Jump to content

Dangers Associated With Cholesterol Drugs


JustinSmith

Recommended Posts

Hi All,


I am the author of the book $29 Billion Reasons to Lie About Cholesterol


I have recently moved to the area and would like to arrange a series of health-related talks or workshops.


Here are a few facts about cholesterol and cholesterol drugs:


So called, 'high' cholesterol is in most cases simply a normal or average cholesterol level ? the definition has been changed so that more people are eligible for statin drugs.


Most people who have a heart attack do not have high cholesterol - their cholesterol tends to be average or below the average for the general population.


Higher cholesterol does not correlate with a higher incidence of heart disease when we look at most countries around the world.


The rate of heart disease continues to increase despite large reductions in the number of people with 'high' cholesterol.


The average cholesterol level for people in the UK is low when compared with the rest of Europe, despite this, the UK has one of the highest rates of heart attacks.


The latest research has completely changed our understanding of heart disease and has led researchers to abandon the idea that the arteries simply get clogged-up with fats and cholesterol, but this information is not filtering down to the general public.


Do Statins Really Save Lives?

Earlier this year, an analysis of ten clinical trials was published in the British Medical Journal - this found that statin drugs only reduce the overall death rate by 0.6 percent


What Are the Risks?

There is strong evidence that statins increase the risk for type 2 diabetes, and there are unanswered questions about statins and cancer.


A recent MHRA safety review of statins did not investigate, or even mention, the risks associated with diabetes or cancer ? instead it focussed on less serious adverse effects.


I have been researching this subject for several years. There is no doubt that people are being misled and are unknowingly exposing themselves to significant risks.


I would be very keen to hear from anyone who could suggest a possible venue for a presentation on related subjects, and in particular, from anyone who would like to attend.


More information is available at:

www.29billion.com


Thank you!

Justin Smith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

brum Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Are you suggesting we've all been duped -

> including most in the medical profession? If that

> is the case, is the motivation purely driven by

> profit, at the expense of patient's health?



If so, it wouldn't be a first.


Thalidomide anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see an endocrinologist at Kings College Hospital. He's a miserable so and so and when I got my cholestorol down from a massive 6.9 to 5.6 in 3 months with diet alone, he grumpily told me it was still too high. He (and, to be fair) my own GPs say that it should be below 5. But that 5 is better than 5.6.

I am still continuing to get it lower. I do not want and will not go on statins. I can't afford all the prescriptions I take for when I am ill. Grumpy Endocrinologist indeed gave a heap of statistics about the American pharmaceutical company and how much they make each year from their statin drugs alone. Be that as it may (a phrase I never thought I would use), I would be happy to hear what you have to say, but will not pay for it. Sorry. Maybe I'll get your book out the library though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that your brother had a heart attack with a cholesterol of 4 illustrates one of the key facts about cholesterol. Namely, that most people who have heart attacks have average cholesterol or low cholesterol, and NOT high cholesterol.


Yes, you are absolutely right to question anyone who suggests that cholesterol ?can't be too low?. Since cholesterol is needed for every cell within the body and it is used for many functions within the body. Cells actually die if they do not have enough cholesterol in them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not all doctors have been taken in by the cholesterol idea. But yes, generally, I'm afraid that cholesterol drugs are only about profit and not health. I know that this will be very difficult for some people to accept but in order to understand the situation we need to consider the changes that have taken place within medicine and the pharmaceutical industry.


Several editors of the largest medical journals have highlighted some of these issues. For example, Richard Smith worked for the British Medical Journal (BMJ) for 25 years and was Editor and Chief Executive of the BMJ Publishing Group from 1991 to 2004. During this time he became one of the most influential people within medicine.


Richard Smith does not examine the subject of cholesterol, but he does explain how the pharmaceutical companies, although powerful and influential, are experiencing a ?productivity crisis?. In order for these companies to grow and increase profits they need to develop innovative drugs that genuinely provide significant benefits for patients. Unfortunately the number of pharmacological breakthroughs in this respect have been much fewer than was hoped for.


It was hoped that new drugs would be discovered for the ever increasing degenerative diseases suffered by huge numbers of people in the developed world. However, these attempts have been unsuccessful. Pharmaceutical companies have been forced to look at other ways to achieve business growth. This includes increasing marketing efforts to get more people to use their drugs, and creating new diseases: or converting more people into patients.

Some authors describe these activities as ?disease mongering?.


I assure you that every single comment that I make is substantiated with references from the medical literature. One only has to look at the facts, and when we do, the conclusions are obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi '????',


As a health practitioner, my motivation is to bring the facts about cholesterol and statins to the general public. If you would like to know more about me, you may choose to listen to a recent interview. You will need to register at the link below:


http://www.worldpuja.org/home.php


This is a 60min interview.


The show is called 'To Your Health' and the host is Teya Skae

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi PeckhamRose,


I am hoping not to charge for the seminar. It just depends on if I can get a room ? If the room is free the talk will be free. There really is so much evidence that cholesterol is not dangerous and I simply want to present these facts for people to make up their own minds.


The idea that cholesterol needs to be below 5 came from the pharmaceutical companies that make statins. A cholesterol level of 5 is not necessarily better than 5.6

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would definitely be interested in attending something like this...the medical profession have been trying to put me on statins for years...and, like PeckhamRose, I have been really obstinate in refusing. Yes my total cholesterol level is high...nearly 8..(hey, I like chocolate and refuse to give it up!!). But these figures shouldn't be the whole story...as, I am sure you are aware, there are two types of cholesterol (LDL/HDL) and it is the ratio between the two that is of more significance than the the actual total figure. But many people in the medical profession don't seem to take this or other factors into account. It's maddening. And as for statins themselves, I believe people are right to be cautious...there are many undesirable side effects to these. This is a bit like the anti-depressants story...feel down?...have an anti-depressant?...have a pain?...take another anti-depressant...can't sleep?...more anti-depressants...got a boil on your bum?.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ladymuck,


You are absolutely right, the numbers themselves do not tell us very much.


Yes, LDLs are called 'bad' cholesterol and HDLs 'good' cholesterol ? but even this idea of good and bad cholesterol is false.


LDLs and HDLs carry cholesterol but they also carry vitamins and proteins around the body ? reducing LDL levels will reduce nutrient levels as well. This fact has been forgotten and ignored. It does not help that the big pharmaceutical companies spend around 10,000 pounds per year on each doctor in the UK marketing its drugs.


For instance, please take a look at this article on so called 'bad' cholesterol:

http://www.29billion.com/2009/12/bad-cholesterol-is-now-good.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read Justin's book yet but I probably shall. I was diagnosed as Type 2 diabetic about 10 years ago and subsequently have read a great deal on the subject. I also refused to take statins after trying them for a year or so, and suspect that ,along with swine-flu vaccines and many other drugs we are being duped by "Big Pharma",which is such a huge lobbying group in US and UK governments.

My experience has been that drugs have had very little effect on my condition,whereas Losing weight and exercising bring very rapid improvement.

There is a great deal of reading on this available on line. A couple of my favourite sources are:- Dr John BriffaDr Briffa, and Dr Joseph MercolaDr Mercola. The latter does use his website to peddle numerous foods,utensils,etc.,but is nevertheless very interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr John Briffa is very good, he is a medical doctor, however he now specialises in Intergrated health. He has carried out numerous studies on the benefits of certain nutrients for various conditions. I am about to complete my MSc is Nutrition and Dietetics and hopefully I will get to see Dr John Briffa talk in the next few months.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Monica,


Yes, I have been very careful to reference everything, with such an important subject.


I am a Personal Trainer and Sports Massage Therapist. I also practice a nutritional approach called Metabolic Typing.


I was based at the BBC in West London for 4 years and I have also worked with Olympic level athletes.


Before my career in the health and fitness industry, I obtained a degree in engineering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justin,


You quote the 0.6% survival benefit from taking a statin but that does need to be put into context. The BMJ metaanalysis was looking at the lower risk section of the statin taking population ie those without established cardiovascular disease. There is plenty of evidence to support the use of statins improves outcomes post heart attacks.


In metaanalysis the mean follow up was only 4.1 years and therefore it is not surprising that there is not a huge difference in survival between the two groups. To establish a survival impact from an interventional in a healthyish population follow up needs to extend for much longer periods as the chance of anyone dying in this time is very low- which is why any survival difference at this time is of interest. The death rate in the non statin group was 5.7% and the statin group 5.1% (a 12% reduction). Death wasn't the only endpoint in this study in statin group 4.1% of patients had a major coronary event compared to 5.4% in non statin group reduction of risk by a 1/3 and reduction of risk of a cerebrovascular event (ie stroke) was 19% (2.3 vs 1.9%) over a four year period.


Whilst in absolute terms these figures may not seem very high at all (and I can see why many people are not keen to take a tablet daily with potential for side effects when presented with figures like these) but with cardiovascular risk reduction you're not looking just at the next four years but at the next twenty to thirty years. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/338/jun30_1/b2376

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced. I will continue to trust the advice of my doctor and although it is healthy to question medical ethics and the business-driven pharmaceutical industry, the bottom line for me is I choose to trust my doctor, because I really really don't know any better than he/she does when it comes to medical issues. On the question of what is an acceptable level of cholestorol, my doctor has told me what the 'normal' levels should be - but he also said that these figures are a guide only and putting someone on statins is also based on family medical history and other factors.


Research statistics are often cited as 'evidence', however as in all statistics, interpretation is the key. Careful selection of 'headline' statistics often mask the whole picture, as jollybaby has already highlighted above.


With all due respect to Justin Smith, a qualification in engineering (a subject I am also qualified in) does not replace the years of experience and medical expertise of my own GP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Justin, what kind of engineer are you?


I picked up this from your site: "As a practitioner [your] specialities include: exercise prescription, metabolic typing, hair mineral analysis, neurotransmitter balancing, and detoxification protocols. As a science writer, Justin specialises in cholesterol, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity, general fitness and nutrition.


Before his career in the health and fitness industry, Justin obtained a degree in engineering. This rigorous academic background has provided him with the ability to scientifically evaluate published research and the conclusions that are drawn from it."


So it appears that as an enginner with no medical training or qualifications, you're advising members of this forum to ignore the advice of their doctors and take yours?


You and Gillian McKeith eh?


I notice that the endorsements on your website are also practitioners of such esoteric practices as 'metabolic typing'.


What are your views on lemon juice and AIDS?


I can see why being a climate denialist appeals - there's plenty in that field (who can't be bothered to do the science) using unqualified hypotheses to endanger the lives of other people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree fully with your post Huguenot, I truly do. It's a well written piece and reflects how I feel.

It's just that he did publish stuff that can be verified in other ways, and also there's a lot of politics and pharmaceutical money thrown at drug use, and whilst I was worrying that my grumpy consultant was unhappy I had gone down merely to 5.6, I now feel a bit more relaxed about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi jollybaby,


Thank you for your comments.


You are suggesting that the survival benefit would be greater if the study was extended over a longer period of time, but you have absolutely no evidence for this at all.


All statin clinical trials have been short in duration (from 2 to 6 years in duration). We simply do not know if the survival 'benefit' will be increased or decreased in a longer-term study. We are being asked to take statins for several decades. The fact that longer-term data is not available should make us concerned because pharmaceutical companies do not publish data that is unfavourable to their products ? there have been many examples of this and this issue has been highlighted by the editors of medical journals.


I'm sorry but with respect, you are attempting to confuse people with the figures you have quoted. You should inform people that you are quoting relative percentages. Relative percentages have been used in all statin clinical trials to exaggerate any 'benefit' associated with the drug.


You say that ?in absolute terms these figures may not seem very high at all? and you are absolutely right because they are not very high and people should be informed about this. You fail to mention that absolute percentages are the only thing that matters. It is only by looking at the absolute percentages that we can get an idea of how many lives are actually predicted to be saved. Relative percentages have no place in this discussion since relative percentages are only useful for comparing one drug against another drug.


Absolute percentages are the only measure that an individual person can use to decide if they should take a drug or not. If you would like to read more about this I suggest you pick up a copy of the Lancet's Handbook of Essential Concepts in Clinical Research by Schulz and Grimes, or, The Illusion of Certainty by Professor Rifkin.


Not to mention the serious known adverse effects of statins...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Plenty for sale online from various ticket vendors but you'll need to part with £250 and upwards by the looks of it. Out of interest i kept an eye on the prices for the England and Italy Euro final. At one point they were on offer for a couple of grand each. On the day sellers were obviously getting itchy feet and prices dropped somewhat but never went any lower than £400. That was a few hours before kick off. There was plenty still available half an hour before kick off.   Having been to Wembley a couple of times for play off finals i found it to be not a great place to watch football. Sat three rows back from the pitch side advertising hoardings for one game and way way up in the gods for the other. We felt to far away from the pitch on both occasions. Up in the goods was just stupid because we felt cut off as well.  I don't think it was rebuilt with acoustics in mind either. Even with most of our 25k fans singing it never sounded loud because it's pretty much uncovered and too open.   Happy hunting!
    • It doesn't work as a commercial venture.  Bit churlish to say I told you so.  I told you so.  I'll send less greetings cards.  What pees me off is international postage where you can no longer send light letters at 10 grammes, normal ones up to 20g, now all at the much more expensive 100 g  Didn't we vote to take back control and price everything according to irrational units like ounces? That's some obscure humour btw   
    • Available from Monday April 8th 2024, 2on2Walkies take pride in doggie care and only walk 2 furry friends at a time. I make sure that they get plenty of doggie interaction and socialisation in the park as well as making friends. Back home happy and tired I always check that the water bowl has fresh water and always make sure the doggie is left comfortable before I leave. I'm fully insured and have a couple of slots available for local walks to either Peckham Rye Park or Dulwich Park.  Thank you!  
    • Why would they only send them recorded delivery? I used the signed for option yesterday.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...