Intended for healthcare professionals

Analysis And Comment Controversy

Should we lower cholesterol as much as possible?

BMJ 2006; 332 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.332.7553.1330 (Published 01 June 2006) Cite this as: BMJ 2006;332:1330

Re: Cholesterol is good?

Please forgive me for raking up a June posting, but it still bothers
me that a doctor should have to ask why Q10 lowering is actually harmful.
Now I am in no way criticising Dr de Woolf, because this information has
not received the enormous publicity that has been accorded to statins by
the drug companies, but has been kept very much under wraps.

Had Dr de Woolf asked why the inability to take in sufficient breath
and sufficient oxygen supply, he would have been laughed out of court, and
with good reason. But sufficient oxygen is totally necessary for the life
of the body because it is needed for the creation of energy to supply the
totality of individual systems which go to make up the whole.

This energy is only available to every individual cell, of whatever
function, through the electron transfer mechanism of that cell's Q10
molecule(s). While asphyxiation would destroy the body totally in a few
moments, a shortage of Q10 leaves cells without access to their energy
supply and death occurs cell by cell, but at the point where Q10 needed
renewal at the particular moment. These cells do not seem able to
regenerate, and permanent damage has taken place.

Heart, liver, kidneys and muscle have the greatest need for energy
and thus of Q10, but what else might be affected, insulin supply? thyroid?
all subject to pure chance effect of the moment, so creating the large
range of problems associated with statin use complained of by victims, and
the 6000 odd reports recorded by the yellow card system for simvastin plus
atorvastatin, not to mention about 60 deaths thought to have resulted.

I find it hard to believe that NICE, MHRA, and MRC, as guardians of
the patients' wellbeing, have not been aware of these matters which are
well documented, but the dissemination of the information to medical staff
has been totally neglected.

The lowering of Q10 also seems to affect its ability to replenish
itself, as a vulnerable 17 stage process is involved, so a long self-
destruct process is put into effect. The remark "it can't be due to the
statin, because it would have stopped when you stopped taking it" is not
valid, and the same applies to the reduction consequently of Carnitine,
necessary for energy production from fat in skeletal and heart muscle, and
permanent Secondary Carnitine Deficiency results, the cause of the muscle
pain side effect.

To add a note to "Surely some mistake" submitted by Prof.Alun Hughes,
if his hypothesis were true, the supply of cholesterol would not be
inhibited, as the recirculated CoA reductase would maintain its volume,
but we know that it is reduced, and Q10 along with it.

Competing interests:
Only as a badly damaged statin victim.

Competing interests: No competing interests

07 September 2006
Raymond G Holder
Retired engineer
BH9 3NF