Hi Kieran-Telo 
I think the subject of statins is one where it’s hard to gauge the politics-free truth. Everything they say about the medical politics behind statins is plausible, likely even; a dynamic driven by profit and control that has existed and prevailed for decades.
Trying to be objective, my impression is that the bulk of the entrenched cholesterol view has met a strong challenge by the hypotheses of Kendrick and others. Without the underlying medical knowledge, my gut would still ‘vote’ for them being right.
The respectable and respected (IMO) A Midwestern Doctor runs through the politics etc
The one thing I would say is that among those medics with a bit more faith, but not necessarily a lot, there seems to be agreement that the strongest evidence for statins is for those who have had a heart attack, for preventing more heart attacks - ie secondary prevention.
AMW in the above article doesn’t cover this aspect; I presume this is due to secondary prevention only accounting for a small proportion of statin prescriptions.
One study less likely to be powered by pharma money (due to the presence of Peter McCullough in the lineup, and after covid too) is this one, in which this view on secondary prevention is stressed:
Usefulness of Statins as Secondary Prevention Against Recurrent and Terminal Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events
“Statins are not only indicated, but also confer the greatest benefit for secondary prevention. 12,24”
https://www.ajconline.org/action/showPdf?pii=S0002-9149(22)00430-1
If it was me and I’d had a heart attack, I’d feel I was in a bit of a dilemma, certainly I’d look into alternatives, and might (or might not) take the darned things while I was looking, and stop if there were any worrying side effects.
There are other more natural ways to lower cholesterol. But is it all about cholesterol? (More to add to what has been posted on this…)
OTOH (my handwringing continues), statins seem to do other useful things. They have an unheralded anti-inflammatory effect, and a school of thought says this is useful in cancer treatment. This anti-inflammatory effect may help prevent a second heart attack in ways other than reducing cholesterol.
This development would undoubtedly be serendipitous for the statins industry, which launched them almost blindly once they realised they could lower cholesterol, and with far less knowledge of the wider picture than there is now.
I might ask the docs what medical parameters they think put me (you) at risk and what were your figures, and get those tested again in say 6m or a year’s time. Certainly attend to any of the obvious non-pharma things that may apply to you eg things like weight, exercise, diet, which are win-wins on the cardio front. They will likely reduce your cholesterol anyway, incidental though it may be.
If I’d had no heart attack I’d do the same kinds of things, but I’d go along with the choir and tend to treat the statins advice as unreliable due to its history and objectively weaker evidence, as enough medics are questioning it. And file along with other over-zealous medical promotions cascaded down by profiteers that are worth checking, just not right now. But I’d heed the warning nevertheless and take a look round with a prophylactic view, as you are doing.
Medics who argues against statins usually say that if you take statins, you should should also take co-enzyme Q10.
The main side effect and criticism of statins is myopathy.
It seems generally accepted that statins reduce co-enzyme Q10, and that these levels return on supplementation. Whether the supplementation benefits as much as intended is trickier. Some individual trials have found so, systematic reviews less so.
This one did find benefit
Effects of Coenzyme Q10 on Statin-Induced Myopathy: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
IMO, systematic reviews and meta-analyses can be rather blunt instruments and are biased towards randomized controlled trials (which tend to be pharma sponsored due to their size) even when these are deficient in key respects. Despite having ‘bias checks’ they seem powerless to detect blindinginly obvious bias in authors’ decisions, interpretations and language. So many studies mis-state their results, abandon very basic rules of hypothesis testing yet come up as bias free in automatic ‘tests’.
As noted, statin dissidents say that for those taking statins, supplementing Co-Q10 is essential and I’d side with them on that one, no harms have been demonstrated; so alleviating a real concern associated with the drugs seems to make sense.
Particularly as Co-Q10 seems intrinsically involved in key metabolic functions and other cardio stuff.
Eg
Coenzyme Q10 for heart failure
I’ve been re-reading a couple of summary articles presenting the emerging picture as related by informed opposition, will post them soon. For now I’m off to consume some cholesterol, and some far worse things…
Hope helpful.
ED
