Of course statins and artificially lowering cholesterol doesn't work!
A small waist is also a good marker of health, though wearing a corset will not improve longevity much either.
Artificially lowering cholesterol by taking drugs that block liver enzymes that make cholesterol is like wearing a corset to narrow the waist, and not seeing any benefit. The alleged benefits of statins to atherosclerosis, CVD and death are around a 0.3% benefit over 4 years in both all cause and in CVD death and a 0.2% reduction in stroke; from the latest research which was not placebo controlled and may have confounding improvements in lifestyle in the statin group.
Taking statins that destroy the ability of the body to make and balance its own cholesterol, which is found in cell membranes and the brain, may well cause dementia and other issues.
However, this does not mean that exposure to elevated levels of cholesterol and saturated fat in the diet or having a fat belly are actually good for you.
Of course cross-sectional studies on artificially lowered cholesterol do not show correlation between cholesterol levels and amount of atherosclerosis.
In the meta-analysis studies that did show correlation were excluded. 16 out of 18 studies included used statins or other drugs to artificially lower cholesterol levels in people who continued with their unhealthy lifestyles. A correlation between cholesterol level and atherosclerosis was not seen.
This is because the participants did not gain the actual benefits that a low cholesterol level indicates; which is a diet low in animal products and junk food. They didn’t gain the benefit of low intake of oxidised cholesterol (found in meat and dairy), which can form crystals which pierce the whitehead-like plagues, nor avoid inflammatory substances such as animal protein and lipopolysaccharides from the cell walls of microbes of dead animals. Nor did they gain the benefit from heart healthy, anti-inflammatory substances such as nitrates in leafy greens.
Blocking cholesterol production doesn’t gain the benefit of fibre which may prevent reabsorption of bile acids and steroid hormones. Fibre also nourishes symbiotic bacteria which in turn nourish and protect colonocytes and produce satiating fatty acids. The balance of the microbiome all aspects of health. Only a naturally low cholesterol forming, whole food plant based diet provides these benefits.
In any case, they were all short term studies of a few years or less and atherosclerosis builds up over decades.
The fact that stents placed in large vessels in people at risk of heart attack do not improve outcomes when they continue with their unhealthy diets does not mean that occlusion of blood vessels is not harmful either.
What about studies of people not on statins that show negative aspects of low cholesterol? The Framingham study answered it's own question
They showed an 11% increase in all cause mortality and a 14% increase in CVD mortality for every 1 mg/dL drop in cholesterol levels. ‘Under age 50 years these data suggest that having a very low cholesterol level improves longevity. However after age 50 years the association of mortality with cholesterol values is confounded by people whose cholesterol levels are falling--perhaps due to diseases predisposing to death.’
Sick people may have low cholesterol, the low cholesterol does not make them sick. For example, certain cancers appear to feed on cholesterol. For those under 50 and less likely to be ill, low cholesterol significantly improved longevity.
Many studies also do not adjust for those with low cholesterol because they’re taking statins, which of course will increase morbidity and mortality itself.
The China Study (never debunked in peer review, only by industry voices in the media) showed that rural Chinese with cholesterol below 170 mg/dL (4.4) and sometimes as low as 80 mg/dL (2) had 17 times lower CVD than the US and 5 times lower breast cancer.
Another common trope are the population studies of Western societies in the 20th century showing that variation in fat consumption is not correlated with CVD outcomes. However, at no time did Western societies have actual low saturated fat diets to compare with.
The study compare people on a high fat diet with people on an even higher fat diet. Once a certain level of high saturated fat and cholesterol is reached there will be no change in CVD outcomes nor mortality. They did not include anyone with an actual low fat, whole food, plant based diet.
The slight difference in the large number of heart attacks for Westerners on high fat diets versus those on even higher fat diets does not compare with the 17 times less heart attacks of those on actual low fat, soy-based diets. Don’t we want 17 times less CVD and 5 times less breast cancer; rather than being fooled with these deliberately misleading studies? Jeez.
Perhaps pharma does not want to prevent CVD? Via the NHS the tax payer currently gives pharma about £500 million per year for useless, harmful statin drugs.
The evidence strongly suggests that a slim waist and low cholesterol levels are indicates of health. Wearing corsets and repressing cholesterol production with toxic drugs is contra-indicated. The actual benefits of low CVD risk from a naturally slim waist and low serum cholesterol are seen in people following diets low in animal products and high in fruit, vegetables, nuts and legumes. The evidence is there, despite what you may have heard from consumer front groups or doctors whose research is funded by the animal agriculture industry.
🐒
PS. What about the link between red meat, saturated fat and T2 diabetes?
There are many mechanisms whereby saturated fat, particularly palmitate found in dead flesh, dairy and eggs as well as adipokines coming from belly fat causes the build up of inflammation, oxidation, free radicals, ceramides and diacylglycerols in muscle cells that causes T2 diabetes.
It is well established that it is saturated fat that causes the insulin resistance that leads to T2 diabetes. It is not sugar, though excess sugar in the blood does cause the damage of diabetes. The sugar is in the blood because the diaclygercerols block the mechanism which opens the insulin receptor from the inside of the cell and the sugar can no longer enter.
It is almost impossible to do randomised, placebo controlled studies, the gold standard of evidence, lasting for more than a few weeks on the effects of diet. This is used by the industry to cast doubt on many well designed, decades long, observational studies involving thousands of people. For example meta-analysis clearly show that increased consumption of meat, particularly red and processed meat is positively associated with increased risk of developing cancer, heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Industry funded front groups claim that the observational form of evidence is weak, and make recommendations for the continued consumption of red and processed meat. These tactics are taken straight out of the tobacco industry playbook.
The powers that be aren’t trying to stop us eating red flesh with their nefarious agenda to take away your rights and your choice.
Clue; we’re still heavily subsidising animal agriculture production with our taxes, it’s still heavily promoted by MSM, the diabetes association in the UK and the NHS recommend a low carb diet https://www.diabetes.co.uk/paleo-keto/history-of-paleo-keto-diet.html and NHS doctors still recommend ‘red meat’ for anaemia and as a source of ‘good quality protein’ in young and old.
Not eating dead flesh and eating plants still actually seems to be the subversive, anti-establishment, anti-elite way to go.
Many people have a vested interest in dismissing the research into the link between red meat and T2 diabetes and very much want you to keep eating it so that you getting diabetes and are permanently on drugs, for more and more profit; for pharma and animal ag alike.
🐒
We've seen so many bogus studies of late. These drugs don't help anyone but them. I'm just figuring out what works for me, shifting a little as I tweak things here and there. I spent a few years 85% vegan, but then meat and fish called me back, as well as butter and whole-fat dairy for the first time since childhood. I don't feel right unless fruit and veg are the bulk of my intake, but I'm not fussing with any particular diets/foods/solutions any more. The system has maxxed me out.
Thanks so much for this bit of common sense. Medicine is tremendously susceptible to these types of logical inversions that rests on a confusion of cause and effect, and even worse when a proxy is used. We are back to the time when increased stork sightings were correlated with an increasing birthrate, and therefore we could prove the storks brought babies. Lots of money being made on pharma products that may improve the numbers bud do nothing for health. All vaporous pursuit of proxies for something else, which we do not understand, if not willfully ignore.