I would like to share this latest edition of Dr. Uffe Ravnskov's newsletter. Dr. Ravnskov is a Swedish clinician, professor, and researcher with vast knowledge and experience, and he is also a true medical hero for standing up to the medical establishment. Here, he discusses the phony claim that statin drugs protect against cancer. If anything, they increase the risk of cancer, which multiple studies have shown. The demonization of cholesterol is surely one of the biggest rackets the medical establishment has ever engaged in for the sake of selling billions of dollars worth of cholesterol-lowering drugs, and nobody has called them on it better than Dr. Uffe Ravsnkov.

Does statin treatment prevent cancer?

Of course not. In my October newsletter I told you how it is possible to manipulate our minds to think that statins protect against almost everything. Here is another example.

Last month Danish researchers published a paper in New England Journal of Medicine entitled Statin use and reduced cancer-related mortality. They had studied how many people who had got cancer in Denmark between 1995 and 2007, how many who had died from cancer and how many of them who had been treated with statins before the cancer was discovered. What they found was that fewer had died among those who had got a statin prescription some time during this period. Therefore they concluded that statin treatment protects against cancer.

What they have ignored is, that at least four studies have shown that people with low cholesterol had a greater risk of getting cancer 20-30 years later, and that people with familial hypercholesterolemia has a lower risk of cancer.

What they also have ignored is that three statin experiment resulted in more cancer in the treatment group an with statistical significance.

What they also have ignored is that several studies of cancer patients and patients without cancer have shown that the cancer patients had been treated much more often with statins than the control individuals.

What they also have ignored is the Japanese study the authors of which treated more than 40,000 patients with a low dose simvastatin. Seven years later three tomes more among those whose cholesterol had been lowered the most had died from cancer compared with those whose cholesterol was unchanged.

Those who advocate statin treatment deny the cancer risk by referring to reviews of the statin trials, which have found no increase of cancer. There is a serious error in these reviews because they have excluded skin cancer from the calculations, although skin cancer is the first cancer type we should expect to see, if statin treatment is carcinogenic, because it is easy to diagnose at an early stage. Indeed, in the two first simvastatin trials 4S and HPS skin cancer was seen more often in the treatment groups, and if the figures from the two trials are calculated together the increase was statistically significant. Since then the number of skin cancer has not been recorded in any statin trial.

The reason why cancer was seen less often among statin-treated people is probably because they have lived most of their life with high cholesterol, which, as I mentioned, protects against cancer, whereas the untreated have lived most of their life with normal or low cholesterol, and low cholesterol is, as I mentioned, a risk factor for cancer. Furthermore, nobody knows how many of the statin-treated patients who really took the drug. A Canadian study found for example that most people who have been prescribed statin treatment have stopped the treatment after two years.

That the lowest cancer mortality among the statin-treated patients was seen among those who had been prescribed the lowest dose is another argument against a cancer-protecting effect. It should of course have been the opposite.

I hope that, like me, you are going to take advantage of the new crop of Texas Ruby Red grapefruit that have started. I've been buying mine at Costco, and the quality has been excellent. There is no doubt in my mind that Texas Ruby Red grapefruit is the best grapefruit in the world, and I have eaten grapefruit from California, Arizona, Florida, and several foreign countries including Dominican Republic, Cuba, and Australia. None of them compare to Texas Ruby Reds.


Actually, there are two varities of Texs red grapefruit: Ruby Reds and Star Rubys. The latter are actually redder than the former. They're about as red as red can be- and oh so juicy and sweet. Both were developed at and by Texas A&M University for production in the Texas Rio Grande Valley. Why this grapefruit grows so much better there than anywhere else, I just don't know, but it does. And the red color is due to lycopene. So, it provides the same carotenoid as tomatoes and watermelon. Bear in minds that not all red foods contain lycopene. For instance, neither beets nor strawberries contain lycopene; it's some other red pigment in those foods. And lycopene is a very good thing to get. It's very protective to the lungs, and it has a specific effect to deter prostate cancer. That's why they put it in prostate protection formulas, including ours.


The interesting thing is that grapefruit, itself, is a mutant fruit, an accident of Nature. It's believed to be an accidental cross between an orange and a pomelo, which is the largest citrus fruit. And it reportedly happened in the Bahamas in the 1800s. They noticed that, unlike other citrus fruits, grapefruits grew in clusters- like a bunch of grapes. And that's why they named it grapefruit. The citrus family originated in Southeast Asia.    


It's a popular notion that grapefruit is slenderizing, and I think there is some truth to it. Nobody ever got fat eating grapefruit- that is for sure. And it's interesting that grapefruit has the tendency to interfere with the metabolism of certain drugs, either to slow down their breakdown or to speed it up. More often to slow it down, so the idea is that grapefruit increases the concentration of drugs, with possible dangerous effects. For instance, it applies to statin drugs. But from my outlook, and keep in mind that I am only speaking generally and not offering specific advice to anyone, I am inclined to think that most people would be better off keeping the grapefruit and ditching the drugs, rather than vice-versa.


We need to celebrate the simple joys of life, and for me, at this time of year, it means enjoying Texas red grapefruit. So, keep it in mind when you shop, and as far as I'm concerned: the redder the better.  

The highly respected Cochrane Collaboration reviewed 50 published studies of the flu vaccination, and the results were cataclysmic for the pharmaceutical industry. And, the timing was perfect because this is the time of year that Americans are bombarded with propaganda and pressure to get flu shots. "These results should discourage healthy people from getting a flu shot." However, I notice that the price of flu shots has gone up; they're charging $17 or $18 a pop now. But, even if you don't spring for one, you are still paying for it because a lot of taxpayer money goes to sponor flu shot production and distribution.

But what does the evidence show about the effectiveness of the flu vaccine when vaccinated and unvaccinated groups are compared ?

Well, the Cochrane Collaboration discourages all healthy people from getting the flu shot. They say that the evidence refutes the claim that vaccination prevents the flu in healthy adults. They also claimed that the vaccine does not prevent complications from the flu. And they said viral transmission of flu is not prevented by the vaccine either.

"The results of this review seem to discourage the utilisation of vaccination against influenza in healthy adults as a routine public health measure.
As healthy adults have a low risk of complications due to respiratory disease, the use of the vaccine may be only advised as an individual protection measure against symptoms in specific cases."


The bottom line was that theere is "little or no benefit for influenza vaccinations."

"This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration). An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding."


I follow the advice of Dr. Donald Miller, a leading cardiovascular surgeon. What he does is skip the flu vaccine, but he takes high dose Vitamin D3, typically 5000 IUs. And it's been a long time since I've had the flu- many, many years.  

A new study shows prescription sleeping pills increase the risk of early death—and of getting cancer. 60 million prescriptions for sleeping pills—technically called hypnotic drugs—were filled in 2011, up from 47 million in 2006.

It is well known that lack of sleep causes all kinds of havoc, including raising the risk of type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, depression, and even obesity. But, this new study published in the British Medical Journal says that people taking a prescription sleeping pill—even when taking fewer than eighteen pills per year—have nearly four times the mortality rate of those who don’t take the drugs. And patients who take higher doses of sleeping pills have a 35% increased cancer risk.

This study was prompted by earlier studies showing that hypnotic drugs are often deadly when mixed with alcohol or other drugs, are linked to an increased risk of car accidents and falls, may raise risk of suicide, and may damage chromosomes in cells which could lead to cancer.

What was significant about this study is that it was long-term, keeping track of 10,529 people who had at least one prescription for a sleeping pill between 2002 and 2007, compared with a control group. While the study doesn’t demonstrate causation, it did adjust for confounding factors such as age, smoking, weight, and other health conditions.

So why is FDA approving such dangerous drugs? First, the clinical trials required for FDA approval are grossly inadequate when it comes to hypnotic drugs. Many people take prescription sleeping pills for years, even though most are approved for only short-term use and their safety and effectiveness were only studied for several weeks in clinical trials. The longest tested one is Lunesta, which was tested for up to six months, and its list of known side effects is terrifying.

Let's compare it to the FDA’s standard for supplements: the NDI draft guidance requires "25 years of widespread use" in order to meet the "history of safe use" standard, which must be met even for grandfathered supplements.  As the Life Extension Foundation points out, the safety testing required by FDA is wildly inappropriate for supplements, and is unnecessary for natural products with years of documented safe use. Yet despite their superb track record for safety, FDA and the media have cultivated an environment of fear around nutritional supplements—while maintaining a casual attitude toward dangerous prescription drugs.

If you are wrestling with a sleep problem, then wrestle with it!  But, do not take prescription sleeping pills. There isn't one that is safe or any good. Do all the natural things to improve your sleep, such as eating well, exercising, getting sun, and reducing stress. Then, if you are going to take something, stick to safe natural supplements such as low-dose melatonin, theanine (the calming amino acid from green tea), taurine (another amino acid with calming effects) lemon balm (which I consider to be the best of the relaxing herbs) and magnesium. We now know that trying to secure sleep through prescription drugs is deadly.

This will be our last installment of this series.  I’m still wildly enthused about nuts. And since fat is the essence of the debate, I would like to address the advantages, the benefits you get from eating some fat, and nuts happen to be one of the best forms of fat.

1 Dietary Fat helps you absorb nutrients from food. It includes fat-soluble vitamins, such as A, E, and K, and also carotenoids, including beta carotene, lutein, zeaxanthin, and lycopene. But, it also helps you absorb minerals. Realize that, overall, mineral absorption is poor. You absorb about 20% of the calcium in your food. You absorb 17% of the zinc. And under the best conditions, one absorbs about 10% of the iron. So, we are not very good at absorbing minerals. However, we absorb more minerals in the presence of fat, and that includes both macro-minerals and micro-minerals.  The USDA tested this some years ago, and they found a straight-line correlation, meaning that the higher the diet was in fat, the more minerals got absorbed.

2 Dietary Fat helps your liver and gall bladder to release bile properly, and that aids your digestion, and it’s also good for those organs.  There is a hormone called cholecystokinin that is released by your stomach when it receives fat, and that hormone tells your gall bladder to contract and empty.  It’s also true that unhealthy fats are very bad for the gall bladder, and there are a lot of people who get in trouble that way. You probably realize how rampant gallstones are, affecting millions of people. However, the fact is that eating healthy fats in moderation is very healthy for gall bladder function, and it greatly prefers it over a low-fat diet.

3 Dietary Fat is the most satiating foodstuff. It is much more satiating than any kind of carbohydrate. And keep in mind that I am not opposed to carbohydrate. But the thing that really tells you that you have eaten and that you don’t have to eat any more for a while is fat. Fat hits the bullseye of your appetite like nothing else does.  And it’s important to have the feeling of feeling satisfied. I meet people who tell me that as soon as they put their fork down at the end of a meal, they are already thinking about the next meal. That isn’t normal- especially not for a human being. There are plenty of animals that largely eat all day, but we are not one of them. We are definitely intermittent feeders. And just as it’s important to have a healthy appetite for food, it’s also important to have times where food is completely absent from your mind, where you are entirely focused on other things. It’s about balance, and I am absolutely sure that the best way to get to a healthy balance in your attitude towards food is to include some wholesome fats in your diet, and there are none better than nuts.

4 Dietary Fat, speaking of wholesome ones, tend to be thermogenic, where they tend to increase bodily metabolism and actually increase fat-burning.  Extra virgin olive oil, for example, tends to be thermogenic.  Loma Linda University has probably done the most research on nuts, and they found that nuts tend to be thermogenic.  They found that the more servings of nuts that people ate, the lower their body fat.  Some have tried to dispute this by saying that it was because they were eating nuts instead of other things that are worse. And my response to that is: I agree, and so what? The results still speak for themselves.

5 Dietary Fat, the good ones, are known to have specific therapeutic effects, which have reportedly included mood elevation, better sleep, improved immunity, and even cardio-protective effects. Yes, fat can protect your heart. It’s also well known that fatty acids are the preferred fuel of the heart.  Your heart muscle has more mitochondria than any other muscle, and those little energy generators prefer fat for fuel.

And the body can run very well on fat. I have experience with fasting, and during fasting, the body is running largely on fat, and the longer a person fasts, the more the body steers its metabolism towards  fat-burning: preferentially.

So, I think that Drs. McDougall and Esselstyn are wrong about fats in general, and they are wrong about nuts, in particular. I eat raw nuts every day and have for decades. And I will continue to eat nuts every day- for the rest of my life.