On Cholesterol and my new FREE Book Summary “The Great Cholesterol Con" by Dr Malcolm Kendrick
I came across the video in the masthead via Inversionism, he continues to do great work.
I’d heard of Demasi but never stopped to read her work and certainly didn’t know she was Australian. She is also on Substack.
I took a lot from her 2018 lecture, but the main point that stood out for me was around minute 14.00 where she explains the “run-in period” to cull those with side effects out of the main statin trial.
With childhood vaccines they spike the safety studies (the fancy name is “study design”) by not using true placebos but other vaccines and adjuvants!
Here, with statins, they can’t use that trick, so they get around the problem with a run-in period. Or put in simple English, “let’s identify everyone with an adverse reaction before we start our trial and exclude them”.
So, using our three-legged stool model of Necessity, Safety and Efficacy (NSE) statins fail straight out of the gate. They are not safe. We know that because they had to spike the safety trial to make them look safe.
Here is my latest Book Summary. The original book is MUCH better, and you are encouraged to buy and share it.
Next, briefly onto the matter of Efficacy, here is Malhotra talking to Rogan about taking a statin for a full year (after having a heart attack) and adding LESS THAN ONE DAY to life expectancy. He describes it as taking a statin for 5 years to add just over 4 days of life expectancy.
For a bit more detail and nuance on the issue of “benefit”, here is a good summary from Kendrick:
At this point I shall attempt to draw all the strands on the use of statins together.
First the positive data:
• If you are a man with pre-existing heart disease, statins reduce your risk of dying of anything by a maximum of 0.66 per cent per year. (This figure is based on the most positive data from the most positive study – 4S. Study run by Merck, primary data analysis carried out by Merck employee.)
• If you are a man without pre-existing heart disease, statins can reduce your risk of dying of cardiovascular disease – by a small amount.
• If you are a woman at very high risk of heart disease, statins reduce the risk of dying of cardiovascular disease (that is, strokes and heart disease).
Then the less positive data:
• If you are a woman, no matter what your level of risk, statins will not increase your life expectancy by one day. Deaths from cardiovascular disease reduced; deaths from other causes increased.
• If you are a man without heart disease, statins will not increase your life expectancy by one day.
Then the negative data:
• Statins, cholesterol tests and GP appointments and screening are costing the NHS alone billions of pounds a year.
• Statins cause muscle pains and muscle weakness in up to 20 per cent of people who take them.
• Statins cause rhabdomyolysis, which can be fatal.
• One type of statin, simvastatin, over a period of six years, caused 416 deaths in the USA alone.
• Statins cause polyneuropathy.
• Statins cause memory loss, depression, confusion, irritability and dizziness.
• Stains cause major birth defects.
Finally, a couple of worrying, though unproved, possibilities:
• Statins may increase cancer risk.
• Statins may cause heart failure.
It is also, as yet, not remotely proven that statins protect against heart disease by lowering LDL levels. The current hyping of the intensive LDL-lowering trials has been driven purely by the pharmaceutical industry. They claim to have proved beyond doubt that the more the LDL is lowered, the greater the protection against heart disease, and they have tried to use this ‘fact’ to press for ever-greater cholesterol lowering in the entire population.
Back to Demasi.
In here lecture she refers to this paper:
Statin wars: have we been misled about the evidence? A narrative review.
Statins are the most widely prescribed, cholesterol-lowering drugs in the world. Despite the expiration of their patents, revenue for statins is expected to rise, with total sales on track to reach an estimated US$1 trillion by 2020. A bitter dispute has erupted among doctors over suggestions that statins should be prescribed to millions of healthy people at low risk of heart disease. There are concerns that the benefits have been exaggerated and the risks have been underplayed. Also, the raw data on the efficacy and safety of statins are being kept secret and have not been subjected to scrutiny by other scientists. This lack of transparency has led to an erosion of public confidence. Doctors and patients are being misled about the true benefits and harms of statins, and it is now a matter of urgency that the raw data from the clinical trials are released.
Secrecy and withheld data.
A very familiar playbook by now, and why would we be surprised? These sociopaths are protecting a trillion dollar industry.
Here is Inversionism commenting on Demasi and her lecture:
This is one of the best lectures on how criminally bad statin science is, and how the same criminal authorities and pharmaceutical companies have gone to great lengths to cover up their harmful side effects and true safety profile in effort to protect from liability and ensure maximal profit with no regard for those harmed.
Most people are unaware of this, but they have never released the raw data on statin side effects from the various studies for independent analysis. Just like the vaccine safety database, a small group of scientists and administrators keep the statin data locked up in a vault away from prying eyes or critique, in effort to protect their masters in pharmaceutical companies.
It's controlled by 1 group of researchers and led by Professor Rory Collins, which is under the CTT collaboration, which is under the CTSU Oxford.
They will occasionally publish meta-analysis using this data to advocate for increased used of statins and will claim it's independent of pharmaceutical companies, but they've also received hundreds of millions of dollars from the same pharmaceutical companies for said research, so they're obviously not impartial... Considering the lengths they go to hide this data and conflicts of interest, we should all know what's happening here and what they're hiding.
Here are some excerpts from Dr Demasi's paper published to the BMJ on this subject.
If the data are hidden, can we even have a debate?
"Much has been made about the fact that the raw data from statin trials are only available to a single group of researchers— the CTT Collaboration—and they have agreed to keep the data in confidence and will not share anonymized data with independent researchers. This is one of the most contemptible breaches in transparency. Neither the doctors prescribing statins nor the millions of people taking these medications have had access to independent analysis of the efficacy data. In addition, the side effect data were simply not collected in the vast majority of trials.
When asked in 2013, the CTT confirmed that it would not allow other scientists to access the raw statin data to conduct an independent analysis. They wrote:
The CTT secretariat has agreement with the principal investigators of the trials and, in those instances where trial data were provided directly by the drug manufacturers, with the companies themselves, that individual trial data will not be released to third parties. Such an agreement was necessary in order that analyses of the totality of the available trial data could be conducted by the CTT Collaboration: without such an agreement the trial data could not have been brought together for systematic analysis.
Alarmingly, the widely influential analyses of the CTT Collaboration cannot be verified by independent researchers because most, if not all, of the principal investigators of the individual studies have not agreed to make their data available. Hence, the rest of us are supposed to have faith in the interpretation of the science by this select group of scientists without seeing it for ourselves.
Not even the Cochrane Collaboration had access to the patient-level data when conducting its review of statins in low-risk people, and its conclusions ultimately influenced the prescribing guidelines.
Dr Fiona Godlee, Editor in Chief of the BMJ, has called for the release of the raw data into the side effects of statins and has described the discourse as ‘a bitter and increasingly unproductive dispute’ because the data for harms have not yet been given the same level of scrutiny as the data for benefits. As in the case of the hidden data on Tamiflu, independent scrutiny of individual patient data uncovered new and revealing facts about the benefits and harms of the medications.
I really like Jason Christoff’s work, and I think this is an important collection of points he makes that are paradigm shifting regarding high cholesterol. It’s high for a reason. What is the reason?
1. Each cell in the body, especially brain cells, are dependent on cholesterol for their health and optimal function.
2. Each cell in the body dies naturally over a 1 year time span and new cells are created to replace dying cells. This process of building new healthy cells to replace old dying cells depends on adequate supplies of cholesterol.
3. If there is a greater level of cell death, above the base line averages, the liver produces extra cholesterol to make sure new healthy calls are produced at an accelerated rate.
4. If there is a cholesterol mass blocking an artery, it means massive cell death or damage had to occur first, through poisonous living, in order to call healing cholesterol delivery to that damaged area, to execute the repair.
5. If a person is toxic and leads an unhealthy lifestyle they will encounter accelerated cell death. Higher cholesterol levels are therefore needed to keep replacing dying cells in unhealthy people. Without extra cholesterol in the blood, so new cells can be produced, a person who has accelerated cell death will start dying very quickly.
6. Cholesterol tests actually check the levels of life saving cholesterol circulating in the blood. For an unhealthy person, higher cholesterol levels are a guardian, not a goblin. Although the unhealthy lifestyle will kill the person eventually, keeping the unhealthy lifestyle and lowering the cholesterol levels will only accelerated death.
7. To lower an unhealthy patient's cholesterol levels, instead of suggesting a healthier/non toxic lifestyle....that patient's accelerated death through various other pathways is a guarantee.
8. Due to the brain's higher concentrations of cholesterol and saturated fat levels, a low fat and anti cholesterol regime (statin drugs/low fat diet) usually starts a cascade of memory and brain diseases in said patient.....which presents as needing more drugs, which again kills the patient even faster.
9. Like all medical scams, we have the usually parts of the con in operation. A blind faith in the medical religion. tests that are intended to create fear and then the solutions, which make the patient sicker and thus increase dependency on the medical system and other inverted support systems.
10. You can click here or here to validate all of the above. Just like the COVID vaccines, statin drugs were always designed to kill and cripple the public, as a precursor for increasing various forms of control over an extremely dysfunctional population. The format of the medical con never changes.
And lastly, I want to leave you with the Duane Graveline story from Kendrick’s The Great Cholesterol Con.
The Duane Graveline story
The major problem with statins though, is not that they kill a few hundred people here and there, it is that they create a huge burden of insidious side effects, most of which go unnoticed, or are dismissed. You feel tired? Well, you are getting older, after all. Muscle pains? Hell, we all get them. Even when you suffer a complete belter of a side effect, most doctors refuse to believe this could possibly have anything to do with the statin you are taking.
Let me introduce you to a doctor in the USA called Duane Graveline. He is a family doctor, but he also trained as an astronaut with NASA, and works closely with airline pilots to assess their fitness to fly. Some years ago, he was found to have a raised cholesterol level and was put on a statin. He had no problem with this, as he fully believed in the cholesterol hypothesis and the benefits of statins. However, he then suffered a highly disturbing episode of memory loss, so he stopped taking the statin. He had no further problems for the next year, so his doctor persuaded him start a statin again, and he did so. Shortly after this, he suffered a much worse episode of memory loss, during which he regressed into his teenage years, unable to recall training as a doctor at all. After regaining his memory he was very shaken by the whole episode and binned the statins for good.
The doctors treating him made the diagnosis of transient global amnesia, cause unknown. They totally refused to accept the possibility that the statin could be the cause, and neither would anyone else. Feeling like a lonely voice in the wilderness, Dr Graveline then published a letter on a website called People’s Pharmacy asking if anyone else taking statins had suffered the same thing. He was immediately inundated by hundreds of cases from distraught patients and relatives. They described a full array of cognitive side effects from amnesia and severe memory loss to confusion and disorientation – all associated with statins, mostly with atorvastatin (Lipitor). The response of the mainstream medical community, however, could be paraphrased thus: ‘You don’t know what you’re talking about. Statins are safe and have very few side effects.’
Here is one letter that was written to Dr Graveline and is reproduced in his book Lipitor, Thief of Memory:
About six weeks ago, my doctor doubled my Lipitor from 20 milligrams to 40 milligrams. For about the past four weeks I have experienced progressive memory loss. I couldn’t remember my brother’s phone number. I couldn’t find my baby’s plate of food after preparing it. I couldn’t remember recent trips. I couldn’t remember to attend a meeting. I couldn’t remember a restaurant I ate in and numerous other similar episodes. This is totally out of character for me. I have called my doctor and am awaiting his return call. For your information I am 39 years old and have been on Lipitor about four years.
Will this be memory loss be ignored by the doctor? Probably. Will this be filed as an adverse event? Almost certainly not. This effect will be considered trivial. However, I think that the ‘mental’ problems associated with statins are far from trivial. As early as the 1960s it was recognised that the people taking cholesterol-lowering drugs tended to die more frequently from violent deaths: accidents, suicide, shootings and the like. This was universally dismissed as a coincidental finding (no matter how many times it cropped up), mainly because no one was able to see how a low cholesterol level could possibly be linked to violent deaths.
I read one post-hoc analysis of a cholesterol-lowering trial in which the authors were so determined to prove that the low cholesterol levels could have nothing to do with dying in a car crash that they pushed the analytical boundaries into another dimension. Their argument was that several of those who died while on statins were actually pedestrians, not drivers. So the statin couldn’t be to blame for the crash. Ha! Just try picking the logic out of that statement.
Anyway, thirty years ago, even twenty years ago, even five years ago, no one knew that cholesterol had anything to do with brain function. This despite the fact that the brain contains over 25 per cent of the total amount of cholesterol in the body, and over 2 per cent of the total weight of the brain is cholesterol (presumably it was thought to be hanging about in the brain by accident?). However, it has more recently been discovered that if you want the brain to function, this requires cholesterol.
A group of researchers, led by Dr Frank Pfrieger, was looking into the function of glial cells in the brain. It was known that these ‘support’ cells had a critical role in the function of synapses (the connections between neurons). Glial cells, it was also known, released a substance that allowed synapses to form, and function. Without this substance your brain would be almost entirely useless. And what was this fantastic, miracle substance?
Isolated neurons in the laboratory survived and grew, but showed only a few of the electrical signals generated by synapses. But when exposed to substances secreted by glial cells they produced strong signs of synaptic activity. The identity of the glial ingredient which triggered synapse formation has remained a mystery until now. But research published in the journal Science suggests that cholesterol is the magic ingredient.
Yes, the magic ingredient was good old ‘deadly’ cholesterol. Without cholesterol, the chemical scourge of mankind, your brain cannot form synapses, and you can’t think properly, or remember anything. Or remember anything.
Maybe it was a tad premature to write off cognitive side effects as a mere coincidence? Especially when it is clear how taking a statin might, just might, cause memory loss, even global amnesia. In fact, it is hard to see how it would not. It might also be possible to see how you would be more likely to die in a car crash – either as a driver or pedestrian – if your brain isn’t functioning properly. ‘Now, do I look left, or right?’
Lies are Unbekoming is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Thanks for being here.
Please consider a paid subscription. You will get nothing more for your support, as everything is made freely available. The money goes towards covering the costs of this work, medical freedom causes and support for the vaccine injured.
If you are Covid vaccine injured, consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment
If you want to understand and “see” what baseline human health looks like, watch (and share) this 21 minutes
Here are all eBooks and Summaries produced so far: