Peter McCullough: now propping up the statin industry.

Just the latest in a series of surprising / not-surprising stances.

I don’t subscribe, so can’t read his entire article, but PM’s latest piece appears to be discouraging people from stopping statins. Thereby, he is now helping prop up one of Pharma’s most lucrative product categories.

Hazards of Stopping Statin Medications

This is quite a surprising position to take given that most people why have awoken to some of the tactics used by Big Pharma (as he claims he has) have concluded that the science behind the “statins for all” cult is no less flawed than that behind the covid gene therapy injections.

It may well be that the rest of the article is a sensible balanced debate on overall risk / benefit in different sections of the population, and he is really just referring to a subgroup in whom it might be arguable that these products are net beneficial. I doubt it, but let me know if you subscribe. The first article he cites suggests otherwise:

This follows on from his attempts to prop up the “pandemic preparedness industry” by talking up the threat…

See this short (and to me, hilarious) video clip by way of further example (click on the picture):

He pushes that agenda whilst at the same time trying to prevent the mRNA platform from being sent where it deserves to go - oblivion:

Here he is suggesting a new class of gene therapies as treatment for injuries caused by the mRNA jabs:

Deep Dive: Lipid Nanoparticle siRNA Drugs Patisiran and Inclisiran

Update:

Elizabeth Hart

kindly forwarded the email containing the full article text.

The study PM refers to is this registry analysis out of Denmark. I am not going to spend much time delving into this, but will merely point out that in the main results table, the actual differences in absolute terms between the continuation and discontinuation groups is really pretty slim - we are talking about needing to treat around 100 people for a year to prevent a single major cardiac event (“MACE”) when used either as secondary prevention (those who have already suffered such an episode) or primary prevention.

Obviously, anyone wanting to evaluate whether such a benefit might be worthwhile wants to balance it versus off-target harmful effects, and thereby look at all-cause data.

All-cause mortality data can be found in table E18 of the supplementary data.

It can, I think, be assumed that the weighting applied here is the same as that used to calculate cardiac event rate differences.

Note that whilst (at its highest) the data suggests a roughly 1% reduction in cardiac events for a year of treatment, for all-cause data it looks like in the primary treatment group around 9% more of those discontinuing died compared to those continuing (and this is entirely non-cardiovascular), and for secondary prevention the difference is 14%.

On the assumption that statins are not the equivalent of the elixir of life and are not the explanation for these differences, this simply means that the makeup of these 2 groups are so completely different that the claims made on the benefit side - even as slim as they appear - cannot be trusted. Remember, that they are meant to have used propensity score weighting!

If the groups are so entirely different, how can it then be assumed that the detection, diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular disease between the groups is in any way comparable¹?

1. Table E19 of the supplement illustrates this further by showing that the rate of the “negative control” - hip fracture - was significantly higher (by about 50%) in the discontinuing vs continuing cohorts.