In 2013 a lot of scientists and authors took to completely dismantling the anti-science recommendations of the American Heart Association: https://centerforhealthjournalism.org/2013/11/28/american-heart-association-protecting-industry-not-patients-barbara-roberts-md-and-martha. This excoriating article details just some of the known millions of dollars with which pharmaceutical companies purchased the American Heart Association's new guidelines. We will never know the full extent of the extortion involved. Simply the grift proven at the time was enough to permanently remove all credibility from anything the AHA ever says again.
Scathing rebukes abounded, not just this absolutely devastating expose above. The AHA proponents who were pressuring all of us to take statins, it turns out, have severe conflicts of interest. The revised AHA guidelines were a marketing campaign for its donors, having no connection to any legitimate biochemistry or science.
And it missed the point anyway.
What IS heart disease?
Atherosclerotic plaque development.
And what is that?
It is fibrous tissue buildup and calcium deposits: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2035445/.
Statins exert ZERO impact on this. None. There exists not even one study contending this fact. Not even a hoodwinking underhanded one like the liars at the AHA love to feed us.
And why would the body develop excess fibrous buildup and calcified tissue in the circulatory system?
The answer is NOT cholesterol. We actually know this with complete assurance. By definition, the development of untoward growth (ie - fibrous buildup and calcification) IS an inflammatory response. In fact, researchers have proven that we can incite plaque formation with immune triggering ALONE, “even in the absence of traditional risk factors”: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22895665/. It is very important that you understand the prior sentences and references. If unclear, reread them. None of this is contentious opinion. This is the KNOWN science.
Thus, what we factually know is that heart disease is created solely or primarily by inflammatory response, without the alleged cholesterol risk factors, that statins do not affect this, that statins raise other risks (ie - organ damage and dementia), and that the foremost proponents of statins are in the pocket of those selling them. There is nothing of opinion or controversy in the prior sentence. It’s not a position. This is just what is inarguably known.
The lipid hypothesis was floated in the 1800s, gained steam in the 1950s, but was always wrapped up in muddy thinking that ignored the persistent elevated blood pressure and chronic cigarette smoking of study participants. Post hoc, observers noticed that many of those high BP smokers ALSO had elevations in cholesterol. But subsequent analyses have failed to confirm the lipid hypothesis, repeatedly, namely failing to show any way that the inherently healthy lipoproteins which our bodies need (aka - cholesterol) play any mechanism in the formation of the fibrous calcified plaques which we call heart disease: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/6/e010401.short.... Cult followers of the cholesterol religion hated this paper and any like it. And I don’t care for it a ton either, because it is still looking at statistical epidemiological associations. And we don’t need those. At all. We understand the working mechanism of heart disease. We do. We KNOW how to make plaques in the near-absence of cholesterol. We KNOW that no amount of cholesterol produce plaques in the absence of inflammatory factors. Distracting correlations aren’t real science, especially once the mechanisms are known. And we KNOW fibrous calcification IS heart disease. Arguing over peripheral correlations is ridiculously anti-modern and anti-science.
Many people with high cholesterol live longer. Many people with low cholesterol die younger. Not opinion. Statins are still unproven for benefit, but proven for organ damage. Not opinion. No ideology is present in these statements.
So why are we still operating off a repeatedly failed hypothesis from the 1800s? Because the American Heart Association authors are deep in the pockets of those selling the “cure.” Also, not opinion.