Statins are used to prevent heart disease, and are among the most prescribed drugs in the world, racking up some $20 billion in sales as of 2012. One might think that statins are safe and effective drugs, but the real question is, do statins work?

The amount of money that drug companies make from statins could lead someone of a skeptical bent to question their efficacy.

Drug company corruption

Consider that a news report the other day reported that 80% of data from clinical trials in China has been fabricated.

The report uncovered fraudulent behaviour at almost every level, and showed that some pharmaceutical companies had hidden or deleted records of potentially adverse side effects, and tampered with data that didn’t meet their desired outcomes.

In light of the findings, 80 percent of current drug applications, which were awaiting approval for mass production, have now been cancelled.

Now, this was in China, so who knows what the level of drug company shenanigans takes place in the West. But it seems clear enough that where a lot of money is involved, which is the case when drug companies do clinical trials, there’s more incentive to alter or even outright fake data.

Why did statins quit working after 2004?

In a previous article, I discussed why statins might cause atherosclerosis and heart failure. The mechanism may be related to how higher cholesterol is associated with longer life.

From the same paper on statins and atherosclerosis1 comes the following chart, which shows clinical trials of statins both before and after 2004, when new disclosure regulations regarding clinical trials came into effect.


Before 2004 and the advent of full disclosure regulations, statins showed both large reductions in LDL cholesterol and in the number of coronary artery events.

After 2004, the lowering of LDL still took place, but the effect on coronary artery events was either low, non-existent, or actually increased with statins.

The authors comment:

Since the introduction of statins to clinical medicine in 1987, several kinds of statins were reported to be effective in lowering LDL-C and also preventing CHD events (mostly in 1990s). However, unfair and unethical problems were associated with clinical trials reported by industry-supported scientists, and new penal regulations on clinical trials came into effect in 2004 [4,5]. After 2004–2005, all clinical trials, performed by scientists relatively free of conflict of interest with pharmaceutical industries, reported that statins were effective in lowering LDL-C but no significant beneficial effects were observed for the prevention of CHD (FIGURE 1). Currently, the majority of scientists continue to claim that statins are effective in preventing CHD, but these claims are based on metaanalyses of reports, including those published before the EU regulation (mostly in 1990s). [My emphasis.]

There are a number of ways that studies can be fudged statistically, and from the looks of it, the drug companies used them.

Closing thoughts

I’ll just leave you with some closing thoughts by Paul J. Rosch, M.D., on cholesterol, statins, and heart disease.2

The belief that coronary atherosclerosis is due to high cholesterol from increased saturated fat intake originated from experiments in herbivorous animals. It was reinforced by reports allegedly demonstrating this sequence of events in various populations but ignoring contradictory data. The idea has been perpetuated by powerful forces using similar tactics to preserve the profit and the reputations of those who promote this doctrine. Opponents find it difficult to publish their scientifically supported opinions. The advent of statins has further fueled this fallacious lipid hypothesis, despite compelling evidence that their effect is not due to cholesterol lowering and that serious side effects have been suppressed and alleged benefits have been hyped. The adverse effects of the cholesterol campaign on health, quality of life, the economy and medical research are inestimable. It is imperative that public health officials, physicians and patients are apprised of proof that it is misguided, malicious and malignant.[My emphasis.]

Dr. Rosch is the editor of a very good book that I’m currently reading: Fat and Cholesterol Don’t Cause Heart Attacks — And Statins Are Not the Solution.


PS: Check out my Supplements Buying Guide for Men.


  1.  Okuyama, Harumi, et al. “Statins stimulate atherosclerosis and heart failure: pharmacological mechanisms.” Expert review of clinical pharmacology 8.2 (2015): 189-199.
  2.  Rosch, Paul J. “Cholesterol does not cause coronary heart disease in contrast to stress.” Scandinavian Cardiovascular Journal 42.4 (2008): 244-249.

Share this post with your friends

Want to look and feel great in your 40s, 50s, 70s and beyond?

Discover how to avoid chronic disease, excess body fat, and enjoy limitless energy


  1. Jokah Macpherson says:

    Even the pre-2004 ones on the left where statins “worked” don’t show but a few percentage points drop in the likelihood of a coronary artery event. Are these few percentage points really worth all the $ spent?

  2. Geoff says:

    Clear and simple explanation. Thanks.

  3. Belovar says:

    A few days ago my father (age 57) had a suspected heart attack or stroke. Chest pain, numbness in arms and lower face. Dizziness. Went to the hospoital, did alot of tests etc, which didnt show anything. Both my grandfather and great grandfather died in heart attacks, so that increased the concern.

    Doctor ordered low dose aspirin, and also blood tests for cholesterol etc, and if they show cholestorel to be high, he recommended statins. Im very sceptical of statins from what ive read here and on other sites. But there also seems to be some signs that they do work for some people. But its all incredibly confusing.

    I’m not sure where i’m heading with this comment…

    I would really appreciate a post about cholesterol, its proposed links to heart disease, etc where you bring up and comment on studies that support both sides. This I think should be done more often, to say what’s bad about studies one does not agree with, and not just presenting studies that oneself think is good.

    This subject has many aspects of course, 1. How is cholesterol linked to vascular health 2, If high cholesterol is bad, then what is the best way to lower it, etc. And for that matter, what counts as “high”.

    Also it would be really interesting to hear your opinion on arteriosclerosis, and how to prevent it.

    I feel like im rambling now but…

    I know you’re not an expert in this particular field, but I respect your opinion, and your method of basing your recommendations on science.

    I also want to thank you for reading and answering my comments, its incredibly apreciated.

    • P. D. Mangan says:

      Hi Belovar – sorry to hear about your father. I have written some things about the purported relation between cholesterol and heart disease, and while I’m convinced that cholesterol itself doesn’t cause heart disease, given the controversy in that field, nothing that I say will make much of a difference. Doctors and scientists who have looked closely at the issue and decided cholesterol does not cause heart disease include Malcolm Kendrick, Uffe Ravnskov, Paul Rosch, Luca Mascitelli, and many others, and there’s nothing I can say that would add to their writings. I can only explain what they found. As for statins, my take on them is that they have benefit, but it’s very small, and they have numerous side effects.

      Statins have (small) benefit, but other cholesterol-lowering drugs do not and may increase death rates. That would seem to show that any benefit of statins is not due to cholesterol lowering. Also, a relation between degree of cholesterol lowering and benefit has not been shown. Furthermore, many – half is the figure I recall – of heart attack patients have normal cholesterol, <200.

    • Chris says:

      Having been disabled from Lipitor since 2002, I’d recommend you read “The Truth About Statins Risks and Alternatives to Cholesterol Lowering Drugs” by Dr Barbara Roberts MD, a cardiologist of 30+ years. I am in a FB group vwith over 3000 members from across the globe, most of who have suffered horrendous adverse effects of these drugs.. tons of credible evidence there

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.