Statins Prevent Heart Attacks, But Don't Save Lives: The Pseudoscience

by Heidi Stevenson

19 February 2010

The first line of defense against cardiovascular disease these days is statins. The news media is full of glowing reports of these wonder drugs. Medical journals are full of studies extolling their benefits. So why is Gaia Health so adamant that they're ill-advised in most people? The answer is simple: Except in a very small group, they don't save lives.

But...but, what about all those scientific studies that prove they reduce heart disease?

No question—they do.

So, how can Gaia Health tell people they don't save lives?

Because they don't.

Ummm...how can you possibly say that? You admit that statins prevent heart disease, but you say they don't save lives?

That's right. They don't. Here's why—along with a little insight into how medical studies effectively lie without saying anything untrue.

It's a matter of not looking at the whole picture. Ultimately, when taking a drug that's supposed to save your life, what you care about is whether your life is extended. Perhaps you care about the manner of death, but when you get down to it, a heart attack is a pretty quick way to go, not like cancer with its usually prolonged, debilitating, and agonizing death. So, if a drug decreases the likelihood of dying of a heart attack, but increases the likelihood of dying of cancer, you might not be so inclined to take it.

That's the problem with statins. Sure, they lessen the likelihood of dying from a heart attack, but they increase the chance of dying from something else—generally, something worse.

A Mind Experiment

Let's imagine that we've developed a new drug that we're calling extracardio. It has two significant effects. One is to reduce deaths from heart attacks, and the other is to increase deaths from liver disease.

Having developed it, how can we sell it to doctors and the general public? We set up a trial, of course. In that trial, we get a bunch of subjects who are willing to be guinea pigs, and we divide them approximately in half. Then, we give extracardio to half the group, which we'll call Group Cardio, and a placebo to the other half, which we'll call Group Control. We keep track of how they do over the next several months.

At the end of a year, we've collected a bunch of data about both groups. Group Cardio's cholesterol decreased by 30%, while Group Control's cholesterol is unchanged. Group Cardio has suffered 2 heart attacks, while Group Placebo has suffered 3 heart attacks. This is presented in tabular form, like so:

	Cholesterol	Number Heart Attacks
Cardio	-30%	2
Control	0%	3

At a glance, it seems obvious. Taking extracardio decreases cholesterol levels by 30% and there are 33% fewer heart attacks. Presented with only this information, who wouldn't conclude that our drug saves lives?

But, that's not the whole story. What about the death rate? What about the harm done by liver disease? That's a completely different story. In Cardio Group, 1 person who suffered a heart attack died, and 2 died from liver disease. In Control Group, 2 people died of their heart attacks, but no one else died. Let's add that data to our table:

	Cholesterol	Number Heart Attacks	Deaths, All Causes
Cardio	-30%	2	3
Control	0%	3	2

Lowering cholesterol and number of heart attacks doesn't really matter if the rate of death is increased.

We want to sell extracardio, so we ignore the inconvenient detail that taking our product results in a death rate that's 50% higher than those who didn't take it.

We set up the study to focus on the positive aspects of our product—the number of heart attacks suffered and the lowered cholesterol. The fact that the death rate of patients who took our drug is increased by 33%...well, it's ignored. We design our trial so that inconvenient fact isn't seen.

That's how it's done. The pharmaceutical industry simply doesn't track deaths from all causes—they look only at selected statistics that seem to show benefits from their products. Of course, it's all dressed up in gobbledygook, but if you're looking for the truth, you'll find that this technique is common.

Misleading Studies and Claims

Still not convinced? A few years ago, a study called TNT (Treating to New Targets) was ballyhooed as documenting that statins save lives from heart disease and significantly reduce LDL cholesterol. Claims that statins save lives were everywhere. However, reporting on it gives us the clue. According to Medscape, the goals included:⁽¹⁾

Secondary efficacy outcome measures included any cardiovascular event, major coronary event (CHD death, nonfatal non–procedure-related myocardial infarction, or resuscitated cardiac arrest), any coronary event, cerebrovascular event, peripheral arterial disease, documented angina, hospitalization for congestive heart failure, and all-cause mortality. [Ed: Emphasis mine]

Yet, the article discusses just about everything related to the study—but there's no mention of all-cause mortality!

If, though, we read what Dr. Malcolm Kendrick says about the study, the real story comes out. He doesn't simply take the stated conclusions as the truth. Dr. Kendrick⁽²⁾ goes to the trouble of actually looking at the study in detail, so he noted that one point that's never brought out by mainstream media or medicine: The overall death rate increased in those who took statins. He quotes from an editorial by Dr. Bertram Pitt in the New England Journal of Medicine:

Pitt managed to spot that there were no differences in overall mortality between the two therapies and even an increase [Dr. Kendrick's emphasis] in the number of deaths from noncardiovascular causes in those treated with atorvastatin 80.

Dr. Kendrick then goes on to discuss commentary by TheHeart.org. He quotes from it, "We need to make the assumption that mortality has been proven, that LDL lowering does in fact lower total mortality rates," and then goes on to ask:

Why, exactly, do we need to make this assumption? No study, ever, on primary prevention of heart disease with statins has ever shown a reduction in overall mortality. None, ever. And there have been many. And assuming something so absolutely vital, based on a huge amount of contradictory evidence seems just a tad premature.

Obviously, the modern medical system has bought into the myth that statins save lives. Even when a study provides documentation that it isn't true, the conclusion will say that the study, somehow, shows that statins save lives.

The next article will discuss what statins actually do—
how they may reduce heart disease yet don't reduce death rates.

Do you have an opinion about this? Click here to comment!