Cholesterol is also indispensable to our brain which contains about a quarter of the cholesterol in our body.  In addition, it is crucial for the formation of synapse (neuron connections) which enables us to think, learn and remember.

There is no doubt that statins are effective in reducing cholesterol levels, but we should be careful of rushing into wrong assumptions that since levels of cholesterol are dropping, it must mean that our health is improving and that we are getting better.  There is a ‘bigger picture’.

There is much more to consider in respect of our risk of CVD than just our cholesterol levels, and there is evidence that in some cases statins may actually worsen our heart health.  Furthermore, if you are taking statins you should be aware that certain recent studies show that statins are not as effective or safe as initially thought.

Skewing the Statistics – Making Statins Seem Safer And More Effective Than They Realy Are

A recent report published in the Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology established that those promoting statins used a statistical tool called relative risk reduction (RRR) to amplify statins’ trivial beneficial effects.[1]

According to this report, the director of clinical trials appears to have been successful in minimising the significance of a large number of negative effects that ensue from treatment with statins.

Let us see how statistics can be abused to deceive us about the effectiveness of statins. If we consider the absolute risk, statins benefit only 1% of those who use it.  Effectively what this means is that out of 100 patients treated with statins only one will be prevented from having a heart attack.

Since this result is not as impressive as statins advocates would like it to be, they use a different statistic presentation called Relative Risk (RR). And magically, statins suddenly become beneficial to 30-50% of the patients taking it.

In respect of side effects, the report notes that they are greater than reported by the media and medical conferences and that the relatively small benefits resulting from the use of the drug   are outweighed by the consequential risks which includes cancer, diabetes, musculoskeletal disorders, cognitive impairment and cataracts.

The study authors noted:[2] “In the Jupiter trial, the public and healthcare workers were informed of a 54 percent reduction in heart attacks, when the actual effect in reduction of coronary events was less than 1 percentage point… 

In the ASCOT-LLA study, which was terminated early because it was considered to have such outstanding results, there were heart attacks and deaths in 3% of the placebo (no treatment) group as compared to 1.9% in the Lipitor group.

The improvement in outcome with Lipitor treatment was only 1.1 percentage point, but when this study was presented to the public, the advertisements used the inflated (relative risk) statistic, which transformed the 1.1% effect into a 36% reduction in heart attack risk.

The inflated claims for statin effectiveness, and minimized portrayal of the adverse effects, has played a role in the health care providers and the public's enthusiasm for cholesterol-lowering drugs, say the authors.”

It is very important to understand how a different presentation of statistical results can be used to deceive us especially where effectiveness is stated in terms of relative risk.  Absolute risk reduction is the decrease in risk of a treatment in relation to a control treatment. Relative risk reduction is calculated by dividing the absolute risk reduction by the control event rate.

To simplify, here is an example:  let us say we have a study of 400 men, half of whom take a drug and half take a placebo, in order to examine the effect of the drug on testicular cancer risk.

After seven years, four men in the drug group develop testicular cancer, compared to eight who took the placebo. This data could lead to either of the following headlines, and both would be correct:

"New Miracle Drug Cuts Testicular Cancer Risks by 50%"  or alternatively, "New Drug Results in 2% Drop in testicular Cancer Risks".

You can now see why clinical trials, and in particular those which are funded by pharmaceuticals, will refer to relative risk reductions rather than absolute risk reductions, and as patients and potential consumers of these drugs, we need to be aware that statistics can be easily skewed and manipulated. The bottom line is that relative risk tells you nothing about the actual risk.

Statins Might Stimulate Atherosclerosis and Heart Failure

In a separate study published in Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology it was revealed that, contrary to the current belief that cholesterol reduction with statins decreases atherosclerosis, statins may instead actually stimulate atherosclerosis and heart failure.[3]

There were several physiological mechanisms which were discussed in this study that demonstrate how statins may worsen cardiovascular health:[4]

• Mitochondrial damage: Statins are toxic to the energy cores of the body’s cells, called mitochondria. They impair heart muscle mitochondria function, interfere with ATP production (adenosine triphosphate, the energy molecules of the body), and alter intracellular signalling proteins.

   

• Interfere with coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10): Statins deplete the body of CoQ10, which accounts for many of their devastating results.[5]

   

• Inhibit vitamin K2 functionality: Statins inhibit the function of vitamin K2 in the body. This vitamin protects the arteries from calcification. Without it, plaque levels increase.

   

• Interfere with selenium-containing proteins: Selenoproteins such as glutathione peroxidase are crucial for preventing oxidative damage in muscle tissues. As reported by Wellness Resources:
  “Blocking the selenoprotein enzyme glutathione peroxidase is akin to pouring gasoline on the fire of inflammation and free radicals, which damages muscle tissue. In fact, the scientists described this blocking of the selenoproteins reminiscent of selenium deficiency induced heart failure, known as Keshan’s disease first identified in the 1930s.”

Considering the substantial risks associated, the authors concluded:[6] “...the epidemic of heart failure and atherosclerosis that plagues the modern world may paradoxically be aggravated by the pervasive use of statin drugs. We propose that current statin treatment guidelines be critically re-evaluated.”

Statins Are Not As Beneficial For Parkinson’s Disease As They Would Make Us Believe

Pharmaceuticals endeavoured to portray statins as a ‘magic-bullet’ for an array of diseases including Parkinson’s.  Past research by Xuemei Huang[7], suggested a link between high cholesterol levels and lower rates of Parkinson’s, yet some epidemiological evidence suggested a lower risk of Parkinson’s associated with use of statins.

In a new study conducted by Huang and colleagues, they attempted to ascertain if the lowered incidence of Parkinson’s could indeed be due to statins.  The results demonstrated that statins were not protective of Parkinson’s and, instead, were linked with an increased risk.[8]  Furthermore, high total cholesterol and LDL were associated with a lower risk of Parkinson’s disease. The study concluded, “Statin use may be associated with a higher PD [Parkinson’s disease] risk, whereas higher total cholesterol may be associated with lower risk.” As for why past studies may have shown a link between statins and a lower Parkinson’s risk, Huang suggested:[9]

“One possibility, is that statin use can be a marker of people who have high cholesterol, which itself may be associated with lower [Parkinson's] risk. This could explain why some studies have found an association between use of these medications and low incidence of [Parkinson's]. Most importantly, this purported benefit may not be seen over time."