Editorials 233

Am I guilty of hyperbole? Do I catastrophize and rail against what I perceive as ineffective, harmful, even deadly treatments espoused by the orthodox medical establishment? Positive Health PH Online has published and compiled the evidence and argued the case for natural treatment approaches which demonstrate the fallacies of current treatment paradigms adopted by mainstream medicine for numerous conditions; articles / book reviews published within PH Online illustrate and document such historical and medical errors in fields including cancer, Myalgic Encephalomyelitis / Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), dentistry, heart disease, immunity, infections / antibiotics and psychiatry.

In Positive Health PH Online Issue 233, Vivienne Bradshaw-Black’s article Strategic Confusion in Health Issues presents the conundrum confronting us all in attempting to decide whom to believe and which data to trust.

“The abundance of confusion found within information on health issues is mind-boggling. Even searching for information on one topic can lead down a hundred other avenues, all with conflicting facts and advice resulting in more confusion and overwhelm. Discouragement and abandoning the search can be the result, owing to the inability to discern what is accurate and what is not, often with each differing point of view offering research and references to ‘expert’ opinions to support its own.”

And in Coronary Thrombosis Theory of Heart Attacks: Science or Creed? Carlos Monteiro analyses “critical reasoning about coronary thrombosis as the cause of myocardial infarction”.

Just prior to publishing live PH Online Issue 233, I received in the post a pre-launch proof copy of an important, possibly ground-breaking epoch title Fat and Cholesterol Don't Cause Heart Attacks. And Statins Are Not The Solution - A Tribute to Uffe Ravnskov MD PhD and THINCS - The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics - www.thincs.org, Paul J Rosch MD FACP, Editor. The book, which is comprehensively illustrated with Data / Figures and extensively referenced to the published scientific literature, is due to be launched mid-September 2016.

Tripping Over the Truth – the Return of the Metabolic Theory of Cancer by Travis Christofferson historically revisits events over the past 70+ years recounting how the cancer establishment has veered away from the bona fide metabolic causes of cancer and become side-tracked in a seemingly never ending race to find and sequence the genes causing cancer.

The 17 chapters by eminent experts comprising Fat and Cholesterol Don't Cause Heart Attacks similarly reprise the past 70+ years of the Heart Disease - Cholesterol / Lipid Hypothesis, recounting the emergence of the Lipid Hypothesis of Coronary Heart Disease, detailing why the Lipid Hypothesis of Coronary Heart Disease is Fallacious and Dangerous and How Dietary Guidelines, Bad Science, Politics and Profit Have Contributed to the Current Epidemic of Obesity and Incidence of Heart Disease. Other enlightening chapters include Historical Perspective on the Use of Deceptive Methods in the War on Cholesterol, The Culprit in Coronary Heart Disease is Trans Fats, Not Cholesterol: But Why Did It Take Decades to Ban Them? Other strands within this book include chapters outlining other factors in heart disease, including sulphur deficiency, stress, infections, blood clotting, as well as analysis about Statins, including Critical Review of Recent Drug Company Sponsored Trials about Statin Efficacy and Safety and Systemic Evaluation of Statin Therapy Side Effects. Do the Accrued Adverse Effects Outweigh the Benefits.

A few memorable quotes:

“Saturated fat and cholesterol in the diet are not the cause of coronary heart disease. That myth is the greatest scientific deception of this century, perhaps of any century… The public is being deceived by the greatest health scam of the century… Uffe Ravnskov’s book The Cholesterol Myths was actually burned on a 1992 Finnish television show because it was a scathing and devastating indictment of the numerous flaws in the lipid hypothesis… data are manipulated in company-sponsored drug trials in order to conceal or minimize the adverse side effects of statins or exaggerate their benefits… For example, the 42% reduction in risk of cardiac death in the simvastatin study was relative risk, whereas the absolute risk reduction was only 3.5%... In patients with multiple risk factors for heart disease, LIPITOR REDUCES RISK OF HEART ATTACH BY 36%.* The asterisk is explained at the bottom of the page That means in a large clinical study, 3% of patients taking a sugar pill or placebo had a heart attack compared to 2% of patients taking Lipitor. The 36% was relative risk and the absolute risk reduction of only 1% was not mentioned. In other words, if you take Lipitor daily for years, your risk of having a heart attack drops 1%, and this is only if you have risk factors such as family, history, high blood pressure, age, low HDL ('good' cholesterol) or smoking.”

On 8 Sept, several days following the arrival of the Fat and Cholesterol Don’t Cause Heart Attacks book the following review regarding the safety of statins was published in the Lancet - Interpretation of the evidence for the efficacy and safety of statin therapy by Prof Rory Collins FRS et al. www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)31357-5/abstract

“This Review is intended to help clinicians, patients, and the public make informed decisions about statin therapy for the prevention of heart attacks and strokes. It explains how the evidence that is available from randomised controlled trials yields reliable information about both the efficacy and safety of statin therapy. In addition, it discusses how claims that statins commonly cause adverse effects reflect a failure to recognise the limitations of other sources of evidence about the effects of treatment. Large-scale evidence from randomised trials shows that statin therapy reduces the risk of major vascular events (i.e., coronary deaths or myocardial infarctions, strokes, and coronary revascularisation procedures) by about one-quarter for each mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol during each year (after the first) that it continues to be taken. The absolute benefits of statin therapy depend on an individual’s absolute risk of occlusive vascular events and the absolute reduction in LDL cholesterol that is achieved. For example, lowering LDL cholesterol by 2 mmol/L (77 mg/dL) with an effective low-cost statin regimen (e.g., atorvastatin 40 mg daily, costing about £2 per month) for 5 years in 10 000 patients would typically prevent major vascular events from occurring in about 1000 patients (i.e., 10% absolute benefit) with pre-existing occlusive vascular disease (secondary prevention) and in 500 patients (i.e., 5% absolute benefit) who are at increased risk but have not yet had a vascular event (primary prevention).”

The above study was presented as a vindication of the safety of statins and a green light to prescribe statins to millions of people to prevent heart attack and stroke. However, there is also opposition to the data and this interpretation from other members of the scientific research community including the aforementioned academics from THINCS and natural health campaigners including physicians such as Dr Joseph Mercola and Dr Malcolm Kendrick in his blog entitled Medical Censorship in the Twenty-First Century. Dr Kendrick is a contributor to the Fat and Cholesterol book; his chapter is entitled Cardiovascular disease in primarily due to blood clotting.

Thus this vituperative dispute, i.e. war goes on and on - I wholeheartedly suggest that PH Online readers obtain their own copy of Fat and Cholesterol Don't Cause Heart Attacks. And Statins Are Not The Solution. This could be life-saving.