine it?)

The recommendations, which modify guidelines set by the government only two and a half years ago, will increase by a few million the number of Americans who meet the criteria for therapy with the powerful cholesterol-reducing drugs called statins, and many people who are already taking the medications will be advised to increase their doses. (Thus, making the drug companies richer while increasing kick backs to the "experts.")

Under the old guidelines, about 36 million people in this country should be taking statins, said Dr. James Cleeman, coordinator of the National Cholesterol Education Program. But only about half that number do. (Therefore, the greedy drug companies feel they are not rich enough.)

In the report, the health officials addressed three questions: When are statins merely a sensible option? When are they imperative? And how aggressively should patients be treated? (What about: What are the alternatives to drugs?) The recommendations focus on the levels of L.D.L., rather than total cholesterol levels, because L.D.L. is the target of cholesterol-lowering therapies. (WHY? Why is there no explanation of this?)

One change applies to people at moderately high risk, defined as having risk factors like advancing age, high blood pressure or smoking that confer a 10 percent to 20 percent chance of suffering a heart attack in the next decade. Under the new recommendations, doctors now have the option of prescribing drug therapy for such patients if their level of L.D.L. cholesterol is 100 or higher, the report says, and a level of below 100 can be set as a goal. {Now, we're getting a little more exact, but why don't you explain why the above named risk factors started in the first place?"}

Previously, doctors were advised to prescribe statins to moderately high risk patients only if the patients' L.D.L. levels were above 130, and the treatment was considered effective if L.D.L. levels fell below 130.

For example, following the new advice, a 57-year-old nonsmoking man who has an L.D.L. of 115 and whose blood pressure, with medication, is 130, could now receive drug treatment. Under the old rules, he would not have been treated. (Oh, goody for us. Now, we have a demographic indicating one type of patient who will accept new prescriptions for statins because of the powerful faith he has in his doctor. That patient is probably covered by Medicare or a Medicare administrating HMO which will further drain the American Economy into greedy pharmaceutical companies which respect NO nation. Of course, that drain on the American Economy may be directly through the pockets of retiring people considering the following article:

Medicare Law Is Seen Leading to Cuts in Drug Benefits for Retirees
New government estimates suggest that employers will reduce or eliminate drug coverage for 3.8 million retirees when Medicare offers such coverage in 2006.

The recommendations also call for more aggressive treatment of people at high risk, that is, with established heart disease, diabetes, or other conditions that give them a greater than 20 percent chance of having a heart attack in the next decade. In such cases, when L.D.L. levels are above 100, doctors should always recommend drug treatment, the report said, and no longer have the option of not prescribing the medications. (How aggressive is "aggressive?" If I don't have powerful faith in a medical doctor who determines that I "need" statins, will he knock me out and shove it down my throat?)

The previous advice said that drug treatment was imperative in high risk people only when their L.D.L. exceeded 130.

The report did not change the advice for people whose cholesterol levels are above 130 but who have no other risk factors. Statins are seldom prescribed in such cases.

A risk calculator is available on the heart, lung and blood institute's Web site,

Millions of Americans will be affected by the new advice, said Dr. Christie M. Ballantyne, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Protection at Baylor College of Medicine. He said that among the more than 28 million Americans at high risk, at least 8 million had L.D.L. levels of 100 to 129.

The recommendations also call for more intensive drug treatment of both moderately high and high risk patients, telling doctors that the goal should be to reduce patients' L.D.L. levels by 30 percent to 40 percent, no matter what the initial levels were. (Even if the levels are some where being "healthy?")

"There is some evidence that physicians were using so-called starter doses of statins, and then not upping the dose when that did not produce enough L.D.L. lowering," Dr. Cleeman said. "We are saying, 'Don't just drop their L.D.L. a few percentage points. Drop it by 30 or 40 percent so they will get real benefit.' " (Please explain the "real benefactors" of this therapy...)

For example, Dr. Cleeman said: "If you have someone who starts at an L.D.L. level of 115, don't just give a small dose of a statin to get it to 99. Give a dose for a 30 to 40 percent reduction." (What's the LDL level in a really healthy people who don't take all these drugs?)

Perhaps the report's most surprising recommendation concerns the goal that doctors might set for L.D.L. levels in their patients at highest risk, those with established heart disease plus another condition like diabetes, smoking, high blood pressure, or a recent heart attack. For those patients, the report said, there is a therapeutic option to drive the L.D.L. level to a breathtakingly low level - below 70. ("Breathtakingly" meaning just about killing patients by driving their LDLs below normal levels?)

The term, "therapeutic option," was used, Dr. Cleeman said, because while the advice was suggested by recent clinical trials, the evidence was not quite ironclad. (He might as well be "Dr. Gumby" from Monty Python's Flying Circus.)

"The evidence is quite strong,' he said, "but it is just short of being definitive where you would say, 'Thou shalt.' " (I change my mind: He IS "Dr. Gumby" from Monty Python's Flying Circus.)

But, Dr. Cleeman added, "I think it is reasonable to say that it is the preferred option to get these people to an L.D.L. level of less than 70." (Yes, Dr. Gumby, you may also anesthetize me with your sledge hammer.)

It will not be an easy goal to achieve, heart disease experts said.

Dr. Scott M. Grundy of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School at Dallas, the lead author of the new report, said, "A standard dose of statins gets most people close to 100.''

"If you are going to get from there down to 70, you have to take a high dose of statins," Dr. Grundy said, "which still might not get you there." (Unless you take a drug that completely kills the liver...)

One possibility, he said, is to add another drug like niacin (BTW, vitamin B3, aka niacin is NOT a drug; it is an ESSENTIAL NUTRIENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) or ezetimibe, a drug that reduces the amount of cholesterol absorbed from the digestive tract. (If you are worried about what people are eating, why don't you prescribe a healthy diet?)

But even then, said Dr. Daniel Rader, director of preventive cardiology at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, many people will not be able to reach an L.D.L. level of 70. "There definitely are still going to be people who even with combination therapy can't get their L.D.L. level into that range," Dr. Rader said. (So, is Dr. Gumby trying to hit the moon with a sling shot or are his friends at the drug companies putting a little something extra in statins lately?)

No one doubts that the new recommendations will be expensive. But, Dr. Cleeman said, statins, which cost about $100 a month, are cost effective (for people with that kind of extra money) in those who should be taking them, because heart disease costs "hundreds of billions of dollars." Statins, which can reduce the risk of heart disease by 30 percent to 40 percent, he said, "compare very favorably to other standard treatments, like treatments for hypertension." (According to Dr. Gumby lowering LDLs by 30 to 40 percent is directly proportional to reducing the risk of heart disease. How true is that? How do LDL levels function with the cardiovascular system? What is the purpose of LDL? How does LDL function in a healthy body? What types of Cholesterol are in the body?)

The stock of Pfizer and Merck, two manufacturers of statin drugs, showed little change yesterday. (That was yesterday. What about six months from now after the proliferation of this propaganda? I'm sure the demand for statins will have met the fiscal solvency of Pfizer and Merck by then.)

Heart disease researchers say they are taken aback by the speed at which the old rules of cholesterol lowering are being rewritten in response to growing evidence that lower is better. (Once more, with feeling: WHERE'S THAT EVIDENCE?)

"It is really quite extraordinary," said Dr. Steven Nissen, a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic.

He said, "When I was in medical school, I was taught that any cholesterol level under 300 was normal."

He explained that someone with a total cholesterol level of 300 will have an L.D.L. level over 200.

"Now here we are a few decades later saying that patients at high risk should take their L.D.L. levels to 70 or less," Dr. Nissen said. (And here we are, today, with so many more people suffering from diabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol than a few decades ago. The laws of nature HAVE NOT changed, Dr. Nissen. The laws of greed have...)

He and others, like Dr. Valentin Fuster, director of the Cardiovascular Institute at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, predict that the optimal levels for L.D.L. cholesterol will go lower still. (Until they vanish and we're six feet under?!!)

Several clinical trials now under way are expected to provide even stronger evidence of the value of intense cholesterol lowering, Dr. Fuster and others said. Dr. Fuster added that in the future even L.D.L. levels of 70 will seem too high for those at greatest risk. (What happens if there is the LDL levels are too low to carry that essential cholesterol throughout the blood? Once more with feeling: WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF CHOLESTEROL IN THE BLOOD?

"I can predict that the guidelines will be modified to be more and more aggressive and it will happen in the next three years, if not earlier," Dr. Fuster said. (I can predict that corporate greed will rely on the further dumbing down of the American Republic to the mentality of a faithful dog...)

[Healing Science Electrotherapy Spectrum] [Healing MindN] [Over Unity Energy Spectrum] [Economic Healing MindN] [Poison Consumer Reports] [Sexual Healing MindN] [Diabetes Deception] [Privacy] [World Spirit Message Board] [] [.] [Make a monumental difference - join Sierra Club today.] [Bioenergetic Nutrition Spectrum] [Statin Vitamin C Propaganda] [How nutrition affects your behaviour...] [Bioenergetic Spectrum] [U.S. Health Care Propaganda] [] [Content Rating] [Aspartame: Legalized Sudden Death Neurotoxin] [Ayurvedic Herbs Propaganda: Heavy Metals] [DSHEA vs. CODEX ALIMENTARIUS] [Consumer Convenient Ozone Therapy by Dr. Katz] [Ear Hot on Long Cell Phone Calls? This Will Help... ] [Sleep Package] [Holy Life, Healing MindN] [Great health and fitness products from The Sharper Image] [Research Multiwave Oscillators by Georges Lakhovsky] [Musical Seismograph - Demonstration of the Tesla Converter by Eric Dollard [Earth Week Special: Get 25% off any book or video by Eric P. Dollard from, use this coupon code: EPD25. Enter the code into the shopping cart during checkout and click the coupon button to apply the discount.] ] [Sleep Package]

Up Down
<<< << < | > >> >>>