« Headlines...big 'study' says vitamins linked to early death! Fact or Fiction? | Main | Update »

Government Health Agencies Complicit in Cholesterol Ruse?

If you or a loved one is on a statin drug, or you know someone who is I would urge you ro read the following article by Bill Sardi.  There is only one part of his article that I disagree with and that is where he refers to high dose Vitamin D.  It is possible to overdose with Vitamin D in supplement form but not from sunshine.

Excessive cholsterol is still a serious problem but statins are not the answer.  In fact, most people can normalise it naturally with our Cholest-Natural.

It is an interesting and well written article. 

Government Health Agencies Complicit in Cholesterol Ruse
by Bill Sardi

The revelation that statin cholesterol drugs may be of little or no benefit, as revealed in a lengthy cover story in January 28 issue of Business Week (BW) magazine, begs the question: how did this misdirection go on for so long?
As the BW article pointed out, statin drugs "are the best-selling medicines in history, used by more than 13 million Americans and an additional 12 million patients around the world, producing $27.8 billion in sales in 2006."

How can anyone question the benefits of such a drug, asks BW, when they are "thought to be so essential that, according to the official government guidelines from the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP), 40 million Americans should be taking them. Some researchers have even suggested – half-jokingly – that the medications should be put in the water supply, like fluoride for teeth. And it's almost impossible to avoid reminders from the industry that the drugs are vital. A current TV and newspaper campaign for one statin drug, as endorsed by Dr. Robert Jarvik, artificial heart inventor, proclaims that this drug ‘reduces the risk of heart attack by 36%...in patients with multiple risk factors for heart disease’."

Statin drug ruse revealed

But the cholesterol/statin drug ruse finally unraveled when, after two years of foot dragging delays to release data from a large study involving Zetia, a cholesterol-lowering drug that inhibits cholesterol absorption from foods, and Vytorin, which is a combination of Zetia plus Zocor, the latter a statin drug that inhibits formation of cholesterol in the liver, revealed no health benefits.

Even though this drug combo lowered circulating cholesterol numbers better than either drug alone, it did not reduce plaque formation in arteries and did not confer a projected reduction in mortality.

In fact, an earlier review published last year in the British journal Lancet by Drs. John Abramson of Harvard Medical School and James M. Wright MD of the University of British Columbia , could find no evidence for a reduction in cardiac mortality in a combined review of all published statin drug studies. [The Lancet 2007; 369:168–169]

Falsifying the numbers

The Business Week report says statin drugs benefit only 1 in 100 users, but they claim to reduce the risk of a non-mortal heart attack by 36%. But that figure is a relative number, not a hard one. About 3% of patients taking an inactive placebo pill will experience a heart attack compared to 2% taking a statin drug, which produces the so-called 30-plus percent risk reduction. But in hard numbers, this is only a 1% reduced risk.

This type of misleading advertising wouldn’t pass Federal Trade Commission guidelines. But public health agencies, serving as free publicity agents for the statin drug manufacturers, repeat the claim to give it a ring of credibility.

Complicity by public health agencies

Articles posted at websites administered by the Food & Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health repeat this misleading claim. In fact, a recent posting by the NIH claims statin drugs reduce the risk for a sudden death heart attack by 19%, when in hard numbers it is actually just 0.8% (reduction from 3.8 to 3.0% over 4.4 years).

How did the FDA ever approve these drugs except to ignore these facts? Why did the FDA allow pharmaceutical companies two years to report critical data on the effectiveness of a life-saving drug?

Do benefits outweigh the risk for side effects?

For years there has been criticism that statin drugs are not totally safe, that they produce muscle aches and mental problems. But advocates for statin drugs have repeatedly claimed the benefits of statin drugs far outweigh any risks, said to occur among 2–3% of users. But the BW report cited side effects occur among 10–15% of users, which is backed by current research. [Current Opinion Lipidology 2007 Aug;18(4):401–8] The risks for serious side effects far outweigh any alleged benefits.

Collusion by medical journals

Others in modern medicine are also complicit in this subterfuge. The following is an example.

On April 8, 2004 the New England Journal of Medicine published an authoritative report about the use of cholesterol-lowering drugs among patients hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome (acute heart attack or highly unstable chest pain/angina). The study, conducted by researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston , enrolled 4162 patients at 349 sites in 8 countries. [ New England Journal Medicine 350: 1495–1504, April, 8, 2004 ]

The study compared the use of standard-dose (40 mg) pravastatin (Pravachol) with intensive-cholesterol lowering with high-dose (80 mg) atorvastatin (Lipitor). The chart below appears to show a slight advantage (about 4–5% difference) in reduction of mortality for the high-dose statin drug regimen. This slight advantage is shown as a 16% relative risk reduction in the published paper. These relative numbers are used to magnify the effects of these types of intensive drug regimens. Examine the chart below, as published in the New England Journal of Medicine:

clip_image001.gif
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OK, the complicity of modern medicine in this crime is documented in print. The New England Journal of Medicine published a correction of the above numbers two years later ( Feb. 16, 2006 ), in an obscure back page of the Journal. The following is a scanned image of that correction notice. 
 
clip_image2.gif

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here are the corrected numbers (number at risk):

1.jpg


 


 

 

Intensive high-dose statin drug therapy (atorvastatin) appears to have slightly increased the risk for death rather than reduced it. There was no explanation as to why the initially-reported numbers were incorrect, nor why the New England Journal of Medicine didn’t withdraw this paper, which still misleads many. Nor why doctors at the above-mentioned medical institutions didn’t seek wider exposure for this correction.

Do statin drugs mimic a vitamin?

In 2006 Dr. Davis S. Grimes of the Blackburn Royal Infirmary in Great Britain, ruffled a lot of feathers in the medical world when he revealed that statin drugs appear to be synthetic versions (called analogs) of vitamin D. [Lancet 2006 Jul 1; 368(9529):83–6] All the alleged health benefits of statin drugs, prevention of osteoporosis, cancer prevention, promotion of arterial health, parallel those of vitamin D. The pharmaceutical world was quick to deny the allegation.

In his report entitled "Are statin analogs of vitamin D?" Dr. Grimes claims that the concept of statin drugs may come from vitamin D as they appear to be molecular alterations of this vitamin. A more recent study confirms that statin drugs modestly increase vitamin D levels. (See chart below.)

2.jpg


 

 

 

 

 

Liver toxicity turned into a health benefit

Because these statin-drug vitamin D analogs had toxic liver side effects, their pharmaceutical inventors appear to have turned this drawback into a so-called advantage – that they inhibited cholesterol production in the liver. For comparison, any herbal product that raises liver enzyme levels would be quickly withdrawn from the marketplace by the FDA and declared a liver toxin. But the FDA permits liver-toxic statin drugs to be marketed and sold to millions of Americans.

Common health benefits of statin drugs and vitamin D

If statin drugs have any redeeming quality it is that they modestly raise vitamin D levels. How would this common biological action of statin drugs and vitamin D address the accumulation of plaque in arteries with advancing age?
You will be surprised to learn only about 3% of arterial plaque is cholesterol and 50% is calcium. [International Journal Cardiology 1991 Nov; 33 (2):191–8] Researchers in Germany point out that a deficiency of vitamin D induces calcification and that "almost all atherosclerotic plaque in arteries are calcified." [Current Opinion Lipidology 2007 Feb; 18(1):41–6]End-stage kidney disease patients, who experience severe arterial calcification, have mortality rates that are 10–20 times higher than the general population. [Current Opinion Lipidology 18:41–46: 2007] The presence of arterial calcification is a predictor of poor 5-year survival.

Calcification results in stiff arteries. Cholesterol on the other hand is soft and waxy and does not produce hardened arteries. Vitamin D is an anti-calcifying agent. [Seminars in Dialysis 2005 Jul–Aug; 18(4):307–14]

A vitamin D deficiency increases the risk for heart disease. [Circulation January 7, 2008 ; Current Opinion Clinical Nutrition Metabolism Care. 2008 Jan; 11(1):7–12] Heart attacks occur more frequently in winter when vitamin D levels are low. [Chronobiology International 2005; 22(6):1121–35; International Journal Epidemiology 1990 Sep; 19(3):559–63] The use of vitamin D supplements reduces the overall risk of mortality at least seven times greater than statin drugs. [Archives Internal Medicine 2007 Sep 10; 167(16):1730–7]

Modern medicine misdirected the public and many health professionals into thinking cholesterol, not calcium, is the chief culprit in coronary artery disease. By lowering a meaningless number, patients would derive a false sense of heart health, and doctors would maintain a high level of disease to treat.

Cholesterol or calcium?

It is instructive to compare the dietary intake of cholesterol and calcium with the coronary heart disease and stroke mortality rates from various countries. It is obvious that dietary cholesterol has no meaningful relationship with coronary heart disease and calcium does.

3.jpg


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Steer the public away from high-dose vitamin D

But something had to be done to distract the public away from taking vitamin D pills. So a misleading claim was made that high-dose vitamin D actually induces arterial calcifications and that pharmaceutical companies would have to invent synthetic versions (analogs) of vitamin D that would not result in calcification of tissues throughout the body.

While vitamin D does induce calcification, it requires a human equivalent dose of 21,000,000 international units (IU) to do this. [Current Opinion Lipidology 2007 Feb; 18(1):41–6] A person would have to take over 52,000 400-IU vitamin D pills to do this.

Health directives from various public agencies attempt to steer the public away from so-called high doses of vitamin D. An online National Institutes of Health guide says 2000 IU is the "upper safe limit." But this limit is absurd. About 30 minutes of total-body sun exposure to midday summer sun would produce about 10,000 IU of natural vitamin D and overcalcification does not occur from solar vitamin D production. Two people inadvertently consumed sugar cubes over-fortified with vitamin D and their intake was 1.7 million units per day. It took seven months before headaches and gastric side effects forced them to see a doctor, and the symptoms subsided with cessation of the use of the sugar cubes. [Lancet. 2002 Feb 23; 359(9307):672]

It’s time for the millions of Americans taking statin drugs to confront their doctors, and inquire about substituting $3-a-day statin drugs for a 10-cent vitamin D pill.
January 21, 2008

Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 at 04:53PM by Registered CommenterWarren Matthews in | Comments240 Comments

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (240)

I was recently been treated for blood pressure it was 248/148 now on these tablets it has gone done dramatically, however, I have had tests done on my kidneys and bowel etc, because my doctor thought something was wrong with them, all results were fine, he also put me on cholesteral tablets 20mlg as it was 5.3. On the tablets it has raised to 5.6 so now they have been increased to 40mlgs also I have been given a diet to help get it down, my blood pressure is now 144/98 but he is concerned about the 98 it needs to go under 90 to prevent a stroke, do I need to increase these.
When you mention tablets which tablets are you referring to? Our Cholest-Natural or a statin drug?
July 6, 2008 | Registered CommenterWarren Matthews
I am 76 yeas of age & just had a Choletserol test ,results Serum triglycerides 1.00 mmol/L. Serum HDL cholesterol level 1.8 mmol/L. Serum LDL cholesterol level 4.4 mmol/L. My blood pressure is 156 over81.Have I got a problem ? Your advice would be appreciated.
July 8, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterTrevor A Dickson
Hi Trevor,

In my opinion your LDL is a little high but that is offset by high HDL and low Triglycerides. So, I would not be concerned about your cholesterol.

Your blood pressure is high and it would be good if you could lower that...not by drugs but by a general 'cleaning' of the arteries to help reduce the amount of work the heart has to do.

If I was you I would seriously consider using our Cardio-Klenz for say 6 months to help give your arteries a 'springclean' as well as helping strengthen your cardiovascular systems overall. I would also combine this with our Omega 3 DHA.

I am assuming that you are in general good health and not on any prescriptions. In addition, if you can fit it in your budget I would also suggest adding the Total Balance Men's Plus into this regime as that will improve your chances on staying free of prescription drugs into old age.

Don't forget to combine these with a good diet free of processed foods and a modest amount of exercise.
July 8, 2008 | Registered CommenterWarren Matthews
I have read so much hype concerning the use of statins. I have had 2 doctors prescribe lipitor and zocor for the reduction of high cholesterol. So far I have not used any drugs nor have I altered my eating habits.
The numbers have been slowly increasing over the past 10 years.
Ten years ago LDL-175 and HDL-85 doctor prescribes zocor
Today LDL-230 and HDL-130 doctor prescribes lipicor
I am 50 years old. I smoke a pack of cigarettes per day. I am very active, especially during the summer months.
I have taken maintenance drugs in the past with serious side effects beginning after a few years. I do not wish to take any pills.
From what I read this is high but not critical at this point. What would you recommend?
July 9, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterJim
These are interesting figures Jim. That is incredibly high HDL. I don't think that I have come across levels this high before. If you HDL is indeed this high I would not be worrying about your cholesterol.

I would suggest that you have your triglycerides checked along with your homocysteine and C-Reactive Protein. This will give you a better overall picture of your cardiovascular health.
July 10, 2008 | Registered CommenterWarren Matthews
I am 46 years old and had a stroke 2 years ago. The hospital told me my combined cholesterol level was 145 but they wanted it below 70 so they put me on lipitor which I have been taking for the last two years along with blood pressure meds. I also quit smoking the day of the stroke. My pre-stroke blood pressure hovered at about 190/110. Taking my current cocktail of pills it is down to about 140/90, and I have no idea what my current cholesterol level is. I'm fairly active and recovered substantially from the stroke, but I hate taking pills and I wonder if the lipitor is really necessary or effective. I seem to be more forgetful than I was pre-stroke. I have intermittent stroke symptoms recurring usually in hotter months and would love to find a non-pharmaceutical solution.
July 10, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterBruce
I am 59 years old and was having chest pains when exercising. After being refered to a cardiologist I had an angiogram and a stent put in a 99% blocked artery. I have never had problems with my blood pressure, highest at around 120/80, My total cholestrol is 177 with my LDL 94.4 and my HDL 40. The problem seems to be with my triglycerdies which are 215. My weight is also a problem being 20lb over weight. The cardiologist wants me to begin taking Crestor 10mg. I am now on Troprol25mg, Protonix49mg, Plavix75mg, and asprin 325mg. I am not comfortable taking another drug and am working to change my lifestyle and eating. I am not a smoker or a drinker. My doctor said that what I want to do will not work. Should I get another opinion?
July 10, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterCathy
Hi Bruce,

No simple answer here I'm afraid. Your overall situation needs to be looked at and this includes all your current markers.

It is pretty standard for a stroke victim to be put on a statin although often it is not necessary.

Would you like to send full info about your current readings and the drug details to our medical nutritionist Joanna at jo@xtend-life.com She will come back to you with some more detailed suggestions.

Good luck.
July 10, 2008 | Registered CommenterWarren Matthews
Hi Cathy,

I understand the reason why the Doctor prescribed some of the medicines but not why Crestor was prescribed.

The Crestor will not help with your triglycerides and may do more harm than good.

You need to focus on reducing your triglycerides and cleaning out your arteries.

The best way to lower triglycerides is by avoiding all processed foods, and simple carbohydrates, and combine that with high doses of Omega 3 fish oil. I would suggest 4 soft gels a day or even 6 for the first month.

Our Cardio-Klenz may well be a good option for you and help avoid future problems with your stent.

What I would suggest is that same that I have for Bruce. Email Joanna at jo@xtend-life.com with as many details as possible. She will then suggest a possible protocol. You could then take that and discuss it with your Doctor before taking any action on it.

If you Doctor is not receptive to discussing it then yes, I think that you would be advised to get another opinion.
July 10, 2008 | Registered CommenterWarren Matthews
I am 65 years old. Recently I experienced some pain from my back (right side) and it radiated to my right chest. It was a heavy kind of pain that probably lasted for about 20-30 minutes.I went to the hospital immediately and had an ECG and x-ray. Both tests did not show that I was having any heart problem.To further ease my worry I had my lipid profile and these are the results:
total cholesterol 6.4 mmol/l
HDL 1.62 mmol/l
LDL 4.1 mmol/l
triglycerides 1.6 mmol/l
total/hdl ratio 4.0
Armed with these,I consulted a cardiologist lately and was prescribed to take 10mg of Crestor daily. I understand that my cholesterol is high and it needs to be brought down to 4.0. I am concerned of what I have learned about this medication and would like a second opinion of the efficacy of this rosuvastatin.
Thank you
July 16, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterFaridah
I was put on samvastatin but after reading up the emails I then have a talk with my Dr and take my self off, inwhich the hospial pro say I will end up bad they inform me to go on to 40mg! first it was 10, then 20 now 40mg is that right, They have said that my vain will be norrowing and cause strokes !!!!!So what els can I take? my Drs are so good that I do not want to say ant thing to upset any of them. Please what can I say or do
July 17, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterE James
Hi Faridah,

As there is no indication of heart trouble I personally would not go on a statin drug with those results. Your HDL is at a good level and your LDL is not excessive. I would however try to lower my triglycerides by diet and Omega 3. Avoid any processed foods and simple carbohydrates...bakery goods etc and it will come down.

Also, you should have your homocysteine checked and also your C-Reactive Protein which measures inflammation in the blood. These are more reliable markers than a potential heart event than cholesterol.

If I were you I would try the natural options first. Crestor can have some nasty side effects for some people. I have still have not seen any REAL evidence supporting the use of the statin drugs but Doctors and Cardiologists have to recommend it when cholesterollevels are over a certain amount. This is because it is recommended by the likes of the AMA.

However, the recommendations should never have been set so low. If you trace back these recommendations you will find that they have not been set using good science but rather through the direct influence of drug companies on the authorities who set the 'standards'.

Why don't you try a combination of our Cholest-Natural and Omega 3 for three months and see how you go? There are no downsides...but lots of upsides.

Because you do not have a heart condition you have time to try the natural approach. Once you get on a statin you are likely to be on it for life. My belief is when you start taking pharmaceuticals reguarly you are on the slippery slope down...health wise.
July 17, 2008 | Registered CommenterWarren Matthews
Hi E James,

I really can't comment without knowing your figures. If you can supply your cholesterol figures before and after starting the statin, plus your trigylcerides and preferably your homocysteine and C-Reactive Protein I would be happy to comment.
July 17, 2008 | Registered CommenterWarren Matthews
Here in Israel they really do tend to overdo things!

I have been put on 80mg Simovil after my blood showed LDL 113, HDL 35 and Triglycerides 125.

Any suggestions, apart from eating less Humus?!
July 20, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterMoish
I honestly can't understand why they even put you on Simovil with those readings, let alone the maximum dose. I think that you need to seriously question the Doctor about this as he/she is not doing you any favors. Do some research on this drug and you will see the evidence supporting its use is very thin particuarly when your rates are about 'normal' not artificially low as the drug companies are promoting.

Sorry to be so negative about this Moish but unless there are some other factors that I don't know about you are putting your overall health at risk by going on this medication. As I said have a serious talk to the Doctor. Ask him/her for evidence NOT supplied by the drug company.

Good luck
July 20, 2008 | Registered CommenterWarren Matthews
I was on a diet of FOUR heavily salted eggs EVERY morning for 10 years. My Cholesterol was 266, HDL 42, LDL 170, Triglycerides 277.

I also used to take several 1000mg Tums Calcium Carbonate anatcid tablets everyday.

My LAD coronary artery was found to be 95% blocked, & I had two stents put in last week.

As coronary plaque I understand is composed of Cholesterol+Calcium, is it reasonable to assume that the eggs+Tums caused the blockage?
July 20, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterMoish
It is very likely that the Tums played a real part in your problem. Certainly having 4 eggs a day would not help but would only be minor contributor.

Given that you have had a stent I think that you should seriously have a look at our Cardio-Klenz which is perfect for people who have had a stent. It is compatable with a statin but if you are having other medication you will need to check it compatability.

You can do that by emailing our medical nutritionist Joanna direct at jo@xtend-life.com
July 21, 2008 | Registered CommenterWarren Matthews
They have put me on Plavix for 3 months, and they say Aspirin 100mg daily for life.

Are these necessary or advisable?
July 21, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterMoish
Obviously opinions differ as to the role of dietary calcium, as this http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/what-role-calcium-supplements.html
says that calcium supplements do NOT contribute to coronary plaque.
July 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterMoish

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.