So we are expected to believe that our bodies, which have supposedly evolved over tens or hundreds of millions of years, have somehow ended up producing a molecule that is somehow dangerous and needs to be controlled in almost every human.
The same molecule is manufactured in our livers, to the extent of about 75% of our needs (too important to rely on diet), forms the basic structure of every cell in our bodies and is so important to brain function that the brain maintains a separate control mechanism to ensure adequate supply. And, for good measure, the same molecule is also the starting point in the manufacture by our bodies of many vital hormones and vitamins.
A key point that Dr Kendrick makes is that, of all the cholesterol-lowering mechanisms, only statins have ever shown any cardiac-related benefit to humans. So if cholesterol is the problem, why would this be? One senior US cardiologist (plenty of interests to declare one suspects) has speculated that it’s HOW statins lower cholesterol that is important, meaning that the other drugs get to the right cholesterol end-point but just the wrong way. Quite why this should make a difference he didn’t explain. In the real world the answer is likely that as statins are vaso-dilators, they do have some potential benefit, particularly in critical situations such as during or immediately after cardiac events. This suggests their use in limited circumstances, and certainly not (as the ghoul Whitty seemed to endorse a while back) as Smarties to be munched by the entire population.
The mindless vilification of cholesterol is for me analogous to the equally mindless vilification of CO2. The former is arguably the most important molecule in our bodies, the latter absolutely necessary for meaningful life on earth. Yet per The Science both are bad. You really couldn’t make this shit up.
Love the last sentence, but unfortunately some people have, this is the problem. After I had a heart bypass op 12 years ago, the doctor wanted me on statins. I had done some research and there were clearly issues. The number needed to heal for heart attack was around 144, and to heal from stroke around 104. For heart attack that means 144 people have to be taking statins for 1, just 1 person to be saved from dying by heart attack. More shit you couldn't make up . . big pharma laughing all the way to the bank. I refused the statins.
Kendrick’s follow-up book “The Clot Thickens” is even better!
In case you didn’t know he (with two others) was accused of being effectively a murderer for opposing statins by the Mail on Sunday. Two out of three sued the Mail for libel and recently won the case. Details on https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/
Books like Kendrick's are valuable for a sanity check on the cholesterol issue and call out some of the total incoherence behind some claims that are presented as 'settled science'. Yes, changes in cholesterol (higher or lower) can be a call to look deeper and, yes, cholesterol can contribute to artherosclerotic plaque but its so much more nuanced than this.
As just one example, take a 30-year follow-up in the famous Framingham Heart Study; for each 1 mg/dl drop in total cholesterol, there was an 11% increase in deaths from heart attacks. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3560398/). A review as far back as 2002 showed that people with low and high cholesterol develop artherosclerosis at the same rate (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12037248/).
It seems that, any time these issues (or concerns about side-effects) are publicly raised, it is met with a reflexive pointing to The Science, the so-called 'landmark' studies that 'prove' the benefit of statins. Yet the trials themselves confirm the concerns people have... this include a 26% drop-out rate that went unreported in the conclusions, zero drop in cardiovascular deaths that was then reported as a drop in strokes (ignoring the increase in heart attacks by the exact same margin), repeated findings of increased cancer that are continually dismissed as coincidence. For those interested, I break down what these studies actually show here: https://marekdoyle.substack.com/p/statin-wars-why-has-the-latest-jama
I pimped statins for more than two decades. I was aware that many did not tolerate them and would fiddle with dose and flavour a bit but did believe the conventional narrative.
Despite receiving lectures and dinners from the purveyors of rosuvastatin at the time of the Jupiter Study I did not rush out to start treatment myself.
One of our cardiology consultants returned from an AHA meeting in the mid-90's with the advice from one lecturer: "There is no place in the human body for LDL cholesterol." It is interesting what a narrow rather than a general point of view can produce in the way of conclusions.
And finally after a long court battle he (with a colleague) won a case against the UK media! Great vindication of both their reputations and science. Hurrah!
And I ditto his later book “the clot thickens” is fantastic and would make a great Christmas gift to family and friends as it’s both an easy and funny read.
I was first diagnosed with high cholesterol over 30 years ago and have been prescribed with statins multiple times since then even though I was young and very healthy. Doctors are blind to what is right in front of them, a healthy person. Tried them a couple of times, briefly, like for one month. Side effects for me, terrible. I have read recently that high cholesterol equals long life. Sounds good to me.
One of the main takeaways from Kendrick's books may well be the understanding of relative risk vs absolute risk and how it's consistently used by the psychos in charge to oversell their poisons. I bet people aware of this statistical trick were far less likely to fall for the convid miracle injections.
David Diamond has always explained this well in his presentations and interviews:
So we are expected to believe that our bodies, which have supposedly evolved over tens or hundreds of millions of years, have somehow ended up producing a molecule that is somehow dangerous and needs to be controlled in almost every human.
The same molecule is manufactured in our livers, to the extent of about 75% of our needs (too important to rely on diet), forms the basic structure of every cell in our bodies and is so important to brain function that the brain maintains a separate control mechanism to ensure adequate supply. And, for good measure, the same molecule is also the starting point in the manufacture by our bodies of many vital hormones and vitamins.
A key point that Dr Kendrick makes is that, of all the cholesterol-lowering mechanisms, only statins have ever shown any cardiac-related benefit to humans. So if cholesterol is the problem, why would this be? One senior US cardiologist (plenty of interests to declare one suspects) has speculated that it’s HOW statins lower cholesterol that is important, meaning that the other drugs get to the right cholesterol end-point but just the wrong way. Quite why this should make a difference he didn’t explain. In the real world the answer is likely that as statins are vaso-dilators, they do have some potential benefit, particularly in critical situations such as during or immediately after cardiac events. This suggests their use in limited circumstances, and certainly not (as the ghoul Whitty seemed to endorse a while back) as Smarties to be munched by the entire population.
The mindless vilification of cholesterol is for me analogous to the equally mindless vilification of CO2. The former is arguably the most important molecule in our bodies, the latter absolutely necessary for meaningful life on earth. Yet per The Science both are bad. You really couldn’t make this shit up.
Love the last sentence, but unfortunately some people have, this is the problem. After I had a heart bypass op 12 years ago, the doctor wanted me on statins. I had done some research and there were clearly issues. The number needed to heal for heart attack was around 144, and to heal from stroke around 104. For heart attack that means 144 people have to be taking statins for 1, just 1 person to be saved from dying by heart attack. More shit you couldn't make up . . big pharma laughing all the way to the bank. I refused the statins.
after i had my heart attack in 2020 i got prescribed statins.
i took them for a year or so.
i read a substack by kendrick and stopped taking them.
only after i had stopped taking them i read about their side effects.
it has taken at least two years for the tenderness in my lower legs to subside.
Kendrick’s follow-up book “The Clot Thickens” is even better!
In case you didn’t know he (with two others) was accused of being effectively a murderer for opposing statins by the Mail on Sunday. Two out of three sued the Mail for libel and recently won the case. Details on https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/
I’ve read this: it’s excellent (though some of the jokes quite dreadful dad jokes)
Books like Kendrick's are valuable for a sanity check on the cholesterol issue and call out some of the total incoherence behind some claims that are presented as 'settled science'. Yes, changes in cholesterol (higher or lower) can be a call to look deeper and, yes, cholesterol can contribute to artherosclerotic plaque but its so much more nuanced than this.
As just one example, take a 30-year follow-up in the famous Framingham Heart Study; for each 1 mg/dl drop in total cholesterol, there was an 11% increase in deaths from heart attacks. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3560398/). A review as far back as 2002 showed that people with low and high cholesterol develop artherosclerosis at the same rate (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12037248/).
It seems that, any time these issues (or concerns about side-effects) are publicly raised, it is met with a reflexive pointing to The Science, the so-called 'landmark' studies that 'prove' the benefit of statins. Yet the trials themselves confirm the concerns people have... this include a 26% drop-out rate that went unreported in the conclusions, zero drop in cardiovascular deaths that was then reported as a drop in strokes (ignoring the increase in heart attacks by the exact same margin), repeated findings of increased cancer that are continually dismissed as coincidence. For those interested, I break down what these studies actually show here: https://marekdoyle.substack.com/p/statin-wars-why-has-the-latest-jama
I pimped statins for more than two decades. I was aware that many did not tolerate them and would fiddle with dose and flavour a bit but did believe the conventional narrative.
Despite receiving lectures and dinners from the purveyors of rosuvastatin at the time of the Jupiter Study I did not rush out to start treatment myself.
One of our cardiology consultants returned from an AHA meeting in the mid-90's with the advice from one lecturer: "There is no place in the human body for LDL cholesterol." It is interesting what a narrow rather than a general point of view can produce in the way of conclusions.
And finally after a long court battle he (with a colleague) won a case against the UK media! Great vindication of both their reputations and science. Hurrah!
And I ditto his later book “the clot thickens” is fantastic and would make a great Christmas gift to family and friends as it’s both an easy and funny read.
I was first diagnosed with high cholesterol over 30 years ago and have been prescribed with statins multiple times since then even though I was young and very healthy. Doctors are blind to what is right in front of them, a healthy person. Tried them a couple of times, briefly, like for one month. Side effects for me, terrible. I have read recently that high cholesterol equals long life. Sounds good to me.
One of the main takeaways from Kendrick's books may well be the understanding of relative risk vs absolute risk and how it's consistently used by the psychos in charge to oversell their poisons. I bet people aware of this statistical trick were far less likely to fall for the convid miracle injections.
David Diamond has always explained this well in his presentations and interviews:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnZbQ_nqBjo
His other book "Doctoring Data" is also excellent. How pharma lies with statistics.