Taking satins is proven to reduce heart disease rates, but there are lots of other drugs that lower LDL... many with much more efficacy than satins.
These non-satin drugs do not reduce heart disease rates significantly.
There something else going on here. High LDL is correlated with the development of heart disease, but it does not cause heart disease. Satins do reduce the risk of heart disease and they do reduce LDL, but their positive effect on heart disease rates is not caused by reduced LDL.
- LDL / ApoB
- Blood pressure
- inflammation (hs-CRP)
- Insulin resistance (HbA1c)
- Lp(a): strongest hereditary risk factor.
- eGFR: a measure of kidney function
Non-statin drugs like PCSK9 inhibitors have been shown to reduce heart attacks, strokes, and other cardiovascular events on top of statin therapy. One randomized control trial was FOURIER in 2017: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1615664I think your comment really owes the rest of us more explanation of this part.
Unfortunately, our biology isn't perfect.
You realize this sentence is an oxymoron?
Unless you meant to say "it does not cause the development of heart disease". I agree correlation is not causation.
My bet is close to none
From a biomedical standpoint, we have highly accurate biomarkers (e.g., ApoB, Lp(a), hs-CRP), long-term risk prediction models, knowledge of nutritional biochemstry, and next generation drugs like PCSK9 inhibitors and lepodisiran that can lower ApoB and Lp(a) by 90%. So there's no fundamental reason why cardiovascular disease has to be in even the top 10 causes of death.
Practically speaking, providing guideline-recommended preventive care would require ~27 hours per doctor per day. And the incentives are misaligned: health systems profit when hospital beds are full, so they lack the business model to actually invest in prevention.
So it's a clear illustration of a systematic gap between research and care delivery.
Even without medications, we’ve had enough knowledge about diet and lifestyle factors that the average person (excluding generic abnormalities that lead to abnormally high risk) could reasonably avoid heart disease through lifestyle and diet alone. That’s easier said than done for a lot of people in the modern world, so it’s good that we have a few different medications on top of that knowledge.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/4187653/10321616/dea...
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/th...
- The blog seems to be associated with this Twitter account: https://x.com/sichuan_mala. That person seems to be a good friend of Cremieux¹.
- The article seems to have originally been published/unpublished in 2024 https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1922743591924899962
- It was only re-uploaded in September 2025 (?). There's some discussion of the claims under a tweet by Cremieux who announced the re-upload: https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1974990143544287715
anybody in the medical field able to give some report on state of the art CV research ?
Lipo(a) is genetic, apparently either you have it or not.
Small dense ldl is caused apparently (not a biologist) from high triglycerides, one cause of which is high sugar diet.
Heart disease is largely solvable from a biomedical standpoint: we have accurate biomarkers (e.g., ApoB, Lp(a), hs-CRP), long-term risk prediction models, precision nutrition, and highly effective next-generation drugs (PCSK9 inhibitors, lepodisiran, etc).
But practically speaking, heart disease remains the #1 cause of death due to bottlenecks in care delivery: e.g., 46% U.S. counties have no cardiologists, providing guideline-recommended preventive care would require ~27 hours per doctor per day, and incentives are misaligned (health systems profit when hospital beds are full, not from prevention).
This is not pedantry, this is a vital problem of hundreds of millions of currently living people, many of which don't even know their own status.
I believe this can be done in the near future, there are some interesting initiatives in this direction, but it is very much not a solved problem.
I’m not saying either side is right but when it comes to your health why not evaluate as many opinions as possible.
The author addresses a lot of the obvious gotcha points I see in the comments.
Although I don't think the author realistically explores the downsides of statin use, papering over the common side-effects.
I recently asked my doctor at Stanford - a pretty expensive hospital but one of the top cardio hospitals in the country - to get me an APoB test. He said that it may not be covered by insurance.
So instead I spend $360 or so on a year worth of biomarkers from Function Health that included ApoB and others
As someone who rolled poorly on those genetic dice, I would like to complain. But also, disregarding a factor that impacts 20%[1] of the population seems disingenuous.
[1] - https://familyheart.org/family-sharing-tools/high-lpa-family...
The benefit of statins is to not only lower LDL cholesterol, but also inflammation, which is now actually a stronger risk factor for cardiovascular disease than cholesterol: https://www.empirical.health/blog/inflammation-and-heart-hea...
Layering PCSK9 inhibitors, ezetimibe, and statins can lower ApoB/LDL cholesterol by 85–90%, which would have been unheard of until recently.
On the horizon, drugs in clinical trials lower Lp(a) (the strongest hereditary risk factor for heart disease) by 94%. Currently, there are four RNA-based drugs in trials that effectively silence the gene that makes Lp(a) in liver cells: lepodisiran, olpasiran, pelacarsen, and zerlasiran.
I’ll eat a healthy diet, exercise, and live a life without persistent diarrhea. I’ll take statins if/when they are medically necessary, and no sooner.
And an N of 1 "experiment" on whoever wrote this.