[Videos] - These 5 independent Medical Doctors all separately say NO to both taking and prescribing Statins for High Cholesterol

[bombshell]

Why only 5?

 

[Checkyrmed]

Is it no surprise that ppl are getting dumber?

singapore will one day, walk the shoes of americans.

What is happening is systemic, with policy choices that favor quick fixes over root causes. If chronic disease management continues to follow the American model of medication-first and food-industry influence, Singapore may indeed walk in America’s footsteps.

https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/threads/avocado-oil.7150472/page-2#post-157243167

 

[standarture]

But gambling with life is exactly what happens when treatment focuses only on LDL while ignoring the real drivers such as insulin resistance, Lp(a), inflammation and excess omega 6. Lowering LDL alone is not a guarantee against stroke or paralysis because it can create a false sense of security while the root problem continues to worsen.

I think the point is the statin gives you sufficient time to live out the rest of your life. Of course your diet and lifestyle needs to be adjusted as well. The risk and probability of heart attack recurring is worse than get whatever unproven side effects may occur from stains.

 

[Checkyrmed]

I think the point is the statin gives you sufficient time to live out the rest of your life. Of course your diet and lifestyle needs to be adjusted as well. The risk and probability of heart attack recurring is worse than get whatever unproven side effects may occur from stains.

Statins are often framed as a way to “buy time,” but that is an oversimplification. The real determinant of how long and how well someone lives is not just whether LDL is lowered by a pill but whether the underlying drivers of cardiovascular disease are addressed. Insulin resistance, visceral obesity, chronic inflammation, and hypertension create the environment in which plaques grow and rupture. In fact, insulin resistance directly increases ApoB particle number. A statin can modify numbers on a lab test, but it cannot undo the damage of persistent metabolic dysfunction.

The claim that side effects are “unproven” is misleading. Statins are well-documented to increase insulin resistance, raise the risk of diabetes, and in some cases cause muscle, liver, or cognitive issues. These are not theoretical risks, they are established in clinical literature. While the recurrence of heart attack is indeed serious, leaning only on statins without correcting lifestyle merely prolongs exposure to the same metabolic environment that caused the disease in the first place.

So the real question is not whether statins “buy time,” but whether patients are being given the chance to treat the root cause. Medication alone is not sufficient. Without meaningful improvement in diet, exercise, and metabolic health, statins risk becoming a band-aid that masks the problem rather than a path to true prevention.

 

[Mecisteus]

Key Takeaways for You​

Based on the current high-level evidence:

• Yes, extremely low LDL levels can regress plaque. The most robust data supports targeting an LDL-C level of below 70-80 mg/dL .
• High-intensity statin therapy is the most effective proven strategy for achieving this regression .
• Plaque regression is a measurable phenomenon confirmed by advanced imaging techniques like intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), which shows a reduction in plaque volume and improvement in plaque composition after intensive lipid-lowering .

Some men of many substances will say all these data are funded by big pharmas or fake. So AI cannot be trusted.

Must trust your own body. Your body needs cholesterol. High LDL can make one feels better. What doesn't kill you will make you stronger, bla bla bla

 

[rogze79]

It's seems that the first data analysis service provider sabotaged the findings. And they are washing their hands off.

Wasted money for subsequent data analysis..

 

[Ender]

5, that's an overwhelming majority.

 

[rogze79]

Prompt:
Find me solid evidence (with high quality research including systematic, reviews, meta-analysis, RCT), whether high or low cholesterol likely linked to dementia

ChatGPT thinking
What high-quality evidence actually shows about cholesterol and dementia:


– Midlife high cholesterol (esp. LDL) → higher later-life dementia risk. A 2023 systematic review/meta-analysis of 17 cohort studies (≈1.2M people) found: elevated mid-life cholesterol → 14% higher all-cause dementia risk; every +1 mmol/L LDL → +8% all-cause dementia risk; and +17% Alzheimer’s risk. PubMed Central
– Very large real-world cohort confirms this. In >1.8 million UK adults, LDL measured before age 65 was modestly but robustly associated with dementia >10 years later; authors argue LDL belongs on the list of modifiable dementia risks. The Lancet+2PubMed+2


– Late-life “low cholesterol looks risky” is mostly reverse causation. Lipids tend to fall in the prodromal years before a dementia diagnosis, which can make low late-life cholesterol look harmful; longitudinal work shows declining cholesterol precedes dementia rather than causes it. PubMed Central+1


– HDL shows a U-shape in older adults. In a large Neurology cohort, both low and high HDL-C were linked to higher dementia risk; LDL associations were modest in this older population. Translation: don’t chase extreme HDL. PubMed+1


– Randomized trials (statins started in later life) don’t prevent dementia. The Cochrane review of RCTs (26,340 participants) plus major trials (PROSPER; HOPE-3) found no reduction in incident dementia or cognitive decline from late-life statin initiation. Cochrane+2PubMed+2


– Genetic (Mendelian randomization) evidence doesn’t support harm from lower LDL. Lifelong genetically lower LDL via HMGCR/PCSK9 variants did not increase dementia risk; point estimates even trend toward lower AD risk with lower LDL. PubMed

What this means in practice​

– Target the midlife window. High LDL/TC in midlife is the signal linked to later dementia. Keeping LDL in guideline ranges through lifestyle and, when indicated, meds is reasonable brain-health strategy—even though RCTs haven’t yet proved dementia prevention when starting therapy late. PubMed Central+1
– Don’t infer that “higher is safer” in old age. Apparent late-life links between low cholesterol and dementia are likely illness-driven lipid drop, not protection from high cholesterol. PubMed Central+1
– Avoid HDL extremes. Extremely low or very high HDL in seniors tracks with higher risk; focus on overall cardiometabolic health, not pushing HDL to extremes. PubMed

Key studies you can cite (by design)​

– Wee et al., 2023 systematic review/meta-analysis (midlife dyslipidemia → ↑ dementia; per-mmol LDL effects). PubMed Central
– Iwagami et al., Lancet Healthy Longevity 2021 (LDL in <65 y → later dementia). The Lancet
– Ferguson et al., Neurology 2023 (U-shaped HDL–dementia in older adults). PubMed
– Cochrane Review 2016 (statins started late don’t prevent dementia). Cochrane
– PROSPER RCT (pravastatin, no cognitive benefit). PubMed
– HOPE-3 cognitive substudy (rosuvastatin, no cognitive benefit). PubMed
– Benn et al., BMJ 2017 Mendelian randomization (genetically lower LDL not increasing dementia; possibly lower AD risk). PubMed

Bottom line​

– High LDL/TC in midlife is the cholesterol pattern most consistently linked to higher dementia risk.
– Late-life “low cholesterol” signals likely reflect preclinical disease, not benefit from keeping cholesterol high.
– Starting statins late hasn’t shown dementia prevention in RCTs, but lifelong lower LDL (genetically or from earlier control) does not appear harmful and may be beneficial. Cochrane+3PubMed Central+3The Lancet+3




Deepseek Deep research
Based on high-quality evidence, the relationship between cholesterol and dementia is complex and depends significantly on when cholesterol is measured during a person's life. Midlife high cholesterol, particularly high LDL ("bad" cholesterol), is linked to an increased risk, while the relationship in late life is less clear.

The table below summarizes the key findings from systematic reviews and large-scale studies.

Life Stage	Cholesterol Level	Association with Dementia Risk	Key Evidence
Midlife (before ~65)	High LDL-C and Total Cholesterol	Increased Risk	A 2023 meta-analysis of 17 studies (1.2M participants) found midlife high cholesterol increased the risk of all-cause dementia and mild cognitive impairment. Another meta-analysis confirmed high LDL-C specifically increases Alzheimer's disease risk.
Late Life (after ~65/70)	Low Total Cholesterol	Increased Risk (but likely a consequence, not a cause)	A 32-year study found that a decline in cholesterol from midlife to late life was a better predictor of risk than a single measurement. Low levels may be a sign of underlying illness or weight loss that can occur before dementia diagnosis.
Late Life	High Cholesterol	No Consistent Association	A 2021 individual patient meta-analysis of over 21,000 older adults (avg. age 76) found no clear link between high cholesterol and subsequent cognitive decline or dementia.

Specific Cholesterol Types and Statins​

Research provides more detailed insights into different types of cholesterol and the effect of cholesterol-lowering medication.

• "Bad" vs. "Good" Cholesterol: The strongest evidence points to high levels of Low-Density Lipoprotein (LDL-C), often called "bad" cholesterol, as a risk factor in midlife. The evidence for High-Density Lipoprotein (HDL-C, "good" cholesterol) and triglycerides is less consistent.
• Role of Statins: Statins, drugs that lower cholesterol, are associated with a reduced risk of dementia. A large 2025 meta-analysis of 55 studies concluded that statin use was linked to a 14% lower risk of all-cause dementia and an 18% lower risk of Alzheimer's disease. The benefit is thought to come from both improving cardiovascular health and other protective effects on the brain.

Understanding the Complex Link​

The reason for the differing risk based on age is an area of active research. Key proposed mechanisms include:

• Vascular Health: High cholesterol contributes to atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries), which can impair blood flow to the brain and contribute to vascular dementia.
• Amyloid-Beta Production: Some research suggests that high cholesterol may promote the production of amyloid-beta, the protein that forms plaques in the brains of people with Alzheimer's disease. It's important to note that cholesterol in the blood does not directly enter the brain; the brain produces its own. However, cholesterol-byproducts like bile acids, which can cross into the brain, may be involved.
• Reverse Causation in Late Life: The link between low cholesterol in old age and higher dementia risk is often explained by "reverse causation." This means that the disease process of dementia (e.g., weight loss, poor diet, general ill health) may cause cholesterol levels to drop, rather than low cholesterol causing dementia.

Appreciate your contribution to the discussion.

However it is unwise post the ai summaries without understanding, or going to their citations used for the meta reviews to find out in details.

You do not what's wrong or not appropriate with the citations used.

End of the day. Rubbish on, rubbish out.

 

[Mecisteus]

It's seems that the first data analysis service provider sabotaged the findings. And they are washing their hands off.

Wasted money for subsequent data analysis..

Lol please stop watching the biggest quack doctor of the internet.

Really shameless debate. Focus on the substances.

 

[rogze79]

Some men of many substances will say all these data are funded by big pharmas or fake. So AI cannot be trusted.

Must trust your own body. Your body needs cholesterol. High LDL can make one feels better. What doesn't kill you will make you stronger, bla bla bla

So what's your studies to support your claims? Getting spineless huh? Again, this is a bad example for your children.

An example of non accountability. Blowing hot air.

 

[Checkyrmed]

Lol please stop watching the biggest quack doctor of the internet.

Really shameless debate. Focus on the substances.

Dr. Ken Berry is not an “internet quack.” He is a board-certified physician with more than 20 years of clinical practice, during which he has treated thousands of patients, many of them diabetic or metabolically ill. His position on oats is based on established physiology and consistently reinforced by what he observes in his patients.

Oats raise blood sugar and insulin more than high fat or very low carb foods. For individuals with insulin resistance or diabetes, that spike is not trivial because it can significantly affect metabolic health.

Glycation is a cumulative process where excess glucose attaches to proteins and lipids, creating advanced glycation end products. These contribute to arterial stiffening, tissue damage, and accelerated aging. If someone eats oats every morning for years or decades and repeatedly experiences post-meal spikes in blood sugar and insulin, the result can be a slow worsening of vascular health, especially in those who already have insulin resistance, prediabetes, or diabetes. For people who are metabolically healthy, the impact may be less dramatic if their overall lifestyle keeps glucose stable, but since the majority already struggle with metabolic issues, this long-term pattern can be harmful.

Chronic hyperinsulinemia is also tied to fluid retention and hypertension, which makes Dr. Berry’s point about insulin and blood pressure physiologically sound. His advice is practical and straightforward. He encourages people to rely on their own data by using a continuous glucose monitor to see how oats affect their personal physiology.

In contrast, Gil has never practiced a single day of medicine.

 

[born2fly]

A pertinent quote is: “Your body, your choice. There is no need to broadcast your opinions.” I recall a friend of mine in the 1990s who also held a contrary view on the existence of AIDS. He believed it was a fabricated narrative by pharmaceutical companies to sell expensive drugs. He never used protection during his travels and encounters with women in Asia during layovers. During an annual work visa medical checkup, he was diagnosed with the disease

 

[Checkyrmed]

A pertinent quote is: “Your body, your choice. There is no need to broadcast your opinions.” I recall a friend of mine in the 1990s who also held a contrary view on the existence of AIDS. He believed it was a fabricated narrative by pharmaceutical companies to sell expensive drugs. He never used protection during his travels and encounters with women in Asia during layovers. During an annual work visa medical checkup, he was diagnosed with the disease

Your body, your choice” is not a reason to silence discussion on health risks, and your own anecdote proves it. Your friend dismissed medical warnings about AIDS, believed it was a fabrication, refused protection, and eventually contracted the very disease he denied existed. That is not an argument against speaking out but a cautionary tale about the cost of ignoring evidence. Dr. Berry’s critique of oats is not conspiracy thinking. It is rooted in physiology and decades of clinical practice, backed by real-time continuous glucose monitor data from his patients. Silencing such arguments under the guise of “your body, your choice” would only prevent people from testing for themselves and discovering whether oats are harming their own blood sugar, insulin, and long-term health. The better path is open discussion and self-measurement, not censorship or blind faith in popular narratives.

 

[Mecisteus]

Dr. Ken Berry is not an “internet quack.” He is a board-certified physician with more than 20 years of clinical practice, during which he has treated thousands of patients, many of them diabetic or metabolically ill. His position on oats is based on established physiology and consistently reinforced by what he observes in his patients.

Oats raise blood sugar and insulin more than high fat or very low carb foods. For individuals with insulin resistance or diabetes, that spike is not trivial because it can significantly affect metabolic health.

Glycation is a cumulative process where excess glucose attaches to proteins and lipids, creating advanced glycation end products. These contribute to arterial stiffening, tissue damage, and accelerated aging. If someone eats oats every morning for years or decades and repeatedly experiences post-meal spikes in blood sugar and insulin, the result can be a slow worsening of vascular health, especially in those who already have insulin resistance, prediabetes, or diabetes. For people who are metabolically healthy, the impact may be less dramatic if their overall lifestyle keeps glucose stable, but since the majority already struggle with metabolic issues, this long-term pattern can be harmful.

Chronic hyperinsulinemia is also tied to fluid retention and hypertension, which makes Dr. Berry’s point about insulin and blood pressure physiologically sound. His advice is practical and straightforward. He encourages people to rely on their own data by using a continuous glucose monitor to see how oats affect their personal physiology.

In contrast, Gil has never practiced a single day of medicine.

Come on. Please use some common sense judgement and arguments here.

1) Generally, people who got diabetes are not because of daily oats intake. This is absurd.

My father is 73 years old and eating oats for his life. He has a perfect blood work. So oats is bad is just BS.

2) Not every carbs are equal. Ken is keto base so to him every carbs are the same.

3) Even within oats, there are steel cuts and rolled oats. They have different impact to the blood.

4) Oats have other benefits too. Studies are widely publicized. Again to keto camp, oats is bad.

5) Lastly and like every single thing in life, too much of everything is just BAD (except for money). Meat all day is BAD. Oats all day is BAD. Nobody should be eating oats 2,500 kcal per day.

 

[hmyoth]

My cholesterol botherline high n the GP insist I take statin. He said not many people have the discipline to change diet or lifestyle. I took 3 mths I stopped . Subsequently I went to polyclinic for my yearly test n still botherline high. The doctor said no need statin just monitor yearly n try to lead a healthy lifestyle. Statin give u muscle ache. Unless ur reading is thru the roof and cannot bring down even u eat healthy , best is don’t take medicine.

 

[Checkyrmed]

Come on. Please use some common sense judgement and arguments here.

1) Generally, people who got diabetes are not because of daily oats intake. This is absurd.

My father is 73 years old and eating oats for his life. He has a perfect blood work. So oats is bad is just BS.

2) Not every carbs are equal. Ken is keto base so to him every carbs are the same.

3) Even within oats, there are steel cuts and rolled oats. They have different impact to the blood.

4) Oats have other benefits too. Studies are widely publicized. Again to keto camp, oats is bad.

5) Lastly and like every single thing in life, too much of everything is just BAD (except for money). Meat all day is BAD. Oats all day is BAD. Nobody should be eating oats 2,500 kcal per day.

1. Saying diabetes is not caused by daily oats misses the point. No one claims a single food singlehandedly creates disease, but repeated blood sugar and insulin spikes from oats, eaten every morning for decades, contribute to glycation and vascular damage. Pointing to one 73-year-old who eats oats and has good blood work is anecdotal and proves nothing. There are smokers who lived to 90, but that does not disprove the link between smoking and cancer.

2. Not all carbs are equal, but oats still break down predominantly into glucose. For the majority of adults who are already insulin resistant, those spikes are damaging. Dr. Berry does not say all carbs are identical, he says carb tolerance depends on metabolic health, and most people today are not metabolically healthy.

3. The distinction between rolled oats, steel cut oats, and instant oats is mostly cosmetic. (58:43) As Dr. Berry himself noted, steel cut oats have just as much starch as one minute oats. Instant oats may cause a slightly sharper blood sugar rise due to lower fiber, but the total sugar load is the same. If you are metabolically unwell, all of them spike blood sugar, elevate insulin, and drive unhealthy glycation over time.

4. Yes, studies on “benefits” of oats are widely publicized, but they often ignore the metabolic downsides in people who already have insulin resistance. A food can lower cholesterol on paper while still worsening insulin and blood sugar in real life.

5. The “too much of everything is bad” argument is oversimplified. The modern diet is not the same as in past generations. Omega 6 seed oils are out of control, city pollution adds to metabolic stress, junk food is everywhere, and younger people are developing diabetes, dementia, and other metabolic diseases at alarming rates. In this environment, eating oats daily for years is not harmless, it is another push toward long term decline for those already at risk.

 

[Mecisteus]

but repeated blood sugar and insulin spikes from oats, eaten every morning for decades, contribute to glycation and vascular damage.

This is simply not true.

In this environment, eating oats daily for years is not harmless, it is another push toward long term decline for those already at risk.

Instead of eating bread with nutella and jam or hotdogs and pancakes, eating oats is healthier. Period.

Not going to argue with everything else.

 

[Checkyrmed]

 

[Ubi-Warrior]

5, that's an overwhelming majority.

One man said Tylenol causes Autism.

Whats your point?

 

[Checkyrmed]

Why is EDMW still fixated on LDL-C?

Even ApoB is yesterday’s marker.

The real priority today is insulin resistance, which lies at the root of both metabolic and vascular disease.