How the cholesterol myth endangers people’s health

Stephen McMurray comprehensively dismantles the medical mainstream’s demonization of cholesterol, using a mountain of evidence that shows not only that high levels are beneficial for many body processes, especially in the aged, but that statins, endlessly promoted by Big Pharma, cause far more harm than good

One of the most enduring myths in modern medicine is that high cholesterol levels cause heart disease. You might find it surprising, therefore, that study after study has failed to prove any link between blood cholesterol levels and atherosclerosis. 

Abundant evidence that the cholesterol theory is wrong

This was known as far back as 1936 when K Lande and W Sperry examined the bodies of 123 recently deceased people and found absolutely no correlation between the cholesterol blood levels and lipid levels in the aorta. In a 1960 study JC Paterson examined the levels of atherosclerosis in 191 deceased veterans and concluded:

‘The complications of atherosclerosis were just as frequent in cases with low serum cholesterol levels as in cases of moderately high ones.’

The authors of a 1973 study published in the British Heart Journal examined 71 patients and stated: ‘In this study, we failed to confirm any relation between the degree of obstructive lesions verified angiographically and blood lipid levels.’

A 2016 British Medical Journal paper also failed to find any evidence that high cholesterol in elderly patients had any correlation with cardiovascular mortality. In fact, they found the opposite – people over 60 with high levels of cholesterol had a lower risk of dying than those with lower cholesterol. The authors stated:

‘High LDL-C is inversely associated with mortality in most people over 60 years. This finding is inconsistent with the cholesterol hypothesis (ie. that cholesterol, particularly LDL-C, is inherently atherogenic).’

A 2003 study of elderly patients in hospitals also found cholesterol levels were inversely related to mortality rates, as did a Finnish study that examined the link between cholesterol levels and mortality in the elderly.

A trial of the drug Evacetrapib was supposed to highlight the benefit of raising HDL (the ‘good’ cholesterol) whilst also lowering LDL (‘bad’ cholesterol). LDL was reduced by 37% but there were no positive outcomes at all for the patients. In 2008 it was reported that another two drugs that were proven to lower cholesterol had no impact on heart attacks.

A 2020 BMJ report even admitted that, after examining 35 trails, they found no evidence that reducing cholesterol levels has led to any benefit to patients and are now questioning the Cholesterol hypothesis.

‘Considering that dozens of [random­ised controlled trials] of LDL-cholesterol reduction have failed to demonstrate a consistent benefit, we should question the validity of this theory.’

They concluded: ‘In most fields of science the existence of contradictory evidence usually leads to a paradigm shift or modification of the theory in question, but in this case the contradictory evidence has been largely ignored, simply because it doesn’t fit the prevailing paradigm.’

So many papers have been written that disprove the cholesterol theory and, in fact, show that low cholesterol levels are dangerous, that author David Evans has collated them into a book, Low Cholesterol Leads to an Early Death. Evidence from 101 scientific papers.

With all the evidence against the cholesterol theory, what data do the proponents of it cite to bolster their case?

Dubious evidence of the cholesterol theory proponents

One of the studies proponents of the cholesterol theory quote is the Framingham Study. This 1950s’ study involved measuring the blood serum cholesterol levels in 1,959 men and 2,415 women and seeing if there was any correlation to cardiovascular disease. The advocates of the cholesterol theory claim that the study proved that a 1% reduction in cholesterol corresponded to a 2% reduction in in CVD risk. Here, however, is a quote from a 1987 paper that followed the progress of the participants in the study:

‘There is a direct association between falling cholesterol levels over the first 14 years and mortality over the following 18 years (11% overall and 14% CVD death rate increase per 1 mg/dL per year drop in cholesterol levels).’

In other words, as the participants’ cholesterol decreased, their risk of dying of any disease increased, as did their risk of dying from heart disease. However, in the same paper they claim that for people under 50 there is a higher risk of dying with high cholesterol for a period of 30 years but no association whatsoever between cholesterol levels and mortality if over 50! So apparently if you can survive the higher risk of low cholesterol for 14 years and you are under 50, lower cholesterol will then mysteriously be beneficial rather than detrimental until you reach 50, when cholesterol will not matter at all. This, apparently, is medical science!

The other study is the infamous, Seven Countries, 1958 study conducted by the American physiologist, Ancel Keys. However, Keys was accused of selective use of data when he conducted the study, which was supposed to prove that high fat intake and therefore, high cholesterol levels, led to increased incidences of heart disease. Statistician Russell Smith examined the study and said:

‘The dietary assessment and methodology was highly inconsistent across cohorts and thoroughly suspect. In addition, careful examination of the death rates and associations between diet and death rates reveal a massive set of inconsistencies and contradictions.’

He went on to say: ‘In summary, the diet CHD (coronary heart disease) reported for the Seven Countries Study cannot be taken seriously by the objective scientist.’

The accusation of being selective in his use of data was also levelled at Keys in his previous 1953 paper, Athero­sclerosis: A problem in New Public Health. In this study he collated data from 22 countries but only chose the information from six that seemed to prove his theory, disregarding the other data sets (Figs 1 and 2). In fact, critics of the study highlighted the lack of scientific rigour when they chose their own list of data sets from those that Keys rejected and proved an inverse relationship between fat intake and cardiovascular disease.

In 1977 Keys admitted that: ‘There’s no connection whatsoever between cholesterol in food and cholesterol in the blood. And we’ve known that all along.’ This is because cholesterol in the diet makes up only 20% of overall cholesterol level because the majority of cholesterol is manufactured in the liver, which regulates the amount in the body, keeping the total amount in balance.

Read the complete article in issue 112.

Order the current issue | Order back issues

Previous articleUS Government review finds fluoride exposure: ‘Consistently associated with lower IQ in children’
Next articleIssue 112 Editorial