Question: from Herbert.

Can you give me the references for your statements that Policosanol is effective in reducing Cholesterol?  Did you know that a study done in Cuba was flawed and a study in Germany came to the conclusion that Policosanol is not effective in treating high cholesterol?

Answer: from Warren

The best way for this to be answered is to refer to a similar question which we had back in May 2006.  The answer  is still the same. The study which was flawed was actually the one in Germany.

Here it is…

May 2006. Question: from Marion

I was disheartened today to read the attached article (below) outlining a medical study that evidently confirms that policosanol is ineffective as a cholesterol lowering supplement. I have been using your Cholest-Natural for the past 3 months and have recently purchased a further 3 month supply. I decided to use your product as an alternative to red yeast rice extract, because it seemed to be the healthier, safer alternative.

As policosanol is listed as the most active ingredient in this product, I'd greatly appreciate your advice with regard to these latest medical findings included in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

I look forward to hearing your insights with regard to this matter.

“Trendy supplement doesn't lower cholesterol" May 17 (Reuters Health)

Policosanol, touted as a natural way to treat high cholesterol levels, appears to be useless, German investigators report in this week's Journal of the American Medical Association.

Policosanol is an extract of the waxy coating of sugar cane and other plants, and multiple trials have demonstrated that it safely lowers lipid levels. However, Dr. Heiner K. Berthold and his colleagues note that almost all of these studies came from one group in Cuba, whose research was funded by Dalmer Laboratories, which markets policosanol.

In an attempt to confirm their findings, Berthold, from the Drug Commission of the German Medical Association in Berlin, and his team performed a "rigorously controlled" multicenter study comparing Cuban sugar cane-derived policosanol with an inactive "placebo" supplement.

Their study involved 143 Caucasian adults with LDL ("bad") cholesterol levels of at least 150 milligrams per deciliter.
Participants were randomly assigned to policosanol at doses of 10, 20, 40 or 80 milligrams daily or placebo. After 12 weeks, the researchers saw no statistically or clinically significant effect on LDL cholesterol at any dose.

Similarly, the investigators report, there were no significant differences among the groups in HDL ("good") cholesterol levels, total cholesterol, very low density-cholesterol, triglycerides, or lipoprotein(a). Berthold's team concludes that "more independent studies are required to counterbalance the vast body of available positive trials." They also hope to see trials showing patient-related outcomes, such as cardiovascular illness and mortality.

The study was sponsored by Madaus AG, an international company specializing in plant-derived drugs, which does not manufacture or distribute any cholesterol-lowering drugs.

SOURCE: Journal of the American Medical Association, May 17, 2006.
Publish Date: May 17, 2006."

Answer: from Warren

This is a rather interesting study.  Interesting in a number of ways! 

1. The study was funded by a pharmaceutical company.  Admittedly it does not manufacture cholesterol lowering drugs but they have many associates who may or may not be such manufacturers.  One can’t help wondering what their motivation was for funding the study in the first instance.

2. Is that the study was completed in 2001.  Why have they waited for five years before having it published?  That is not ‘normal’.

3. Policosanol over the last few years has become widely accepted worldwide as a safe an effective alternative to the statin drugs.  Statin drugs are proving to be the biggest cash earner of all time for many pharmaceutical companies.  Policosanol is undoubtly having an impact on the sale of these drugs. Is this a factor in the five year delay in publication?  I don’t know…but, I am sure someone does!

4. The study does not indicate the delivery method used.  If it was in a capsule form the efficacy of the policosanol would be compromised.  Because policosanol in a ‘normal’ capsule is not the most effective means of delivery we 'bind' the policosanol to a combination of oils in a softgel in the case of Cholest-Natural and in an enteric coating when used in Total Balance.

5. It is not true that all the previous studies were carried out in Cuba.  There have been studies in the USA, Australia, Canada and other countries also with positive results.  You can go to pubmed by clicking here and enter policosanol and review the published literature.

6. The baseline of an average LDL of 150 they used for the subjects is relatively low.  Unlike a statin, policosanol will not artificially force levels of cholesterol down.

7. There are many clinics in Europe specializing in natural treatments for lowering cholesterol and policosanol is their most effective ingredient.

It's also rather interesting that JAMA published this old negative study but choose to ignore the positive ones.

From our own experience policosanol is an excellent substance and is very beneficial for those people suffering from high cholesterol.  However, it is only one of the substances that we use to achieve the desired results.  We combine it with a number of other important substances to maximize its effectiveness. 

Honestly Marion, I would not be disheartened by this report.  It is a good effective ingredient.  You can see unedited results from Cholest-Natural from a number of customers by clicking here  Of course these are not part of a clinical study but nonetheless they are actual results unsolicited by us.

At the end of the day it is results that count and I am sure when you have your next blood test you will find that it is working for you as it has for thousands of other customers.

Can we guarantee that it will work?  No…because for some people it won’t work and neither does a statin drug.  No two people are the same but it does work for the overwhelming majority of people, just as statins do…BUT…it has no negative side effects.