The Cholesterol Con: How Statins Became a Billion-Dollar Threat to Human Health

Original article written by: Sayer Ji, founder of GreenMedInfo Research Group

How Misleading Statistics, Suppressed Data, and 30 Documented Toxicities Reveal the Dark Truth About the World’s Most Prescribed Drug

Cholesterol on Trial: A Molecule Maligned, But Not Guilty

Statins, first approved by the FDA in 1987, quickly became one of the most widely prescribed drug classes in the world¹. Their claim to fame? Reducing cholesterol and, by extension, heart disease. But after more than three decades, the scientific and ethical integrity of this narrative is unraveling.

Not only is cholesterol vital to human health–playing a central role in hormone synthesis, brain function, and immune resilience²–but the actual effectiveness of statins has been drastically overstated through a statistical sleight-of-hand: the manipulation of relative risk reduction (RRR) vs. absolute risk reduction (ARR)³.

How Statin Benefits Are Overstated: Understanding RRR vs. ARR

To understand how statin benefits have been grossly inflated, we need to examine how pharmaceutical outcomes are framed.

Let’s say a study reports that statins reduce the risk of heart attack by 36%. That sounds powerful, doesn’t it? But this figure represents relative risk reduction–a proportional comparison between two groups. It tells you nothing about how many people were actually helped.

Now let’s look at absolute risk reduction, which tells you the actual difference in outcomes between the statin and placebo group. For example:

• In the Heart Protection Study, 2% of people in the statin group had a non-fatal heart attack versus 3% in the placebo group^4.
  
  

• The relative risk reduction was 33%–but the absolute risk reduction was only 1%.

This means that 99 out of 100 people who took statins got no measurable benefit in terms of heart attack prevention. Yet the drug was marketed as reducing heart attacks by “a third.” This framing is not just misleading–it borders on fraudulent health communication, especially when used to justify mass prescribing, medical coercion, and long-term exposure to a drug class with over 30 documented toxic effects⁵.

The Number Needed to Treat (NNT): The Inconvenient Metric

Another way to cut through the hype is to look at the Number Needed to Treat (NNT)–how many people must take a drug for one person to benefit:

• For statins used in primary prevention (people with no prior history of heart disease), the NNT ranges from 104 to 250 over five years⁶.

• For every 100+ people on statins, one may benefit while many if not everyone receiving them may suffer adverse effects.

Compare that to the Number Needed to Harm (NNH):

• Muscle damage: 10-20

• Diabetes onset: 100-250

• Cognitive impairment: poorly quantified, but increasing with age⁷

This paints a grim picture: you’re often more likely to be harmed than helped by statins–especially if you’re taking them without a previous cardiovascular event.

The Reality Behind Statin Risk Reduction

Pharmaceutical-funded studies consistently focus on relative risk to inflate perceived benefit, while burying or ignoring side effect data, often excluding early dropout participants through “run-in” periods⁸. This methodological maneuver masks harms and creates the illusion of safety and efficacy.

Furthermore, statin trials often fail to assess or report mortality benefits–the most meaningful health outcome. In many landmark studies, no significant reduction in all-cause mortality was observed in those taking statins versus placebo, especially in primary prevention populations⁹.

Why These Deceptions Persist

The RRR vs. ARR distortion persists because:

Doctors are rarely trained in medical statistics, and most trust summary statements from pharmaceutical reps or guidelines.

Patients are never informed that “36% fewer heart attacks” may only mean “1 fewer person out of 100.”

Medical journals and media often repeat press releases without examining the actual numbers.

This manipulation enables statins to remain a blockbuster drug despite mounting evidence of harms outweighing benefits for the vast majority of users.

 

A Better Model: Transparency, Informed Consent, and Natural Alternatives

It’s time to reject manipulative statistics and restore biological literacy to medicine. Heart disease is a multi-causal, inflammatory condition, not a cholesterol problem. Suppressing cholesterol while disrupting over 30 cellular systems is not health–it’s symptom suppression through biochemical violence.

 

Effective Natural Interventions Backed by Real Outcomes:

• Coenzyme Q10 – Vital for mitochondrial health, depleted by statins¹⁰.

• Red Yeast Rice – Natural statin alternative, but requires careful formulation¹¹.

• Vitamin K2 – Prevents vascular calcification, especially in statin users¹².

• Omega-3 Fatty Acids – Lower triglycerides and systemic inflammation¹³.

• Lifestyle-based prevention – Diet, movement, breathwork, sleep, and emotional healing have proven impacts on heart risk reduction¹⁴.

These interventions don’t require distortion of statistics or suppression of symptoms–they work by supporting the body’s intelligence rather than overriding it.

The Protective Power of Cholesterol: Nature’s Unsung Hero

As the narrative around statins begins to unravel, so too must the myth that low cholesterol equals better health. Cholesterol is not only essential–it’s protective. It has antimicrobial properties, supports neuroplasticity, and is vital for repairing damaged tissues. Numerous studies have linked low cholesterol to increased risks of cancer, depression, aggression, and hemorrhagic stroke.¹⁵ One longitudinal study found that men with total cholesterol below 160 mg/dL had double the risk of suicide and accidental death compared to those with moderate levels.¹⁶ 

Cholesterol is also a first responder to vascular injury, acting as a biological patch to endothelial damage–not the cause of it. By suppressing this multi-functional molecule, statins may weaken the body’s natural defense systems, trading a reduction in biomarkers for a decline in true physiological resilience.

Conclusion: Question the Numbers, Reclaim Your Health

The story of statins is not just about flawed pharmacology–it’s about statistical manipulation, industry capture, and the danger of treating biomarkers as disease.

Next time you hear that a drug “reduces risk by 36%,” ask: Relative to what? And at what cost?

---

References

1. Endo A. “A historical perspective on the discovery of statins.” Proc Jpn Acad Ser B Phys Biol Sci. 2010;86(5):484-93.

2. Ravnskov U, et al. “Lack of an association or an inverse association between low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol and mortality.” BMJ Open. 2016;6:e010401.

3. GreenMedInfo. “Cracking the Cholesterol Myth.”. Accessed April 2025.

4. Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group. “MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol-lowering.” Lancet. 2002;360(9326):7-22.

5. GreenMedInfo. “Statin Drugs – 30 Toxic Effects.”

6. Wright JM, et al. “Statins for primary prevention: an NNT analysis.” BMJ. 2010;340:c1924.

7. Golomb BA, Evans MA. “Statin adverse effects.” Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2008;8(6):373-418.

8. Healy D. Pharmageddon. University of California Press, 2012.

9. Abramson JD, et al. “Should people at low risk of cardiovascular disease take a statin?” BMJ. 2013;347:f6123.

10. Langsjoen PH, Langsjoen AM. “CoQ10 and statin cardiotoxicity.” Biofactors. 2005;25(1-4):117-124. 

11. Heber D. “Red yeast rice and lipid lowering.” Am J Clin Nutr. 1999;69(2):231-236. 

12. Gast GC, et al. “Vitamin K intake and coronary calcification.” Atherosclerosis. 2009;203(2):489-493. 

13. Mozaffarian D, et al. “Omega-3s in cardiovascular disease.” Circulation. 2005;111(21):278-282. 

14. Ornish D, et al. “Lifestyle changes and coronary atherosclerosis.” JAMA. 1998;280(23):2001-2007. 

15. GreenMedInfo. “The Underreported Dangers of Low Cholesterol.” www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/underreported-dangers-low-cholesterol. Accessed April 2025. 

16. Iribarren C, Jacobs WS, Sidney S, Hulley SB. “Serum total cholesterol and risk of hospitalization, and death from suicide and violence.” Psychiatry Res. 1995;58(1):77-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1781(95)02638-0