Yeah, I know. You may or may not like Tucker Carlson. I don't, but I don't negate everything that anyone says on his show for that reason. He does have some good guests on his show from time to time, and this is one of them. Tucker doesn't talk much in this video, anyhow. Dr. Aseem Malhotra speaks from familiarity with the UK healthcare system but is well-versed in the effects of the topics he discusses in the United States, as well. The chief topics include the efficiency of statin drugs, the importance of eating real foods as opposed to processed stuff, the positive and negative consequences of Covid vaccinations, and of the influence of Big Pharma on health education and the healthcare system in general. It's an hour show, but there's a good chance that if you start watching it, you'll see it through to the end because it's easy enough to listen to. Plus, there is the added advantage that you don't really have to watch it since the information is verbal rather than visual.
Okay, unexpected I watched the first few minutes, and he doesn't get everything wrong. Very same message a heart doctor taught a room full of heart doctors just a year ago /not open to the public; a private conference at local gigantic hospital system/ -- perhaps some extra information also. The billion people taking the drug think because their told, with no evidence at all, that it will or may or should or could "prevent" an attack, or at least reduce the chance for an attack. This is hogwash that the honest doctors reveal in shows like this, as others have also made known for decades. The financial profits are ginormas, more than some countries make in a year, so stopping or changing the profit seekers likely won't happen until Jesus Returns. They have too much power over the world. See how difficult it is to stop or change the ones reading this even ? Only a few, who are taking the drug on doctor's orders, and may have been for many years... They won't change or stop unless a miracle /of truth/ happens to them and = or their prescriber.
Thank you for posting that, @Ken Anderson. I watched the entire thing and I found it to be probably the best thing I have seen posted on this forum. Many will be shocked by this and will probably not watch the whole video. While I am generally against "socialized" medicine, one of the advantages of it is the access to REAL data, which we don't have in the U.S. From what I have seen from the UK, the NHS has been quite open and impartial in the data availability and accuracy, although some of the decisions made based on the data have been flawed. I have some strong opinions on medicine in the U.S., some of which I have expressed on this forum, but the prescription drug problem and statins in particular point out the way we do things here is poor and that is largely why we have the poorest health outcomes in the developed world despite spending the most money per patient on healthcare.
I became concerned about the problems in the way in which statin drugs are prescribed when I was having some side effects from statins. My doctor, at the time, insisted that the statin drug would not cause any of these problems, this despite the fact that the problems I was having were stated on the insert as side effects What really did it for me was when he said that he believed that everyone over the age of forty should be taking a statin drug. He also insisted that my cholesterol levels could not be brought to a safe level through diet, exercise, or other means. Prior to that, I had thought he was a good doctor, and I liked him as a person. I didn't question the prescription and, like most people, I hadn't even read the drug insert until after I began having leg cramping and an uncomfortable feeling in my legs that might best be described as restless leg syndrome. Since these effects didn't begin until months after I began taking statins, I didn't immediately connect them with the drug. These weren't life-threatening problems, and, if I were persuaded that the statins were preventing me from having a heart attack, I would have continued taking them. But his denials, and his preposterous statement about everyone over the age of forty should be taking statins, encouraged me to look further into it. I found that my cholesterol levels were within normal ranges, albeit at the distal end of the normal ranges, prior to starting on the statins. When I insisted on stopping the use of statins, that was pretty much all that he focused on during subsequent visits, so I found another doctor. My new doctor also believed that I should be taking a statin drug, but she was far more reasonable about it. Stopping my use of statins, the side effects went away, and I found that all I had to do was diet for a few days before taking a blood test and my cholesterol levels would be well within the normal range, which means that I could keep them there through diet, which is not to say that I do. However, I have never had cholesterol levels that weren't within the normal range. This has prompted me to question my doctors. I am no longer going to take a drug because my doctor prescribes it for me. Rather, my doctor needs to persuade me that it's beneficial and that there are no other options. Consequently, the only prescription medication I'm taking is Levothyroxine, and that's because I don't. have a thyroid.
Only animal foods (foods from an animal) have cholesterol, no plant food has it. Simply adjusting the diet to more plant foods and fewer animal-based foods can help lower cholesterol. Since our body makes cholesterol (like every other animal does); it is not going to totally correct it, but it does do a lot to help out. It seems like most doctors learn more about prescribing drugs than about actually curing anything; but another factor is that many people prefer to just take medication for a disease or illness, rather than change their diet or lifestyle. In this case, it does not do any good for the doctor to prescribe life changes if the patient is not going to even try to change and doesn ‘t want to; so they just increase the medication as needed instead.
I met years ago with some of the original researchers on statins, and they were ecstatic about how it lowered cholesterol levels and ( in their study) reduced death from all causes in the target group. I asked the question if they had used a control group that were taking another anti-inflammatory and compared the "deaths from all causes". They hadn't done that and shut down discussion on that particular topic. Statins were developed as an inti-inflammatory and it was discovered that the drug class lowered total cholesterol as a side effect of the drug by reducing the liver's ability to produce cholesterol. It does nothing to reduce absorption so you are just interfering with the body's feedback mechanism regarding cholesterol. Your body thinks you should have "X" amount of cholesterol, and the stains interfere with that. The video points out that, while it is relatively safe to take (I don't believe that), it does little to save lives from cardiac issues. I have believed for years that heart attacks are due to inflammatory processes, and that reducing cholesterol only interferes with the body's ability to protect itself from those processes. Cholesterol was established in the '50s as a heart hazard because arterial plaque contains cholesterol. Western medicine has been so hung up on that idea that they do not even entertain the idea that it might be a reaction to inflammation rather than being a primary cause of disease. Statins and aspirin both are anti-inflammatories, and aspirin has other benefits as well.