For a long time, I went all-in on basic MAHA (make America healthy again) tenets, like avoiding statins that lower cholesterol. I rejected numerous recommendations from various physicians that I start in on a low-dose statin. I didn’t want to be part of a life-time sentence to take a drug with unknown long-term side effects, and inflating drug company profits. And besides, isn’t cholesterol supposed to be good for you, good for the brain?
Finally, about a half-dozen years ago I listened when a doctor put it to me straight that, as I aged, the odds were going up substantially that my elevated cholesterol would precipitate a heart attack or stroke.
Same with my elevated blood pressure. In fact, the two factors were combining to seriously weaken my circulatory system as I got older. He cited data to reinforce his points about how the risks of a stroke or heart attack decrease with use of the right prescription drugs.
When I had a checkup recently, the doctor congratulated me on my improved cholesterol and blood pressure readings. Because, he said, new studies were showing that modern statins and blood pressure meds not only reduced the risk of an “adverse event,” but actually improved longevity.
That last conclusion I had to look up. I couldn’t believe that Big Pharma drugs could actually improve health. The right foods and nutritional supplements might be able to improve health, but not Big Pharma pills.
So I used ChatGPT to search the scientific literature on that one. Here are a few of the recent studies and citations that got called up:
- A key British National Institute of Health Research trial found that people with high blood pressure who used standard blood‑pressure and statin therapy had fewer cardiovascular events for at least 16 years after starting treatment.
- In the West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study (WOSCOPS), men took a statin or placebo for about 5 years; 20‑year follow‑up showed lower all‑cause mortality (about 13% relative reduction) and about a 21–27% reduction in coronary heart‑disease deaths in the statin group.
- HOPE‑3 (Health Outcomes Prevention Evaluation) from the National Institutes of Health enrolled over 12,000 adults worldwide at intermediate risk, with average blood pressure and cholesterol but at least one risk factor, and no prior cardiovascular disease.. Over 5.6 years, rosuvastatin 10 mg daily lowered LDL by about 25–30% and reduced heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular death versus placebo; blood‑pressure drugs alone helped mainly in those who were clearly hypertensive.
Looking ahead, one issue that could make treatment decisions more difficult for individuals is that objective studies may well become less available because of political considerations. According to recent media reports, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is planning to apply political considerations to scientific study proposals. As the Financial Times put it in a recent article:” “Researchers have somehow come to be seen as enemies of the state. The OMB proposal takes aim at ‘woke ideology’ and ‘far-left activists’. Yes, peer review is not perfect but, as MIT professor Carlo Ratti recently wrote in the FT, political review is unarguably worse.”
My question regarding the studies that are being vetoed by OMB: If the research agenda is shifting, then will we see the results of the studies intended to discourage efforts to control cholesterol, and to prove the risks of vaccination? Here’s what CNN reported recently: “Early this year, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. went to his director of the NIH, Jay Bhattacharya, with a costly proposal, according to two officials familiar with the request: The research agency should spend $5 billion studying the link between vaccines and autism. That would have dedicated more than a tenth of the NIH’s annual budget to investigating a hypothesis already refuted by scientists worldwide…. His views are contradicted by scores of studies showing vaccines have saved millions of lives and prevented long-term health problems from common diseases, while side-effects remain relatively rare.”
I am testimony to the difficulty of letting go of certain preconceived ideas. The challenge I faced was how to make important health-related decisions—based on the views of well-intentioned ideologues or on scientific data? In the end, I have leaned heavily toward the data.
There’s nothing like personal experience to prove that drugs, especially the prophylactic ones, do not help and in fact cause considerable and serious harm. I would suggest that many drugs with special emphasis on vaccines/toxic biological injections are responsible for much of the chronic illnesses (endothelial dysfunction) we see today.
Disruptive statins are no replacement for the destructive effects of…
Nicotine: “a potent cardiovascular toxin that damages blood vessels regardless of how it is consumed (whether via smoking, vaping, or pouches). It causes arteries to constrict and stiffen, elevates blood pressure, increases blood-clotting risks, and triggers endothelial dysfunction, which accelerates dangerous plaque buildup”.
Chemotherapeutic concoctions: that work by “blocking blood supply to tumors but can concurrently damage healthy endothelial cells”.
Drug stimulants: “like methamphetamine and cocaine that cause severe vasoconstriction and oxidative stress, leading to long-term vascular dysfunction and accelerated atherosclerosis”.
Anti-inflammatory drugs such as NSAIDs: “Long-term use of certain nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can decrease protective vessel factors, contributing to increased cardiovascular risk and blood clots”.
Endothelial Dysfunction Linus Pauling Institute
https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/health-disease/endothelial-dysfunction
Ken, I appreciate the suggestion to reduce inflammation, such as via Vitamin C, as the Linus Pauling Institute study you link to suggests: “The vascular endothelium is a major target for oxidative stress. Therefore, nutrients and dietary factors with antioxidant properties, in particular vitamin C, may protect the vascular endothelium from damage caused by oxidative stress.” I didn’t mean to suggest that acceptance of statins and/or blood pressure meds means reducing anti-inflammation routines.
We have to consider who programmed AI. It’s all conventional info. The cholesterol/heart attack relationship has been debunked even in the mainstream. Doctors either don’t keep up or they are willfully ignorant because they make so much money from prescribing certain drugs. Do your own research outside the mainstream.
Cholesterol is essential to your body — that’s why your body MAKES it. ALL of your hormones are metabolized from cholesterol. That’s why one of the negative effects of statins is reduced libido. Libido is not just about sex, it’s about well-being. Your brain is over 50% cholesterol — that’s why one of the negative effects of statins is dementia. Every cell in your body, particularly your gut lining, is mostly cholesterol which is why another negative effect is being tired and poor gut health. Low cholesterol has a negative effect on your thyroid as well.
I’m sure there are factual articles on the westonaprice.org website. All the journals are there. The information is everywhere on the dangers of statins EXCEPT in doctor’s offices. High cholesterol is actually protective, particularly as we age.
Sally, my understanding is that the main danger from statins is that they can disrupt liver function for a small percentage of patients. The protection against that is testing of the liver function some months after beginning to take a statin. If your liver reacts badly to a statin, you are immediately taken off it; you may be encouraged to try another, with a similar approach (a liver test), or discontinue statins. Another potential side effect is muscle soreness. Once again, if that develops, you can switch to another statin, or simply not take statins.
As for dementia associated with statins, do you have any studies associated with that? Thanks.
If you are serious about vascular heart, reduction of chronic inflammation and reduction of plaque, strongly suggest looking at the research on this.
The side effects of Statins are horrible, and it doesn’t have the positive effect that is claimed. Some studies show that all-cause mortality rates do not reduce with statins. Reduction of cholesterol is not the goal. Reduction of inflammation is the goal along with increase in Nitric Oxide. You need cholesterol for all sorts of very important physiologic functions. Higher cholesterol is associated with a longer life span. Fancy that!! It is chronic inflammation that is associated with early exit and disease. Cholesterol by itself is not the medical demon. Inflammation is the root cause for cholesterol to misbehave.
It’s like saying that paramedics are the cause of serious and fatal car accidents…because whenever you see a terrible car accident, there are always paramedics at the accident. You have to look deeper if you want to find the root cause. The root cause doesn’t sell a drug!! So doctors don’t know about this list. If you want to know about modern medicine, take a good look at who provides the continuing education events!
Here is your list of things to research:
Capsaicin, Aged Garlic ( S-allyl cysteine ) , Cacao with its Flavonoids and raw milk with its cardio-vascular protective functional proteins and bioactives, vitamin D, Vitamin B, Magnesium, Co-Q 10, Plus…a whole food diet, plenty of daily walking, sunshine and socialization. That’s your list of good things to start to do!
All of these contribute to vascular health and Nitric-Oxide pathways that reduce plaques, create elastic and youthful arteries and bring joy to your life. Yes…joy in your life is critical to longevity.
Go have some joy!! and walk when you are getting your joy!
There’s no doubt about the importance of reducing inflammation. Could it be that the Big Pharma drugs that are reducing heart problems are doing so by reducing inflammation, that reducing cholesterol helps reduce inflammation? On the large-scale studies I cited, I don’t think the causes for the improved longevity were clear. The drug companies like to think it was the reduction of cholesterol. It’s something like these pharmaceutical weight-loss drugs that are not only helping people lose weight, but also helping reduce diabetes, as one example. Do the drugs reduce inflammation? I would guess so, but we don’t know for sure.
As a veterinary epidemiologist with extensive knowledge in human health, who has also researched cardiovascular disease, I can note that people have many misleading opinions and thoughts on preventive interventions and medications.
I also note that people tend to dismiss really good scientific evidence, when it does not fit their beliefs. This goes for professionals as laymen as consumers. For example, many public health professionals will ignore and dismiss the scientific evidence for allergy protective effects of raw milk and raw milk products, because it does not fit their beliefs. Likewise many consumers, lay people will dismiss very good scientific evidence for the heart protective effects of statins, despite a huge amount of scientific data that has been produced world-wide, that they are safe and effective. People will dismiss them because they are modern medicines produced by the pharmaceutical industry.
Many people will endorse natural medicines that has been used for 1000 of years. This is also been developed through extensive knowledge and testing on 1000s of people. This is science that is accepted. But how come then, that we can not accept science that is produced today? Take for example Digitalis purpurea, the flower that has for a very long time been used as heart medicine. Why do we accept this one, while we dismiss digoxin, which has been extracted and later produced in laboratories that is the active ingredient found in the flower that was used as heart medication.
As regards statins, as a preventive medication, this is a class of drugs where billions have been spent on research and follow-up studies since it is used in preventive medication, there need to be clear proof that any possible side-effects are minor compared to the possible protective effects. All preventive medication requires extreme amounts of scientific evidence. Vaccines, as preventive medications, are also requiring these extreme amounts of scientific studies to ensure that they are safe and effective.
There are numerous meta-analysis produced on statins, which are based on global studies, showing that they do indeed reduce the number of cardiovascular disease events including heart attacks and strokes.
Not all people are benefiting from statins, but the doctors can now very well determine which groups will benefit most from statins based upon meta-analysis. There are some people that have side-effects of statins, and there are now multiple other drugs available for these people. Usually, statins are first evaluated in preventive treatments, since they are very cheap. Some other drugs are more expensive, and since this is preventive treatment, the costs need to be evaluated.
Nutrition alone can not lower LDL and ApoB as far as statins and some other drugs. I have evaluated all natural supplements, and managed to reduce my LDL from 170 mg/dL to 140 mg, but with a near perfect whole foods diet and various supplements (including flax seeds, chia seeds, mushroom extracts, aged garlic supplements, berberine, fish oils, psyllium husks) I can not go lower.
Do I need to go lower? That is still unclear. I have high LpA, but even there, as a lean hyperresponder, I might not need to worry. I am going to schedule a meeting with my cardiologist again. I do not believe that statins are a choice for me, as statins can even raise LpA.
Thus, David, I believe that you are doing a right choice in your health decisions. Embrace ancient, historic and modern medicine. And, no the pharmaceutical industry does not have a mission to kill and make people sick… that is simply stories made up by some people, that they feel the need to black paint one path, just because they have chosen another path.
I recommend to use Pubmed for research on scientific topics.
Thank you, Cat, for a wonderful assessment, on both the dangers of becoming too attached to a particular view of healthcare, and of the opportunities associated with being open-minded in our personal health decisions. “Embrace ancient, historic and modern medicine”….excellent advice!
Cats comments are the very reason and basis that I respect her so much! Balanced and based on data and long-term historical evidence found in nature and from research. Plenty of what pharma does is pursuing evidence from nature and then applying it by extracting it and making it into a pill. That’s not bad…but it is very reductionist. A wholistic approach prevents through natural methods first and then when that list is fully engaged….go to the targeted patented solutions last.
Our modern medical approach has unfortunately ignored the first part and jumps to the second first.
Reminds me of diabetic treatments. They have really come around with excellent insulin pumps and blood sugar monitoring systems. These systems improve quality of life and adds to longevity for sure.
Modern medical culture forgets why diabetes begins in the first place and ignores prevention of chronic inflammation, chronic metabolic syndrome, obesity, sunshine, Vitamin D, exercise and whole food diets. To focus solely on treating diabetes after your have diabetes…begs more even diabetes.
Reminds me of the $80 billion spent annually on Asthma ( not including costs for EMS and paramedic responses ) in the USA and the 10 people that die every day from Asthma. What does the science suggest?? The bioactives found in raw milk reduce asthma and inflammation substantially! What does pharma suggest…take more drugs and their very newest drug with death or increased incidence of cancer as a known or possible side effect. All of this suggested with seductive very nice music and sexy healthy people in the advertisements. This is a greed cult with good outcomes at the very bottom of their list!! or not on the list at all.
Pharma is not the long term, generational, economically viable sustainable societal solution. Whole food Farma is…plus exercise, sunshine and healthy social interaction.
In 1961 the medical costs for the American society were about 6% of GDP. It is now 25% of GDP and growing. Meanwhile… quality of life and longevity of life span is down.
This is not sustainable, this trend, its costs and its implications are horrendous. But American society is too asleep, too numbed by the “medical solution” paradigm and sick to recognize it.
Chronic inflammation and illness are not caused by a deficiency of drugs.
As Peter Thiel pointed out when interviewed by Bari Weiss on how science became dogma he states, “There’s this complicated balance where we need to be both anti-dogmatic and anti-skeptical”.
So, what makes this balancing point between the two so complicated?
Answer… With respect to medicine or medical science if you will, a less arrogant and intolerant approach and respecting as David put it, “personal health decisions” would go a long way to nurture that balance. Unfortunately, the powers that be and those who claim to be in the know have lost sight of the fact that science in essence is an ongoing, self-correcting process that welcomes freedom of inquiry… namely, the fundamental right to pursue knowledge, conduct research, and ask critical questions without interference, censorship and ideological constraints.
As I previously stated on this blog, “Individual freedom of expression is all important, once censorship and coercion rear its ugly head in order to defend a general agreement then you can be certain that something is terribly wrong and that truth is being circumvented”.
With respect to vaccinations, for those of you who believe that good health can be acquired at the end of a needle with the injection of heavy metals, toxic chemicals and invasive biologicals and their recognized contaminants into the human body, bypassing essential self censoring mechanisms, then go ahead and take the injections. But don’t… attempt to impose your opinion by marginalizing and penalizing those of us who recognize and have experienced the harmful effects of this claimed science based medical intervention!
To be correct, there are no heavy metals in vaccine. Some vaccines contain aluminium which is a metal, but not a heavy metal, the aluminium is a very common metal in soils. The aluminium acts as an adjuvant to reinforce immune response to the vaccine. Older vaccines could sometimes contain mercury, again, not a heavy metal, but a metal. Mercury is nowadays rarely used in vaccines.
Every time that you scratch yourself on something in the woods, you would bypass what you call self-censoring mechanisms…. Our bodies and those of all animals are beautiful, designed to deal with these situations, we are supposed to have an immune response to that which is not self, or has been declared safe through early life programming (breast milk and baby exposures). Thus every scratch can be likened to the vaccines. Indeed, a vaccine needs to circumvent the self censoring mechanism, they are designed to trigger an immune response to an invader, which will later save lives and save living being against more serious disease.
Just because some people may have negative effects of vaccines, does not make vaccines bad for populations. There are people intolerant to peanuts, avocadoes and milk, this does not make these products bad for all people.
I do respect opinions based on science, … thus please review your statement on heavy metals.
I feel that you are throwing around a bit of scientific jargon without truelly understanding what it means.
Mercury is in fact a heavy metal and found in a compound called thimerosal that is still used as a preservative in certain vaccines, specifically certain multi-dose vials of the influenza (flu) and tetanus-diphtheria (Td) vaccines.
I didn’t say that aluminum was a heavy metal… that said, both aluminum and mercury are classified as neurotoxins that can severely damage the central nervous system, brain, and kidneys. Science and common sense aught to tell us that no amount of neurotoxin exposure should be taken lightly, especially during critical periods of brain development.
Suggesting that “every scratch can be likened to the vaccine” is a foolish oversimplification and egregiously misleading analogy of vaccine injections.
Add to the above the dozens of chemicals used in vaccines, such as formaldehyde, 2-phenoxyethanol, cetyltrimethylammonium bromide, polyethylene glycol, antibiotics, polysorbate 80, Triton X-100, and many others. These are classified as potential carcinogens, endocrine disruptors, and toxins that cause reproductive harm.
In truth, little is known about the long-term impact of many vaccine ingredients. The fact that most safety studies are funded by profit driven pharmaceutical companies who have been granted immunity from liability with respect to vaccine injuries should prompt the public to question their honesty and potential conflicts of interest. Independent, unbiased research is needed to increase our understanding and provide parents with the information they need to make informed choices.
if anyone was “throwing around scientific jargon without truelly [ sic ] understanding what it means” … it was Doktor A. Fauci, during the Covid Catastrophe.
what wonderful irony to see the guy who ordered America to “follow the science”, squirming on the witness stand.
science pleads the 5th Amendment !!
“I refuse to answer that on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me”