Coming up on today's show.

I trained as an interventional cardiologist. I love solving puzzles. When you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. Guideline bodies still say that LDL cholesterol is the primary causative risk factor for heart disease. Line coming here and saying, at best, it's a weak risk factor, worse, it's not a risk factor at all. Chronically raised insulin is directly toxic to the inner lining of the coronary arteries, which is how heart disease develops,

referring. best it's a weak risk factor, worse it's not a risk factor at all. Chronically raised insulin is directly toxic to the inner lining of the coronary arteries, which is how heart disease develops the furring of the arteries, this so-called plaque build-up. These fatty deposits of immune cells and cholesterol, which are likely arriving there as a response to injury, not as the cause of the injury. And therefore, the approach should be to try and manage the insurisance. But from a drug perspective, no drug has already been developed to show improved outcomes with that. Two markers of the cluster of profile, which I think are reflective of interresistance. So there are trigosterides and —so, these interventions for lifestyle, rapidly improve your metabolic health. And mental and physical health, too. Within weeks, do it for six weeks. You will see a difference at the end of six weeks that will make you sustain it afterwards.

Asim, we've had major advances in cardiology over the years,

widespread use of statins, yet cardiovascular disease still remains the number one killer worldwide.

Why is this?

To answer your question directly, Jesse, it's because the benefits of statins are very, very

marginal. And essentially, if one looks at population data, certainly within Europe, there was a study published in the BMJ a few years

ago that looked at whether millions more people being prescribed statins in the population had any

impact on cardiovascular mortality, and they concluded it did not. And one can explain that when you look at the fact that from the randomized trials conducted

by drug companies, which by definition are going to exaggerate the benefits because they

are selected patients and who are least like to get side effects, etc. The median increase in life expectancy over a five-year period,

even in the highest risk groups of people, those are people who've had heart attacks,

is just over four days.

When you combine that with the fact that real-world evidence tells us that

even in those high-risk groups, up to 50%

maybe more of those patients stop taking their statins within a couple of years of prescription.

You can actually give a rational explanation for why statins have not had an impact on

cardiovascular mortality in the population. So their benefits are very, very small when you look at

population health and they are massively overprescribed because of the fact that both the doctors

and the patients have an exaggerated view of their benefits in their head. Okay, given what you just

said, is this starting to make a turn for the better?

...