Repatha is a new cholesterol-lowering medication that works differently from statins. It is part of an expensive class of medications that currently costs about $14,000 per year. When Repatha first came out I predicted that this class of drugs would (similarly to statins) fail and, furthermore, cause too many adverse effects. When we reviewed the article, we concluded Repatha was not very effective as it failed to help nearly 98% who took it. As we were about to finish our discussion, I said let’s look at the adverse effects from this drug. Adverse side effects were encountered by 77.4% of those treated with both Repatha and the placebo. As for serious side effects, 24.8% of the Repatha group and 24.7% of the placebo group suffered a serious adverse effect. We were both stunned. How could a therapy have such a high rate of adverse effects, especially serious adverse effects? And, how could a placebo have such a high rate of adverse and serious adverse events?
Want to flip a coin on your health? Researchers assessing the effectiveness of cholesterol-lowering statin drugs found that they didn’t work for 51% of the 165,000 patients studied (statins have to reduce LDL cholesterol levels by 40% after two years to be considered effective). We’ve reported previously about the many side effects and dangers of taking statins. We’ve also pointed out that conventional thinking supporting statins—lowering “bad” LDL cholesterol as a means of preventing cardiovascular disease—is outdated. With one in four Americans over the age of 40 taking a statin, there are a lot of people out there spending money on a dangerous drug that is not providing any benefit. Will doctors change their prescribing practices based on this information? It doesn’t seem so. Statins make tens of billions of dollars a year for the drug industry, and the market is growing. Statin use among adults over the age of 40 increased almost 80% between 2002 and 2013.
Independently-sourced research challenges the idea that LDL (low-density lipoprotein) is the "bad cholesterol," and causes heart disease. However, the theory that LDL is "bad" persists in the mainstream media and with Big Pharma, mainly because they would lose billions of dollars in drugs and treatments to admit the theory lacks merit. The hypothesis of saturated fat creating artery-clogging cholesterol as the source of heart disease should be considered dead and incapable of resuscitating, based on the scientific evidence. But one still sees and hears fearful statements about lowering cholesterol and avoiding heart disease, mostly on mainstream media but even all too often on internet alternative media sources. Current research is showing LDL is not dangerous and it’s not an accurate marker for pending heart disease.
Pharma Wants Every Senior on Statin Drugs as Corporate Media Seeks to Silence Doctors Exposing the Cholesterol Myth
Cholesterol-lowering statin drugs are a $100 billion-a-year industry. Lipitor was, by far, the most profitable drug in the history of mankind among all pharmaceutical products, let alone being the most profitable cholesterol drug before its patent expired at the end of 2011. Sales to date from this one particular cholesterol-lowering statin drug have exceeded $140 billion. After Lipitor’s patent expired at the end of 2011, the FDA issued its first warnings against statin drugs, which include: liver injury, memory loss, diabetes, and muscle damage, among others. Thousands of lawsuits against the maker of Lipitor followed. As we have reported many times over the years here at Health Impact News, the cholesterol theory of heart disease is not well-supported by science at all. In fact, much of the science states that cholesterol is an important part of our health, and contrary to popular belief, those with the highest levels of cholesterol actually live longer than those with lower levels of cholesterol in their blood. However, with such a large segment of the American population moving into their senior years, the pharmaceutical industry's attempt to keep seniors on cholesterol-lowering statin drugs continues unabated, and the largely pharma-funded corporate media is doing their part to silence doctors and other researchers who criticize the failed cholesterol theory of heart disease. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, a Scottish doctor and the author of the book The Great Cholesterol Con, has had his entire Wikipedia entry deleted recently in an obvious attempt to silence him as a new study was just published to try and justify putting more seniors on statin drugs. Here are his comments on this "new" study.
For well over 30 years, every medical student has been taught that high cholesterol levels are responsible for causing heart disease—the number one killer in the US. And, the public has been similarly educated that eating a low-fat diet (having less cholesterol) is the best way to avoid becoming a cardiac patient. At my medical school graduation (nearly 30 years ago—oy vey!) the dean told us that we were trained with the latest medical information. He continued by stating that, unfortunately, over 50% of what was just taught to us was incorrect. He told us that it was our job to figure out what is fact and what is fiction. Perhaps my dean would be proud of me as I have dedicated my professional career to determining what is right and what is wrong with medicine. Now I can state, without equivalence, that the cholesterol=heart disease hypothesis is terribly wrong. Keep in mind, I came to that conclusion many years ago after studying the literature.
As American Heart Association Prepares to Revise Guidelines for Cholesterol, Harvard Doctor Speak Outs on Conflict of Interests
The American Heart Association (AHA) will soon be meeting in Chicago to set new guidelines for treating high cholesterol, the first big update since 2013. Medical doctors are not at all unified in their position on cholesterol-lowering statin drugs, although pharmaceutical companies and their front groups, such as the AHA, would like the public to believe all doctors are in favor of lowering cholesterol via medication. Independent journalist Sharyl Attkisson recently covered the issue of the "Statin Wars" on her TV show, Full Measure. In the introduction to her show, Attkisson states: "Past (cholesterol) guidelines have said more and more of us should take cholesterol-lowering drugs called “statins” to prevent heart attacks and save lives. But the recommendations aren’t without controversy. And they raise a larger debate in medicine— over who’s paying the doctors and groups deciding what’s good for us." She interviewed three people with different perspectives on statin drugs.
Network of Cholesterol Skeptics Researchers: Abandon the LDL Cholesterol Theory of Heart Disease and Look at More Important Risk Factors
Dr. Malcom Kendrick is the author of the book The Great Cholesterol Con. He is the co-author of a recently published paper that looks at important risk factors related to cardiovascular disease, pointing out that looking at LDL cholesterol levels are not a good indicator of heart disease. Dr. Malcom Kendrick is part of The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics (THINCS). The lead author of this recently published paper is Dr. Uffe Ravnskov, author of Fat and Cholesterol are Good for You, and the leader of THINCS. We have featured both men's writings frequently here on Health Impact News over the years, as they expose the cholesterol myth and the statin scam. Referring to Dr. Ravnskov and THINCS, Dr. Kendrick wrote in a recent blog post: "As you may know I am a member of an organisation known as The International Network of Cholesterol Sceptics (THINCS). When I say this, people always laugh. I suppose it is better than people shouting and screaming and slapping you repeatedly. The man who set it up was Uffe Ravnskov – our glorious leader. He has done far better than me. His first book The Cholesterol Myths, was burnt, live on air, in a television studio in Finland. I am very jealous. Having your critics become so enraged, that the only thing they can think to do is burn your book, is a very great ‘sceptic’ honour. Although one must be slightly fearful that the mob doesn’t stop at burning your books." So if LDL cholesterol is not a contributing factor in heart disease, what is? This White Paper recently published in the journal Medical Hypotheses encourages researchers to abandon the LDL cholesterol theory of heart disease, and consider other, more important, risk factors.
Scottish medical doctor, Malcolm Kendrick, has just written a brilliant expose on his blog explaining, scientifically, why it is impossible for saturated fats to raise LDL cholesterol levels. As I have written many times over the years, this is the kind of information that can save your life and help you make wise dietary choices, but it is information that the U.S. government, Big Pharma, and the corporate-sponsored "mainstream" media cannot afford to publish. Because to do so would be to admit guilt in one of the biggest medical scams of all time: the lipid theory of heart disease. This theory, which has been proven scientifically to be false, has been an economic success for cholesterol-lowering statin medical drugs, the most profitable class of medical drugs all time. This theory also promotes the low-fat diet which encourages consumption of carbohydrates from U.S. subsidized crops, as well as polyunsaturated oil, also derived from U.S. subsidized crops. This theory of heart disease, which condemns cholesterol and saturated fat, has probably been responsible for many millions of people's early deaths and the life-long suffering of autoimmune diseases for an entire generation.
A new study, published by the BMJ (British Medical Journal) in May 2018, found that people consuming eggs regularly were less at risk for heart disease than those who consumed no eggs. The title of the Chinese study is Associations of egg consumption with cardiovascular disease in a cohort study of 0.5 million Chinese adults. Over a half-million Chinese, between the ages of 30 and 79, were recruited across various regions of China and surveyed for egg consumption. Those with histories of cancer, heart disease, stroke, or diabetes were excluded from the study. Those remaining, slightly under a half-million, were followed for several years to determine incidents of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and both ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes. The average egg consumption varied from none to over one a day. The study’s conclusion: "Our findings suggested that daily egg consumption (<1 egg) [actually .8 daily on average] was associated with lower risk of CVD [cardiovascular disease], IHD [ischemic heart disease], MCE [major coronary events], hemorrhagic stroke and ischaemic stroke among Chinese middle-aged adults. Our findings contribute scientific evidence to the dietary guidelines with regard to egg consumption for the healthy Chinese adult." The study noted that morbidity from strokes is higher in China than Western nations where deaths from ischemic heart disease (ISD) are higher. An average egg consumption of .8 could translate to five to six eggs per week. The Chinese study also referenced an earlier smaller Japanese study, the Life Span Study in Japan, and found that “daily egg consumption was associated with a 30% lower risk of total stroke mortality” compared to no or occasional consumption of eggs.
Big Pharma Cannot Explain Why People with Very High LDL Cholesterol Have No Cardiovascular Disease and Live Long Lives
If your hypothesis is that all swans are white, the discovery of one black swan refutes your hypothesis. That is how science works. Or at least that is how science should work. In the real world, scientists are highly adept at explaining away contradictions to their favoured hypotheses. They will use phrases such as, it’s a paradox, or inform you that you didn’t measure the correct things or say there are many other confounding factors – and suchlike. Anyway, accepting that the finding of someone with a very high LDL level, and no detectable atherosclerosis, will always be dismissed – in one way or another – I am still going to introduce you to a ‘case history’ of a seventy-two-year-old man with familial hypercholesterolaemia, who has been studied for many, many, years. Try as they might, the researchers have been unable to discover any evidence for cardiovascular disease (CVD) – of any sort. The paper was called ‘A 72-Year-Old Patient with Longstanding, Untreated Familial Hypercholesterolemia but no Coronary Artery Calcification: A Case Report.’ And just in case you believe this is a single outlier, something never seen before or since, let me introduce you to the Simon Broome registry, set up in the UK many years ago to study what happens to individuals diagnosed with familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH). It is the longest, if not the largest, study on FH in the world. It has mainly been used as one of the pillars in support of the cholesterol hypothesis. However, when you start to look closely at it – fascinating things emerge. One of the most interesting is that people with FH have a lower than expected overall mortality rate – in comparison to the ‘normal’ population. Or, to put this another way. If you have FH, you live longer than the average person.