Ditch the Statins: How to Naturally Lower Cholesterol With Lifestyle Changes | Dr. Aseem Malhotra

Coming up on this episode, part of the problem with the Stanton research is that it's not that they're bad or good. Every drug has a role. It's a tool. Yeah. You know, it's like saying water is water good or bad. Well, if you drink too much water, you can dive seizures, but you need water survive, right? Everything has a role.

Let's talk about red light therapy. After my recent back surgeries, recovery and managing back pain became a top priority. That's where bond charge has made a world of difference. Bond charge is all about making science-backed wellness tools accessible, and their red light therapy collection has become a game changer in my recovery. Whether you're looking to reduce muscle soreness, boost your energy, or simply unwind, bond charges red light devices are designed to fit into your life seamlessly.

Just a few minutes each day and you're reaping the benefits of improved circulation, reduced inflammation, and even better skin. For me, it's been a huge help with muscle tension, especially in my back post-surgery. The infrared heat, combined with the latest in light therapy, penetrates deep to support my recovery. I can use it after workouts before bed or even while I meditate. Plus, I've noticed I'm falling asleep faster and waking up more refreshed without the usual aches.

Boncharge truly thought of everything, but from easy setup to worldwide shipping plus a one-year warranty. If you're ready to step up your wellness routine, go to boncharge.com and use code DRMark to save 15%. That's b-o-n-c-h-a-r-g-e.com. Code DRMark for 15% off.

I really want to talk to you today about why you should care about urolithin A, a powerful compound that I believe is a breakthrough for healthy aging. As we age, the mitochondria in our cells naturally become less efficient. Think of them like little batteries when they're drained, we feel it. Sluggish muscles, slower recovery, less energy.

But here's where uralithin A comes in. Research shows that uralithin A supports mitophagy, or the renewal of these batteries, which keeps our cells energized and functioning optimally. And that's why I take Timeline Nutrition's Mitopure, which delivers uralithin A in a form that's bioavailable and backed by real science.

Since adding it to my routine, I've felt a noticeable difference in how quickly I recover and how strong I feel, even during intense activities. So if you want to support your body at the cellular level and keep up with everything you love, give it a try. Visit timeline.com slash D dash R dash Hyman for 10% off. Trust me, your body will feel the difference.

Before we jump into today's episode, I'd like to note that while I wish I could help everyone via my personal practice, there's simply not enough time for me to do this at this scale. And that's why I've been busy building several passion projects to help you better understand, well, you. If you're looking for data about your biology, check out Function Health for real-time lab insights. If you're in need of deepening your knowledge around your health journey, check out my membership community, Hyman Hive,

And if you're looking for curated and trusted supplements and health products for your routine, visit my website, supplement store, for a summary of my favorite and tested products.

Hi, I'm Dr. Mark Hyman, a practicing physician and proponent of systems medicine, a framework to help you understand the why or the root cause of your symptoms. Welcome to the doctor's pharmacy. Every week I bring on interesting guests to discuss the latest topics in the field of functional medicine and do a deep dive on how these topics pertain to your health. In today's episode, I have some interesting discussions with other experts in the field. So let's just jump right in. So welcome back to the podcast. It seems great to have you back in person here in Austin, Texas in my new studio.

Yeah, it's so nice to see you again, Mark. I think, yeah, we did. It's been about, what, six years since our forecast? Yeah, that's right. We've got a lot of interest. So I think, yeah, let's. We did. So as you heard me, introduction, it seems an esteemed cardiologist from the UK who's been a vocal critic of a lot of the mainstream ways of thinking about cardiovascular risk, cardiovascular health, and the use of statins as our primary therapy for reducing cardiovascular disease, which is, after all, the number one killer in the world. And we're going to dive deep into

the issues around these drugs, around what we need to actually be looking at for cardiovascular disease. And I think your opinion is going to be a little bit jarring for people because it goes against the conventional wisdom, which isn't necessarily always wise.

And I think it's a much more nuanced conversation that people need to be having around cardiovascular disease than high LDL cholesterol, bad cholesterol, take a statin, and a story. Essentially what we all do in medicine, if we're trained in traditional medicine, high cholesterol equals statin. And if statin causes side effects, you can play with a bunch of other drugs like PCSK9 nibbers.

But we're going to start out at the, at the end, which is this lawsuit that was filed by two of your colleagues that you were going to be a part of, but decided not to be for various reasons, because you couldn't actually talk about the issues that you care about, which I guess has a lot of integrity. But the case was brought by Zoe Harcomb and Dr. Malcolm Kendrick against

associated newspapers, which is the publisher of The Mail on Sunday. And there were a series of articles published in March of 2019 that were part of a campaign called Fight, Fake, Health News. This was even before COVID and the whole misinformation. And in these articles, they named the claimants and statin deniers, including you.

which isn't actually true. And they accused you among in your colleagues of spreading misinformation about stands, which they described as quote, deadly propaganda.

The newspapers articles suggested that their statements led people to avoid taking stands, which was a big public health risk. In response to these articles, your colleagues filed a defamation lawsuit, arguing that these articles falsely portrayed them as deliberately spreading lies about stands. Now, the high court has seen multiple legal arguments, particularly around the public interest defense under the defamation act of 2013 in the UK. But in 2024, just recently,

The case was ruled in favor of your colleagues against the newspaper. So in some ways, you've been vindicated by the legal system that what you're raising in terms of concerns about stands. And I'm kind of quoting from you at this point, which is their data is flawed on stands.

It's over emphasized. It's over prescribed. It has risks. And there are other factors that need to be considered that are often being missed. And it's a more nuanced view that you have. It's not just drugs are bad, food is good, or drugs are bad, and wheatgrass is good. It's basically looking at very nuanced science to help unpack what we know and we don't know about cholesterol and cardiovascular risk.

kind of walk us through what happened with that case and what the findings were and how you have all been vindicated as a result of the legal decision around this court case that was basically defending you essentially not you were directly involved in the final suit but you were kind of part of the whole thing you said. First of all to clarify Mark the reason I did not decide I mean it was something I thought about to sue the mail on Sunday I think I was

At the time, there was a lot going on. My mum had just died. For me, as an activist in the campaign, I made the decision that I'm going to keep talking about this issue and carry on and just take it on the chin. I've been in this situation before, which we'll talk about later. So, I decided that I wasn't going to sue them, but I'm so pleased and happy for Zoey and Malcolm because these sorts of things, they do have an impact on you.

Before I tell you what happened in the case specifically, because of that newspaper article, about a month later, because my hospital was named in the article, and obviously they got a bit panicky, I was told that my services were no longer required. So I lost my NHS job, and by the way, I have an impeccable track record in terms of my clinical care, getting with my colleagues. I'm probably an unusual doctor and probably lucky as well, because throughout my whole career,

23 year career as a doctor. I've never had a single patient complain, which is unusual because you know that can happen for any reason doesn't mean the doctors done something wrong.

So with all of that background, that's what happened. And then I wasn't able to get a job back in the NHS. I applied and got... You got blacklisted. Basically, yeah. And it doesn't mean that all cardiologists were kind of against me, but the situation arises in hospitals, teaching hospitals, and a lot of cardiologists in London, because I trained in some of these hospitals and had good relationships with cardiologists there.

who will respect my opinion. And it would be the case where say, in a cardiology department of eight people, if seven of us have a scene here to do clinics and when working for a bit, just one of them would object.

No chance, you can't get in. And it was always, it came back to, when I asked the reason, it was, you know, their antibodies have been developed against you because of your statins, essentially, right? Statins, people are allergic to you because of your opinion on statins. Exactly, so, but also that, so what happened in the case is that, you know, this was a front page new story. What made the new story, and this is the really interesting bit around the evidence of what happened during the case that I submitted, because I was asked to,

is that the front page linked article said essentially got the secular state for health at the time called Matt Hancock, you may have heard of him, to say that there was no place in the NHS for the sites of doctors who are spreading misinformation on statins.

Now, interestingly, and of course, one of the most extraordinary bits in the actual newspaper, the editorial from the health editor headline was, there is a special place in hell for doctors who say statins don't work.

Okay. And imagine the picture of me as though we are coming home, right? So you have your corner in hell all picked out? Exactly, right? I mean, I find it funny. To be honest, I mean, of course, a lot of other people were more upset than I was. In fact, the former Queen of England's doctor and the past president of Royal College of Physicians, Sir Richard Thompson, who I'm friends with, I mean, he called me up and he was so upset. He's like, this is unbelievable. How can they say this is not what you say, blah, blah? Right.

And I was calming down and saying we take this as a back-handed compliment, you're over the target, you get one of the most powerful influential newspapers in the world to go for you like this. And I'm someone that, who's their advertisers?

Well, that's a fair point, but I think ultimately what came out in the case as well, Mark, and there's also, again, I'll mention this crucial bit of evidence, which is extraordinary, and helped, I think, shift the case and win it, is that the people who were fueling the health editor to write the article and the people who are commenting on it were all connected or part of something called the CTT, the cholesterol trial-less collaboration in Oxford.

These are the most powerful statin promoters and some of the most powerful doctors in the world in medical research. But, again, what wasn't declared is that their institution has received hundreds of millions of dollars from drug companies that manufacture statins or new cholesterol-lowering drugs. So, listen. I want to double-click on that for a second. Just so people understand.

We think academic institutions are squeaky clean, they're neutral, they're objective, they're scientific, medical schools, researchers.

But the truth is that a lot of their funding comes from pharma who are funding trials that they're executing. And I remember Peter Libby, who you might have heard of, who's basically the editor-in-chief of the main cardiology textbook that all fellows take called Burnwell's cardiology. He is a chairman of cardiovascular disease at Harvard.

And I said, Peter, why don't you study lifestyle interventions for cardiovascular disease versus just studying?

medication is the market. I know lifestyle works, but I can't give $5 to study lifestyle. I can get $150 million to study a drug. And that's funding my department. That's funding my staff. That's funding me. And it's the reality of how the system is set up. So you have to understand that, you know, there's, there's an inherent bias in, in a lot of how we think about things in medicine because of the money.

If you follow the money, you understand where things are driven from. Yeah. Absolutely right, Mark. And that reminds me actually of somebody who I cite quite regularly. Professor John A. Needis, I refer to Stanford. Yeah. In Stanford, I refer to him as a Stephen Hawking in medicine. He's the most cited medical researcher in the world.

He is a professor of medicine and epidemiology and statistics at Stanford. He's a mathematical genius. And he published a paper in 2006 that we've talked about before, I think, which is called Why Most Published Research Finding the False? And one of the risk factors for false research is this.

the greater the financial and other prejudices in a given field, the less likely the research finds it to be true. Think about that. So when you start with statins, you're talking about one of the most lucrative drugs in the history of medicine. It's a trillion dollar industry. So start from that kind of overview to try and help explain what's going on and why these sort of this confusion is happening and where the battle is happening. And then you can make your own decision who

You trust more, but also the most important thing is to try and give people information the way they can understand. We'll get there in a second. So what happened in the case? So we have this kind of defamatory attack on us.

But what made the story was the sex state for health getting involved. Now, interestingly, one week earlier, just before this new story broke, I was speaking in parliament about type two diabetes reversal and the benefits of, for example, of a low carbohydrate, you know, real food diet for that purpose. Matt Hancock had agreed to meet me. He had was aware of my work because of another politician who had lost 94 pounds from following my diet plan. This is the one who said you need to have his special place in hell.

No, that was the editor of the actual of the newspaper. So Hancock, all Hancock was involved in the story because he had basically said he'd been contacted by the mail on Sunday and said there were these doctors saying this, can you give us a comment? And he gave a generic comment saying there's no place for this misinformation, right? And that it looked as if he knew who we were and we were. So I met Matt Hancock a week before. I gave him a copy of my book. He was very respectful, very appreciative of what I'm doing in lifestyle.

and gave my lecture in Parliament, which got a lot of attention, by the way, as well, which may have been the reason why they decided to suddenly do this, you know, the new story is like, okay, we're getting something that's challenging our views on cholesterol, on low-fat diets or whatever. So that was probably the peg because that was getting a lot of attention to then come back and have a go at me and two other people. I think that's probably what happened. That's why it happened at that particular time. So I texted Matt through Twitter, DM'd him. I was like, Matt,

Really? And he replied, I had no idea they were referring to you or Zoe Harkham. And I was like, OK, this is very interesting. So I kept that, obviously. When the case then evolved and went to court, the lawyers for Zoe and Markham contacted me.

And I gave them that evidence, and apparently during the case in Malcolm Fed, but this back to me, Malcolm Kendrick, he said, this turned the judge, because they put Barney Kalman, who was the health editor on the stand. And essentially made him admit that, you know, that in a way that they had misled Matt Hancock because they hadn't told him.

because if Matt was new, because I'm a full intensive person. So probably, so this is what really changed the case. And I think that is, yeah, that, well, it is what it is. So what were you actually saying? And what was Zoey and Dr. Kendrick saying that raised that concern and that why was the mail on Sunday?

So vocal about criticizing. What were they coming after? So this is basically based upon probably both Malcolm and Zoe and my public advocacy on the overprescription of statins, the lack of informed consent, the lack of access to the raw data, which is still an ongoing problem, going over a decade or so. So I think because this story and the statins saga had been getting more and more of an airing and

Mark, I've been publishing in medical journals on informed consent and a lot of I've been publishing a lot about the prescription of statins and the conflicts of interest and not knowing the true benefits and harms, right? Because as you've said already, a lot of the data that we get from drug industry sponsored trials, if not most of it, is never independently evaluated. Most people don't know this, right? Yeah, and the only people who know the theme is that is that when studies are done, they don't have to be published. So if studies come out that are showing

Not a positive benefit for a particular drug. It has to be submitted to the FDA or whatever the equivalent is in the UK, but they don't actually have to be published in a medical journal. So you're not seeing the full spectrum of what the data show. You're just saying cherry pick data that shows its massage and twisted. You know, I think it was Mark Twain said there's liars or damn liars and their statisticians.

It's part of the problem with the statin research is that it's not that they're bad or good. Every drug has a role. It's a tool. It's like saying water is water good or bad. If you drink too much water, you can dive seizures, but you need water to survive. Everything has a role.

But how is used, how frequently it's used, to it's described, how often it's described, the manipulation of the medical system, the manipulation of the scientific research and the lack of transparency about the data, the lack of publication of all the data gives us a work view of how great these drugs are. And they're the number one

class of drugs sold in the world globally. Absolutely. I mean, it's estimated between 200 million and 1 billion people have prescribed this drug. So it's a big deal and especially for me as a cardiologist whose primary purpose is to help my patients and also with my special interest to really understand the root cause of heart disease and how we can reverse it in the population.

We hadn't done that. That's how my journey started. I was somebody that believed in statins. I was one of the biggest prescribers. I was giving it in the ER, so a patient coming with a heart attack and telling the nurse to give it in them in the ER before they've even gone to the cardiac asthma for them to have a standard. I have cardiologist saying you should serve it at McDonald's with your, you know, it's a big strike and a prize. I know.

or have it over the counter. I mean, in 2021 globally, it was $15 billion spent on stands. It's projected to be $22 billion by 2032. I mean, this is a staggering amount of money on one drug. Absolutely. And there's a lot at stake here, 100%.

100%. So understanding that there's a barrier to the truth, which is essentially a financial barrier because of the so much it's take, as you say, not just with statins alone, but the cholesterol-lowering industry, the low-fat food movement, the fear of cholesterol is the trillion-dollar industry, right?

So, I think people need to understand that. So, how have we got here? And what is the truth? Or what is the greater truth? Okay. And the reason I say what is the greater truth, this is another myth that we need to bust for people listening to kind of try and get cut through the confusion. The first thing is, we have to understand the public needs to know. Doctors even need to know this. Medicine is not an exact science. It's not even close. It's an applied science. It's a science of human beings. It's a social scientist constantly evolving.

We were also taught at medical school by the founding father of the evidence-based medicine movement. Half of what you learn will turn out to be either outdated or dead wrong within five years of your graduation. We can't tell you which half. You can't tell which half, so you have to learn to learn in your own. But how many doctors have got the time or the skill to try and cut through

all the stuff that they're getting through medical journals, looking at independent evidence, and then being able to try and get to something that, a level of information that they can utilize for really benefiting when helping their patients. So it comes down to informed consent. And for me, one thing that, I think it was Mark Twain that said that truth often lies in simplicity. And the most elegant analytical framework we have,

For teaching and practicing medicine, it's called the evidence-based medicine triad, right? Published in the BMJ 1996. I love this. It's beautiful. I put it up in my talks. It's one of the first slides and I say, listen, this is the most important side of my talk. If you get this, you can probably not only understand

why our health is going the wrong direction. But you can probably explain most problems in the world as well, right? So what does that mean? Okay, in the middle of the triad, our role as healthcare practitioners as doctors is to improve patient outcomes. Manage risks, tree illness, relief suffering. How do we do that? There are three inputs. Our clinical experience, our knowledge, our intuition as doctors over many, many years.

the best available evidence on a drug, on a lifestyle, on a surgical intervention, on ordering a test. And last but not least, David Tackett said, taking an into consideration individual patient preferences and values, right? That's where the informed consent comes in. So what's the problem? What are the limitations? Why have we not really advanced evidence evidence? Well, you know, we, we, that's really a double click on that too, because

When we hear evidence-based medicine, what it usually is interpreted as is only what the science is, not what the patient is experiencing or what the clinician expert understands from their decades of experience, which are part of the evidence-based trial, 100%. And that's really the failure here. And evidence-based medicine is held up as this holy

kind of, I don't in a sense that we bow to, but often we kind of miss a trip or what it means. And I think your explanation is really important because it's not just what the data show. And it's also which data and who funded the data. Absolutely. Absolutely. And the absence of evidence is in the evidence of absence. So there's a whole bunch of stuff that's going on. So then you pick up. So then the next stage is, OK, so if you accept this as a pretty solid framework for improving patient outcomes,

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if there's anything wrong with one or all of these, at best, you're going to get suboptimal outcomes. And at worst, you're going to do harm. So in terms of these inputs, right? So if we just take the best available evidence, and I've just said already, John, I need this. Okay. Most publishers are finding their faults, et cetera. You know, you've got Richard Horton added to the Lancet in 2015, writing an editorial saying that

Possibly half the published literature is simply untrue. It's not just on, I need a saying this. So you've got all these facts. So what happens ultimately is doctors invariably are making clinical decisions for patients on biased, not so completely false, biased and corrupted information, which invariably will exaggerate the benefit and safety of those drugs because that's in the interest of the drug industry who want to get as many people taking them because their only interest is profit. They're not here to give you the best treatment.

So once you acknowledge all of that, then it's for me, and as a cardiologist and as an expert who has spent a decade, really. I would challenge you. I think a lot of people, it's like the Truman Show. People in the system, it's like the Truman Show. They think they're in this perfect world.

and that they're doing good. And I think they're good people, and they're trying to do good. They're not deliberately trying to harm people. But they can't see what they don't see. Because they're in this sort of... Very good point, Mark. And actually, the way I would just summarize that is medical knowledge is under commercial control, but most doctors don't know that.

That's right. And that's what we're trying to sort of get them to think outside the box because again, I 100% agree with you. Most healthcare professionals, most doctors genuinely want to help their patients and are well-intentioned. And actually, you know, I'm very proud of being a doctor because I think of all the professions

I know things are changing and we have to protect our profession. I think we are people that actually have some of the strongest ethical principles, right, when it comes to how we, you know, do our jobs and we have to. And we held in that esteem because of that reason. So for me,

Trying to break out of that conventional paradigm happened because I came to realize that the information that I believed is being gospel truth as a medical student, as a junior doctor, it's published in a medical journal, it's science, right? Didn't question it. I then came to realize that, hold on a minute, there's a lot more to this.

And I used, of course, the heart disease, paradigms, understanding why we hadn't curbed heart disease, even though it was predicted by Nobel Prize winners, Brown and Goldstein, I think in the late 90s, who discovered the LDL receptor was involved in coronary artery disease, they predicted the end.

the eradication of heart disease may completely end by the early 2000s. It didn't happen. It's still the number one killer on the planet. And it's getting the vast prescription of stands. More and more people are getting heart disease, but less people are dying from it. Is that accurate? Correct. Because we have better management. We can deal with risks. Three reasons I can tell you. Big low-hanging fruit. Why have we got less death rates from heart disease? If you were a smoker, your mortality rate increased 50%. Smoking reduction has played a big role.

Emergency treatment in specifically, in the acute setting of an acute heart attack, stenting, or thrombolytics, which you used to use, right? But the third one, which the Bernard Lowne, pioneer in cardio, who's got the Nobel Prize for, was the defibrillator.

Right? So what used to happen in patients would be admitted to hospital with a heart attack. In the first 24 to 48 hours after having a heart attack, you're most vulnerable to having a cardiac arrhythmia that causes you to have a cardiac arrest, right? And patients would die.

And that's kind of why there's less deaths. 100%. It hasn't. Well, so the next question is people think, oh, must be statins as well. Well, paper in the BMJ a few years ago looked at millions more people taking statins in Europe over a 10 year period to see, was there any reduction in cardiovascular mortality in Europe because millions more people are taking statins? They found there was none, none. Zero, no change. But

You can actually explain that, Mark, because one way of looking at the statistics, looking at industry-sponsored trials, which we've already alluded to, should be taken with a grain of salt, because they are best-case scenario, they're curated information. Or a tab of butter, maybe. Well, actually, absolutely. Butter would be better. We might need to come back about a butter story, and me being hauled into a medical director's office to talk about butter, by the way, when I busted the midst of saturated fat and heart disease. When you look at the data,

from industry-sponsored trials and you look at the statistics that looks at the average or median increase in life expectancy. Over five years, in the highest risk groups, where there is a greater benefit, the median increase in life expectancy over a five-year period in the person that's had a heart attack in their 50s.

Just over four days. Now. So wait, we just sit back good up for people. So there's two kinds of treatments for cholesterol that are happening. One is we call primary prevention. You've never had a heart attack, but your cholesterol is higher. Doctor, if you would drug like a stat. Yeah. And their secondary prevention means you already had an event and it's trying to prevent a second event.

And that's what you're just talking about. If you've already had a heart attack and you take a statin, it shows that you're only living extra four days. Yeah, if you look at the median increase in lifestyle practicing in that group, another way that we use in medicine when talking about informed consent or I call it ethical, very controversial topic, ethical evidence-based medical practice.

which means true informed consent, which means telling patients the numbers needed to treat other absolute individual benefit. And you look at the totality of evidence. I know there are lots of studies we can talk about, but for me, it's about what does a totality of evidence tell us, right? And there's a great website, which is independently evaluated by doctors. And it goes through peer review in the one of the

family physician journals in the US called the nnt.com. Numbers need to treat. People look it up as great. And what that means, everybody, is how many people you need to treat with a certain drug to get a benefit? Yes. If you have a bladder infection or strep throat, and I give you an antibiotic, it's, you know, pretty much 100%, like it's like you need to treat one person to get one person better. Yeah. Or maybe if they've a resistant antibiotic, it's two. Yeah. Or we take paracetamol for a headache, it's like one and two. So it's like two. Two people, one will get the headache completely. But with a staph, you have to treat

89 people for five years to prevent one heart attack? Yeah, so it's actually, so I know this stuff inside out. So if you've had a heart attack already, let's take the high risk group, you have to treat 83 people over five years for one to have their life saved or life prolonged, right? Okay. And for preventing a further heart attack, one in 39.

Now, most people around the world, Marco, prescribed statins are not in that group. They are in the either low risk, 75%, right? Yeah, exactly low risk or what we call high risk primary prevention. Now, the benefits of a statin over a five year period in that group, at best, is 1% in preventing a non fatal heart attack, a non disabling stroke. Okay. But without prolonging.

Trust me when I say, I know how hard it can be to find healthy food options when life gets hectic. That's why I love paleo-valley's meat sticks, a clean, nutrient-dense protein snack that fits into any busy day. Unlike most snacks loaded with sugar and artificial ingredients, paleo-valley beef sticks are made from 100% grass-fed and grass-finished beef by US family farmers on chemical-free pastures. That means more vitamins, minerals, and omega-3s to support healthy inflammation and overall vitality.

And they're naturally fermented. Instead of artificial preservatives, Paleo Valley uses old world fermentation to keep their sticks shelf stable and gut friendly, thanks to naturally occurring probiotics. With five delicious flavors like original jalapeno and garlic summer sausage, they're perfect for the vegan lifestyle. Plus, they're individually wrapped and ready whenever you need a clean protein boost. Paleo Valley also offers pasture-raised chicken sticks and 100% grass-fed venison sticks.

I make sure to always have these beef sticks in my car, suitcase, or in my kitchen. Head to paleovalley.com to get 15% off your order of 100% grass-fed beef sticks today.

Your home's indoor air could be up to 100 times more polluted than outdoor air. Toxic particles from cleaning products, stoves, paint, air fresheners, and even furniture can linger in your home. Add to that bacteria, viruses, allergens, mold spores, pet dander, and dust. And you've got a cocktail of harmful contaminants that can contribute to cardiovascular disease, lung disease, and even neurodegenerative conditions. Your home should be a sanctuary, not a source of toxic air pollution. That's why I trust Air Doctor Air Pure Fires to protect my family.

Air Doctor is the first affordable air purifier that removes virtually 100% of particles as small as 0.003 microns, 100 times smaller than the standard HEPA filter. It also eliminates the vast majority of volatile organic chemicals, gases, and other dangerous pollutants, thanks to its ultra-HEPA filter and perfectly sealed system. I've partnered with Air Doctor to offer my listeners an exclusive deal. Right now, head to airdoctorpro.com slash DR Hyman to save up to $300 on Air Doctor today.

So essentially, if you've never had our attack and you have a high cholesterol and you take a stat, it won't prevent you from, it won't prevent one single death. It will maybe prevent a heart attack. If a hundred people take it, it'll prevent one heart attack. So 99 people taking it for five years will have no benefit. Yeah. So this again comes back to now, this is just my opinion. It's like, oh, it's the same, oh, just cherry picking statistics here. 2009.

Good Giga Renza, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Health Literacy in Berlin, the same institution that Einstein taught and trained in. Brilliant guy. He wrote in a WHO bullet in 2009, is an ethical imperative for every doctor to understand the difference between absolute risk reduction in numbers in the tree and relative risk reduction. And he said to protect patients from unnecessary anxiety and manipulation.

So in other words, I paraphrase this, if you have that information, and again, most doctors are not trained this way, this is a problem, you should use it and tell patients, this is what I do. And a patient comes in, it's like, should I take a statin or not? I say, well, let me empower you with information and tell me what you think. Most patients with one present think, hold on a minute.

I don't think that's a great doc. And then they'll say, well, is there anything else I can do? And of course, you and I are empowered with an understanding lifestyle. So this is how we should be practicing medicine. But one quick thing is that I didn't just talk about this. I wrote about it. And I even got this in front of every Royal College president in the UK saying that the British Medical Journal were doing this campaigning. It's too much medicine. They're talking about informed consent by use of entities.

We need to dodge a campaign because overprescription is a big problem. We know there's a big problem with side effects. We know that one estimate suggests that prescribed medications is a third most common cause of death after heart disease and cancer globally because of side effects. It didn't take long for me to convince the Royal College president. I was an ambassador for the overall Academy of Royal Colleges at the time.

and to say we should have a joint campaign with the BMJ. So I then wrote a paper as lead author, I had the chairman of the general medical council, the chairman of the medical colleges on that call the paper to say okay this is a campaign we can get and change medical education, change postgraduate medical training,

And we got this in the media. It was a big news story. BBC, all over the news, front page of British newspapers campaigns obviously need to be sustained. But what happened is, of course, if you engage in true informed consent with patients, most patients will choose less treatments now. Who's going to suffer from that? The drug industry. In my view, it's very clear. It's not a conspiracy. This is clearly how they do business. And this is what they want to do is they want to

they engage in a tactic called opposition fragmentation. Anyone that threatens their bottom line, they will do smearing, they will do all these things behind the scenes. There's a whole documented history that's been echoed in the fall. If you Google me, you'll find many groups that are attacking me, like the American Council on Science and Health, which sounds great, but it's actually a front group for pharma, big food and big ag that think trans fats, pesticides, smoking, and glyphosate are all healthy for you.

And I'm like, okay. And if they become a tongue, very, you know, erudite and smart. So you've experienced them out in mobile, you know, science-based medicine, you know, science and health. I mean, crackbusters, crack watch. I mean, I've been there all through it. And you get it. I totally get it. And I actually, I find a badge of honoring.

Well, no, so actually in a way it is, although you've got to grow a thick skin, right? Because, you know, one of the lessons in public health advocacy done by Great Paper, written by Simon Chapman, who took on Big Tobacco in Australia and talked about 38-year career and taking on Big Tobacco, he says, as soon as your work threatens an industry,

Or an ideological cabal because also about this about mine. It's not just about money. It's about indoctrination in the brain, right? As soon as you work for an industry or an ideological cabal, you will be attacked sometimes unrelentingly and viciously. So you have to grow a rhinoceroside. So for me, what happened after that is there was, I kept pushing this message, but they then

Behind the scenes were all called physicians, I think, funded by farmers. Some scientists, funded by farmer, started making complaints to the Academy of Medical Colleges, where I was one of their ambassadors for seven years, right, to say, this guy's got his own agenda. He's exploiting people for his own agenda. He's trying to make money off all nonsense. And that was so relentless.

that they then, in 2018, I got an email from the new chair of the Royal Colleges saying that the campaign that I had started or was that they had took on and instigated that I was no longer part of that because of stuff that I apparently said publicly on statins. Even though everything in the newspapers that was written about statins for me was coming from medical journals and a very strong advocate for informed consent. But again, this is what- Don't confuse me with the facts my mind's made up. Well, exactly.

Yeah, exactly. So this is what they do. And of course, it does have his personal tone. And then it culminated coming back to where we started is that because we were having an effect, Mark, and of course, you're absolutely doing the same thing. One of my inspirations, right? Revolutionaries, Mahatma Gandhi. And one of his quotes, which I love is, you know, and he took on the system. I mean, he got British colonialists out of India. I mean, it almost single-handedly. And he says, first, ignore you. I think Brent was bigger than the pharma companies.

Oh, it was, absolutely. I mean, America was founded on the corporate sentiment, taking on the British East India Company, right? It was a big corporate tyrannical system. And now we've come back to the same problem right now. But what he said was, first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. So when you're getting attacked, you're over the target and you're getting closer to winning. But you have to, it's tough. So essentially this is an interesting legal case that we started out with. It's sort of vindicated.

that you and your colleagues were speaking truth to power. Yeah. So let's get into the details here because everybody's listening going, yeah, well, my doctor checked my cholesterol and my LDL is high and they recommend a statin. And like we said, it's the number one prescribed drug in the world. Yeah. 75% of the prescriptions are for preventing heart attacks. If you've never had one, it's called primary prevention is very weak data to show that that actually works, especially for women, especially for over a certain age. Yeah.

There is benefit for people who've had a heart attack, no doubt. It's not like taking an antibiotic for a strep throat, but there is a benefit. And I'd love you to sort of unpack how you came to go from being a trained cardiologist.

who basically swallowed the gospel to one who understands and has looked at the literature and has come to a different conclusion. Because it's not just that you're anti-drug or you're anti-medical care, anti-the system, you're for the truth and for science and for an objectively look at the facts. So the question I have is, how did you go from being a trained cardiologist

who believed in stands to one who started to question stands to one who's come to understand that our approach to cardiovascular might be a little bit misguided. And we'll talk about what the right approach should be later. But I kind of want to start with unpack unpack the science for us because yeah, everybody listening has no is heard of their cholesterol is high.

to take a stat. And statins cause side effects, which they do for a lot of people, probably 20% get some muscle damage or some symptoms or increased risk of diabetes. We'll talk about that data. There's still a huge drive in our society for prescribing these and globally.

Yeah, absolutely. So my interest in this came from really looking at the initially the obesity epidemic. So 2004 WHO announced it as an epidemic. You know, by 2010, I was in nine years qualified as a doctor. I was a specialist registrar in my cardiology training. I was seeing more people this viscerally. I'm very sensitive to

how to put it, suffering around me if you like, but also seeing my colleagues under more stress in the system. And I was like, hold on a minute. If we carry on down the trajectory, the whole health care system is going to collapse. We want to even manage people acutely if they are ill, right? And I never thought that would happen. And ultimately that, one of my own, two of my parents both basically died because of the failures in the system because the system's under so much stress, right? Never predicted that would happen.

But that's where I started from. And when I looked into the issue of obesity, I concluded that one of the root causes, Mark, if not the main root cause was this flawed hypothesis that we should have low fat diets to prevent heart disease. Food industry exploited that increasing sugar intake, increasing refined carbohydrate intake. It became quite clear there was a clear correlation between that change in guidance in the late 70s in the US and early 80s in the UK.

when the obesity epidemic started to then, you know, take its trajectory down the wrong way. Yeah, and I covered a lot of this in my book, Each Fat Set Thin, which we sort of unpacked the whole history of how we got this low-fat craze, led to this high-sugar starch craze that then led to this dramatic rise in obesity, which now, of course, we're treating with another drug.

the GOP one agonist and you know, just appetite and some glue tieders and big in Majora. It's kind of crazy, right? It's kind of flipped it upside down. Oh, absolutely. So, so when I looked at that and started looking at the data and spending years and months and years looking at it and looking at different bits of data, I was able to put it all together. And I wrote a piece in the BMJ in 2013 called saturated fat is not the major issue. I read it. That's how I first came across. Yeah. And that got a lot of attention, right? It was international news and British news and CNN international and whatever.

You know, because obviously suddenly you've got a cardiologist busting this myth that we think butter has been bad for our cholesterol. But when I did that, okay, so I looked at the data and it was very clear there was no clear association with saturated fat consumption and heart disease. So if that's true,

Then, and we know saturated fat raises LDL cholesterol. That means LDL cholesterol can't be that important. So, and if LDL cholesterol or total cholesterol isn't that important as a risk factor, how does statins work? But I knew statins had a separate effect to low in cholesterol, which is their anti-inflammatory and their anti-clotting. And I knew this even, it's well known within cardiology circles. You know, I trained as an interventional cardiologist and that means key or heart surgery stents, for example. Patient comes in. We didn't even check the cholesterol.

Maybe some of the thinking was the lower the better, which we'll come on to as well. So it doesn't matter what they're cholesterol starting from, the lower your cholesterol the better. In fact, 2011, 2011, our cardiologist, one of the editors I think of the American Journal of Cardiology, wrote an article which I mentioned in my book, A Starting Free Life, which was entitled It's the Cholesterol Stupid, right? And what did he say in that? He said, you can be an obese diabetic smoker that doesn't exercise. It sounds crazy.

But as long as your cholesterol is low enough, you're not going to get heart disease. That's right. Like, really? So, okay, I had to unpick that. And what I also then did moving forward from 2.3. So that's how I got down this track, realizing that our obsession with LDL lowering has been appropriate. So you looked at the saturated fat literature and you weren't impressed, and data showed that it didn't seem to be... Both observational data and randomized control trials. No benefit, like in lowering it, no association, nothing.

Right. And when you look at all the data, so that was the first sort of bit that I was okay. And some might even be in protective like some of the dairy fat. Well, we know now, yes, there is there is some suggestion that dairy fat could be protective. Absolutely. So there's all that. And then coming back to the LDL high. By the way, you're not alone in this. I mean, it was a major paper published by Darsham as a foreign from Tufts and others.

looking at butter and actually showing that there really wasn't evidence that it wasn't. So Mark, this is what's interesting. That article I wrote, because it creates such a lot of headlines and backlash, whatever else. That's when people like Darius started looking at this again. So it was all really from the back of that BMJP. So it all came together. So then everybody's like, you know, and at the time I was writing this to a commentary, which is peer reviewed, but I could have got it wrong. I could have. But I was like, you know what, there's enough here for me to provoke the thoughts.

And then it all got proven that what I'd written had validity, right? Which was good. But the other aspect of this, if you go back and you mention cholesterol, so is cholesterol a risk factor for heart disease? And is LDL cholesterol a risk factor for heart disease? So you have to go back to square one, right? So these are the framing of studies that

Started in Massachusetts in 1948 and went over decades looking at thousands of people where a lot of risk factors emerge for heart disease, whether it's diabetes, high blood pressure, smoking, for example. High cholesterol. High cholesterol, right? You go and look back at the Framingham studies.

And just to summarize it without complicating the situation too much, William Castelli is a cardiologist, and he published, he was a co-director of Framingham, and in 1996, he published in one of the major cardiology journeys, a summary of Framingham, specific looking at LDL cholesterol. Let's just look at LDL, because that is the so-called bad cholesterol. And he said, from Framingham,

Unless your LDL was above 7.8 millimoles, which by the way, I think in your units is probably 250 or 300, 250 probably, I think. Maybe we can look it up and calculate. But let's just say, for argument's sake, around 250, which is very, very high, by the way, it absolutely had no, it was useless as a predictor for cornea. LDL. LDL. Now, why is that? When you correct for triglycerides and HDL,

Okay, which by the way is a more important predictive heart disease LDL loses its significance completely. So then if that's true and I'm saying that means LDL isn't really a risk factor of heart disease and I believe with everything I know now that to be the case. Okay, let's let's unpick every part of it. Does lowering LDL cholesterol

from diet or drugs, but more specifically drugs because they're the most potent ways of lowering LDL cancer, whether it's PCK9 inhibitors, whether it's statins, whatever. Is there a clear correlation? Is this dogma true that the lower the better? So myself and two cardiologists did a systematic review of the totality of drug industry sponsored trials, by the way, and some diet trials with many drug industry sponsored trials, all of the randomized controlled trials,

on cholesterol lowering drugs, statins, PCK and bobbler. Was there a clear relationship as you lowered LDL in low risk and high risk patients, Mark? Okay. Over 30 studies. Yeah. Was there a relationship with lowering LDL and preventing cardiovascular events?

No. Even at high risk patients. Even at high risk, it's nonsense. It's nonsense. So the question then is... Why do we all so firmly believe? So does that mean... But then I said, well, of course, statins have a role. They do have a benefit from the RCT data, which is small, because I knew already their anti-inflammatory and anti-clotting. So it's nothing. In my view, listen, I could be proven wrong here, but the evidence at the moment looks very clear that there is no consistent relationship, right? It's definitely not a clear relationship.

So even if it's a weak relationship mark, let's just argue and say, let's say there is a weak benefit in learning LDL. What else is going on? And what else are you ignoring? Right? Yeah. What else does statins do? They cause inter-resistance, say 1 in 100 people get type 2 diabetes because of statins. 1 in 2. 1 in 100. 1 in 100. Yeah, 1 in 100. So about 1 to 2%, but 1 in 100. Some study say 1 in 50, right? We'll get type 2 diabetes because of the statin. Probably reversible still, but not ideal, right? If you're going to stand up.

The second thing is, look at the whole patient coming in. We have the illusion of protection. We have patients I used to see coming in, and they thought, my cholesterol is low, I can go in Ian McDonald's, it's fine. And they're getting more and more of a way, more interresistant. They're increasing their cardiovascular risk.

They're not told the statin is going to give them a 1% benefit, i.e. more likely than not, they're not going to benefit. So you could imagine that concept that the overall net effect of the way that statins are prescribed and the dogma around them, in my view, has been negative and has actually been one of the main reasons why we have got this pandemic of chronic disease. Because we overemphasize an index on LDL cholesterol and forgotten everything else. Absolutely. Right.

because there's a drug for it. It was interesting to me if there was a drug for insulin resistance that worked really well. And we have midformin, but it's and it fixed insulin resistance. You know, everybody be prescribing it, but we don't even diagnose it in most people because we don't have a drug for it. And it's stunning to me that, you know, I was talking to the

live director at Quest, laboratories, he said, what percent of your tests you get to come in are measuring insulin, which is I think one of the most important things you need to know about your biomarkers. And he was like less than 1%.

And it's part of why I co-founded this company Function Health to really look at a deep biomarker set around cardiometabolic risk factors, including insulin, including LP, little A, including something called APOB, which I want to talk to you about, not just your total LDL, HDL, triglyceride levels, but also particle number, particle size, inflammation markers, all the things that are often missed, but that are much better at giving you a holistic picture of your cardiovascular risk. And then you know where to intervene.

And in one of the studies that was so interesting to me was actually from I think Scotland or Ireland was where they looked basically at a series of patients who came into an emergency room with a heart attack. And they did glucose tolerance tests on everybody who came in with a heart attack.

and they found that two-thirds either had diabetes or pre-diabetes, who had a heart attack, that that was really the big driver. Now, there's a subset of people who have familial lipid disorders, you know, inherited genetic lipid disorders, and most people probably need to be treated more directly.

For the majority of people out there who are obese or have prediabetes or metabolic dysfunction, which is basically an American, 93% of Americans, that's what's driving probably most of the heart disease, not butter or saturated fat or LDL elevations. Well, something else to throw into the picture, right? So you can make the argument, okay, Dr. Mahaltra, you're saying there's no consistent relationship, there may be a benefit, why not just lower your LDL? Okay, so 2016.

And the reason we did this, me and a number of international scientists, we decided to do a systematic review of observational data looking at people over 60. Was there a relationship with LDL cholesterol and heart disease? And the reason we did this, by the way, is that another thing that was interesting from framing, which wasn't well publicized, is that when, after people hit 50 years old,

as their cholesterol dropped, their mortality increased. So we thought, okay, is there something, you know, because for it to be a risk factor for heart disease, it should be consistent really across all age groups in both sexes, right? For mortality. For mortality, yeah. But even for heart disease as well, right? That's a good point. So we looked at, was there, first of all, any association, if you're over 60, with LDL cholesterol and heart disease, right? We found none.

Okay, interesting. But what was surprising was there was an inverse association with LDL cholesterol and all cause mortality. In other words, statistically, if you're over 60, the higher LDL, the less likely you are to die. So what's the reasoning for that well? Something that's been forgotten or missed or not discussed. Cholesterol has a very vital role in many functions in the body, including brain, the brain, hormone production, but also the immune system.

And it's likely that that's where the protective benefit comes because older people are more vulnerable to dying from infections. And we also know there is an association, a little user's word, an association, right? Can't say it's definitely causal, between low cholesterol and cancer. Again, it's probably related to the immune system. Yeah, I mean, I think, which is very interesting. The common state of those, I'll just push back a little bit is it's observational data and data.

like from the Hawaii study show that, you know, you were older and you had higher cholesterol, you know, you're more likely to live longer than if your cholesterol is lower. But it may be because the people who had low cholesterol or malnourished have cancer and other reasons. So let me push back on that. So we counted for that. And we found actually, you know, when you, when you account like time lag, you go back five or 10 years. No, it's not. It's not. That does happen. But it, no, it's independently. It does seem to be an issue. Okay. So you sort of look at all the data and you came up as very kind of

contrary opinion, which is that LDL isn't all it's cracked up to me, that statins work a little, but not for the reasons we think, maybe lower inflammation, and they may have other properties that may be beneficial. We don't even know what called this pleotropic effects. They, for example, they induce nitric oxide synthase, which dilute your blood vessels and reduce inflammation and helps your lining of your blood vessels, all that's protective.

And so it may be a stabilizes plaque and may help in those ways, but it may not be the LDL lowering effect. In fact, Paul Richter from Harvard, I remember he published a trial, I think it was the Jupiter trial where they showed that if you had a high LDL,

but didn't have any inflammation, you didn't have that significant a risk of having heart disease. But if you had a high level of inflammation, high LDL, you had a much higher risk. So it was the inflammation that was really driving the heart disease. And that was really the seminal paper was in the New England Journal of Medicine. I remember 20 years ago, I remember reading it by Paul Richard and his crew that really laid out how heart disease is not a plumbing problem. It's an immune problem. 100%. It's a chronic inflammatory process, exacerbated by metabolic risk factors or insulin resistance. And I wrote a metabolic risk factors by that you mean.

Probably your blood, sugar, and insulin. It's pre-diving, 100%. And actually, we published an editorial with two cardiologists. I didn't British own sports medicine in 2017, which was a very long title, but it got a lot of publicity and more than a million downloads, which was saturated fat does not call it the arteries.

Coronary archery disease is a chronic inflammatory condition, which can be effectively managed with lifestyle changes. That was the title of this thing. But it's all there. It's free access. People look it up and read it. But we talked that we've overdone the thing. And it wasn't just Dr. Mahatryp, his opinion being controversial. The two my two authors were both editors of medical journals and cardiologists, lead to Redberg, editor of John Mitchell, the medicine and Pascal Maya, editor of BMJ Open Art. So why is this not getting more play? Why is still the dogma and the orthodoxy that

If you have a high LDL, you take a stat.

Do you want my honest answer Mark? Yeah. I mean, I know doctors are usually very good-hearted, very smart, well-intentioned, don't want to hurt their patients, try to do what's in the best interest of their patients and follow the science. So why are they not hearing about this? Okay. So let's go to the root cause of the problem, even in society today. What's the big issue in health? We have commercial distortions of the scientific evidence.

who's behind that and who has more power and control over medical education, medical training, the media than ever before, big corporations. In this case, big pharma. And the level of this control and power mark has got to a level where it can be very easily and rationally, not in an inflammatory way or overplaying it as being tyrannical.

What also happens with these big corporations in the way they exert their power is that they want to avoid conflict, right? They want to avoid the truth coming out. So there's a debate and discussion because ultimately people

Like myself, like you, who are obsessed with the truth, who want to get it out to help patients, when we speak and act from a place of integrity and truth, it has a very powerful resonance with people. And it can very quickly destroy all these other dogmas that people have created because of that power that the truth has. They want that conflict to remain latent, to remain hidden.

So that, you know, Noam Chomsky says the general public doesn't know what's happening and they don't even know that they don't know. That's right. Right. So a lot of these doctors and I agree are well-intentioned, but they're living, you know, in many ways they're climbing up the wrong wall to success when it comes to helping patients because it's a drug companies that are really calling the shots. So we are under a situation of tyranny and the reason I call it tyrannical

is because there are doctors that know this, Mark, there are a few doctors that kind of know this, but then they're less, they're afraid to speak out. And only a minority of the doctors that know what's going on will then speak out.

And it's hard. I mean, listen, you know, I practice medicine. I've seen patients. You're busy. Like I literally had to lock myself on a room, you know, download every paper on this, read it carefully myself, synthesize it all, try to make sense of it. And it's still confusing. And I wrote a whole book about it. And it's like, you know, I'll call you back at then. And I think it's still hard. So the average doctor doesn't have time to kind of do that. They kind of take it face value, what they get taught in their training.

and they try to look at the evidence the best they can, but also they're looking at sort of biased evidence. It is publically. Absolutely. And then, of course, there's a psychological side of it as well, because as human beings, you know, they say changing one's mind is one of the most, you know, emotionally traumatic things that human beings can go through, right? And that's where you need humility, right? John Kenneth Calbraith, the Canadian American economist said, face with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there's no reason to do so. Almost everybody gets busy on the proof.

Yeah. So for the medical profession, we need to have also more humility. I mean, one of the interesting, like, there's a great, there's a great YouTube channel called After School, which I watch a few times it's brilliant. It goes through like ancient wisdom and philosophy and psychology. And it says, one of their titles, you should look this up, Mark, you love it. Why do intelligent people believe stupid things?

And well, because our intelligence evolved not for seeking objective truth but more about belonging to a tribe, you know, for personal gain, whatever else. So what do we need to break out of that? There are two characteristics in the human being that are most important for you to think outside the box and be willing to change your mind and not being afraid of it. One is humility and the other one is curiosity. It also becomes down to character.

And we've got a system over the years that has become more and more corporatized, right? You have in America, sadly, you know, and I consider this my honestly, I'm, you know, I consider America my second home. So I have a lot of love for America and the American people because I've relatives here and I've been here a lot. But you have now the highest healthcare expenditure in the developed world over $4 trillion with the worst health outcomes.

Oops. So what's happened is that because of all of this situation around corporate capture, the counter, of course, from a philosophical point of view is that living a life in darkness

has no meaning. Yeah. And we need to get people out of this dog and still understand the root of the problem. And then we can then start. And you have to think about, you have to take time to think and learn. I mean, John Kennedy said, we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. And I think it's hard to kind of sort through it all. I mean, I found it very hard. You know, I just sort of reflect back on some of the data that I uncovered as I was researching this.

And it was just one very large study showing that it was I think 231,000 people in 541 hospitals that had had a heart attack.

And it looked at over a six-year period, and they looked at cholesterol lipid levels for everybody. They found that 75% of people who had a heart attack had, quote, a normal LDL under 130, which is what's considered normal. 50% had optimal levels under 100. 17% had

Super optimal levels under 70, but what they did that was really interesting and again it confirms this whole metabolic hypothesis of heart disease that it's really related to mostly insulin resistance that that those with low HDL and high triglycerides.

which goes along with small dense cholesterol particles, or much at a higher risk of having a heart attack. And so, in fact, the average HDL in that group was 39, which should be ideally over 50. And the average triglycerides was 160, should be probably under 100, ideally under 70. And it didn't really seem that LVL was really the driver.

The triglyceride to HDL ratio, it was the triglycerides in the HDL. And it was what we generally call an atherogenic lipid profile, which is not just about the total number of cholesterol or the LDL number. It's about the quality of your cholesterol, which is the size and number of the particles and the smaller dense particles.

are the ones that are more putting at risk. And those are the ones that are caused by sugar and starch, not fat. That actually improves the size of your lipid particles. Yeah. No, fascinating. And it makes sense. But also, interestingly, something else that I came across in the last few years, which you'll find fascinating, Mark. And I don't know if you know this. David Diamond, who's a cholesterol researcher, published a paper.

I can't remember which journal it was in very recently and they looked at the primary prevention randomized control trials done by obviously by the drug companies and secretary prevention trials and subgroup analysis found. So these are people who start into either high risk of heart attack or had a heart attack in the patients in the trials that had normal triglycerides and HDL, no benefit at all from statins.

Think about that. So if you're trying, let's try as your nature, we're good. Even people who've had a heart attack, there was no benefit from this diet at all, which fits with what you just said. And it's kind of interesting, because you get the benefit in some ways of inflammation protection, but you also get increased insulin resistance. You do. And of course, we haven't even talked about side effects, and that's another issue, right? So if you look to try and explain why there's no reduction in cardiovascular mortality, even if we accept the four-day increase over five years in high-risk patients,

One of my explanations is this, in the real world, at least 50% of patients prescribe statins, even in high risk groups, will stop taking it within a couple of years. And when you do surveys, most of them say they felt they got side effects, muscle fatigue, muscle pain, brain fog, erectile dysfunction, and how prevalent.

Well, how prevalent is that? And you look at the date and it's mixed, but anything from, in my experience, anything from 20 to 50% of patients, at some point, I've had patients who took stands for 20 years and then get side effects for 20 years and then they got side effects and it gets better when you stop the stand. So they're very prevalent. I wouldn't say they were serious or life threatening, but the question I ask the patient always,

does this interfere with your quality of life, right? And it's very simple. You know that as a person. It's a very subjective answer. Yes or no. If it does, we need to do something about it because, listen, we're all going to die at some point. What we want to live our lives in the best health we can for as long as possible, right? That's the most in many ways that's probably more important than longevity, right? It's having good quality of life. So that is something that I address with patients as well. So you're going to sort of

see a man in the argument and to argue the other side. How would you argue against yourself for this? Because, you know, I've had these conversations with cardiologists, with experts, and they're like, listen, the data is just so strong about stands. And there's no question that they lower risk. And there's no question there benefit. And yes, there are side effects that can cause mitochondrial injury, can cause muscle pain, it can cause

in some resistance, but the trade-off is worth the risk. And the data is so prevalent and so strong and so clear that we should all be taking sense. I think the arguments to be made on interpretations of the evidence, trust in the evidence, and different bits of evidence.

So, all I can say, Mark, for me is that we all have our biases. And you could argue that I have a bias because I have an obsession with lifestyle and I'm a foodie and I started cooking when I was 16. I was taught by my dad and, you know, one of the reasons I got annoyed or pissed off in the hospital and gotten this whole, my campaigning started about hospital and just, you know, why are we giving junk food to patients? Because I also, as a doctor, was like, frustrated. I can't get any healthy food anywhere. That could be my bias, fine. But, and I accept that.

One of the things I do myself, and I think the reason I've been through a process where I've had to change my mind several times on saturated fat and sugar, on low-fat diets, on statin prescriptions, on cholesterol, on something more recent and more controversial, which we're not talking about, is you have to have an element of humidity. But when I do that, my analysis myself, I try and counter my own arguments and then try and find a way of a nuance. I can't really see a strong counter-argument. And I'm not saying this from a place of hubris.

Because, okay, let me give you one argument. So if, and this is a hypothetical.

If statins didn't have side effects, or they were almost non-existent, I could actually say put them in the water supply. Because even if there is a concept in medicine, you've got to treat them any to benefit a few. So let's just say that they save lives in, I don't know, on average, say 1 in 300 people are going to live longer because statins, right? It's a public health. Yeah, for public health. So you're going to put in the water supply.

You know, give to three billion people. We're going to have, you know, you're going to save one in 300 of those three billion, you know, whatever that is. It's a lot of people. It's a lot of people. It's tens of millions of people, at least, not hundreds of millions. So you could make that case, but that isn't true, though. That's just simply not true. Yeah. There were no side of it. So, so, so I am very for, you know, and that, and that is an argument that has been put forward. And there's marginal benefit.

Yeah, but I'm saying that it's a public health intervention that doesn't have any downside.

But if it doesn't have any downside, that's fine. And go for it. Put it in the water supply. But unfortunately, it does. And that simply does not true. So therefore, you then have to then talk about, you know, and some of the doctors come from a mindset mark where they don't even, they, and this is a different school of thought, but I don't agree with it. It's not about agreement. I mean, okay, maybe say it's my opinion, is that they think that there should be an old school paternalistic practice of medicine. Doctor knows best, patient do what I say. That's right.

I'm not working so good anymore. I'm about shared decision-making. I'm about explaining patience in a way that empowers them that it's a more equal relationship. And that's fine. Maybe it's a philosophical disagreement, but that's the stance I'm going to take and I'm prepared to die on that hill. I think that's right.

We have to sort of look at this at a high level. Like any tool, there is a use for statins. There's a use for the PCS can inhibitors. There's a use for the new CTP drugs that are coming out. There are people who benefit. And I don't think it's heterogeneous. And I think we have to sort of, and I've noticed this is sort of the doctors been doing this for 40 years. Not everybody's the same. Saturated fat is fine for most people, but not for some people, right?

Sugar can be tolerated more by some people, but not by others. I just came back from Utah and was in the Native American reservation, the Navajo reservation. It was just staggering to see the amount of obesity. I mean, you look at, you know, 150 years ago, there wasn't a single overweight Native American, period. And why? It's because the metabolic, genetically, they're different.

So I think, you know, I'd like to sort of explore who might benefit from these drugs, because there's a class of people, we refer to them as lean mass type of responders, where people like you and I, maybe who are athletic, who are fit, who may actually have an adverse response to increased saturated fat diet, or who might have a family history

of lipid disorders and actually have some genetic issues, which I do in my family. So, how do you sort of handle those cases? Yeah, so I deal with those actually quite regularly. So, interestingly about the saturated fat, I think you're right, Mark. There are definitely a subgroup of people who have more, who have very high saturated fat intake. Actually, it does affect their inter-resistance or their triglycerides go up. And in fact, there was a paper done by

I think his name is Ronald Kraft if I'm not wrong. Ron Krauss. Ron Krauss, sorry Krauss, you're right. And he showed that there was an abnormal effect on lipids if you're saturated fat consumption in this obviously certain groups of people was more than 18% of your total calories. It's still very, very high. But again, you're absolutely right. That might happen with a certain subgroup of people. I've seen, for example, a patient on a carnivore diet.

who actually had something like that. And when they reduce their saturated fat intake, their lipid profile got better. That's all they changed. So I agree with you. There are going to be a subset of people. What do you do with FH, the people with the familiar hypo lipid image? So let's just lay it out for people, right? And I think there's more than just that one subtype. There's many different types of genetic lipid disorders that I think we're just starting to figure out. There are, but you talk about APOB and lipoprotein little A, which are all these other extra markers of risk that are added in.

Basic teaching in medical school, certainly why I teach medical students and junior doctors, right? Don't organize a test unless it's going to change your management plan, right? Because what's the point? So you create an answer anxiety, for example, for some people. Now I get it, people may want to know and if that's what they want to know, that's fine. But you know, and we'll come on to management as well.

If you're not going to add in a stat in or whatever else, and okay, maybe those people need to be more extreme in the lifestyle. Maybe that's a reason to do it, saying you need to be like, instead of meditating for 30 minutes a day, I want you to meditate for an hour, right? No, fine. I mean, maybe that's the best we're going to offer them, right? Yeah, yeah. To keep the risk down. So we've got to just be a little bit careful about how we

about ordering these tests and then, but thinking a little bit more about, okay, is it going to change anything? And am I just going to give this patient unnecessary extra anxiety? And I'm, listen, I'm a doctor. Doctors are the worst patients. I probably have a party because my dad was the same. I have moments of being a hypochondriac.

And I know on the receiving end like, you know, tests that are done that didn't need to be done. And I'm like, okay, what does this mean? And you're going down a rabbit hole. So you've got to think about that as well, right? In terms of if you haven't got a clear solution, then then don't order the test. I'm not saying don't do the test, but I just want us to think about that a little bit.

I'm not sure I have the same view because I think that the more data you have, the better you can make sense of what's going on. And then I think there's a movement towards this deep phenomics. I've had Jeremy Nicholson in my podcast, Lee, where I hunted my podcast, and they're about more data and dense dynamic data clouds of information from your biomarkers, your metabolism, your microbiome, your genome.

your transcriptome, that all teach you about subtle changes that may not represent a disease today, or they don't have a drug treatment today, but that if you left untended would ultimately lead to a disease. But it may not. Or may not.

But I'd rather know if my insulin is going up over 10 way before I get diabetes. No, I agree. So 100%. I agree. There are definitely certain. Yeah. So I think there's a nuance there again. There are certain things where we know, OK, there's a very likely benefit here of you getting your insulin down, et cetera. I think some of the other biomarkers are still in a certain area. But again, Mark, you said that, OK, you're a guy.

And this is if I was having a conversation with you and use your preference of values, you want the data. That's your preference of values. I want to know more and more and more. And that's fine, Mark. I'm going to help you and let's do all these tests for you. Somebody else comes in, you know, and they're suddenly they come back. And the thing is, I see this. This is what happens with the whole cholesterol hypothesis, right? I've got patients coming to me for a second opinion as a cardiologist. I do, you know, international consults and virtual and whatever else all around the world.

And I talked to him and I just said, tell me what's been going on. And they've been living in absolute fear of death for months. And some of them break down in tears when I just say to them, listen, I've just done a cardiovascular risk here. Your LDL cholesterol is so-called high, but it's not an issue. And you're fine. And your risk is only 2%. And you can just see a sigh of relief and say, Dr. Thank God, I've been going on thinking that I'm

then that's again misuse, not good use of maybe numbers or statistics. I mean, going on thinking that I've got in the next five years as an 80% chance I'm going to die of a heart attack. I'm like, no, it's 2% in 10 years, right? So there's also that as well. So I do think we just think a little bit carefully on it, but come back to FH. FH affects familiar hyperlipidemia, genetically very high cholesterol, okay? 50% of men and 70% of women, right? With FH untreated,

Big numbers will not develop premature heart disease, but 30% of women well and 50% which is a lot will get me even before maybe 50 or 60 will get heart disease. So why did it actually review paper with a number of international scientists as well? And we published it in BMJ, evidence based medicine. And we thought, okay.

That's interesting. 50% of men with FH, familiar with the Bidemia, very high LDL, don't get heart disease and 50% do. Is there anything we can find that's different between them, that highlights the subgroup? Like, what is the difference between them? First thing, was it the LDL? Is the LDL higher in those ones that get heart disease versus the ones that don't?

No difference at all. Ah, that's interesting. It can't be the LDL then. What is it? Well, we found, and this is a mark you're going to like this, one of the, um, like a proton little a was higher than the one that dropped the heart disease. So F eight, you should look at, I like it. Definitely. That gives them a high risk. But what's most promising and interesting is when you correct for insulin resistance,

Yeah, right. Their level of risk of heart disease for FH patients almost comes back to someone who's completely healthy. It's only slightly higher. So what were the two markers? Normal waist circumference and low insulin. Yeah. Now how do you get there? Diet, right? Cutting out the sugar, processed foods, refined carbs. That's right. And it rapidly. So this is amazing. So I can, so what I do with those patients is I go through that with them. Now, if I think they're actually the high lower proportion of LA,

And they're probably at high risk. I say, listen, the statin benefit is there. It's small, but why don't we do a halfway house? High dose statins are more, I think, you decide effects. Let's do a low dose statin. Let's do the lifestyle. The lifestyle is most important for you. And I go really hard on that with them, including the diet, the exercise, and actually the one that I think isn't discussed enough. And, you know, it comes out in my documentary film, which is called First Do No Farm, P-H-A-R-M, not F-A-R-M. All right. How do you find that?

It's released online at the moment, and you can download it for $10, and the website is nofarmfilm.com. And the reviews have been pretty extraordinary. No farm. No farmfilm.com. P-H-A-R-M. P-H-A-R-M. OK. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Nofarmfilm.com. We screened it in the Leicester Square Odeon in London, which is the most famous cinema in the world. 790 people came. It was invite-only books or brities.

really good feedback, screen it to doctors, integrative mental health conference in Washington DC, really amazing feedback there. And so far, we're getting reviews that are giving it sort of 9.7 out of 10, which is great. I'm proud of that. But most importantly, Mark, it is, in my view, this film uncovers

literally how we have got this pandemic of chronic disease, both with big pharma and big food, capturing medical knowledge, we've got very credible experts, formatting the BMJ. We go into some dark stuff in there, just how many people have been killed by research fraud, but we also give people hope with the lifestyle stuff. And one of the most interesting things I discovered in the film or in my own research is that, for me, pushing the boundaries on heart disease is also the next phase is, can you reverse the blockages of coronary artery disease?

And the only, there's not a lot of research out there. We know, of course, Dean Ornish did his trial many years ago, but the reversal was very, very, you know, listen, at least very least it's stabilized corollary disease, but it was like one or two percent in terms of blockages. Cardiose in India for 20 years has been reversing heart disease to the level where, you know, one of his papers that he published showed a 20% reduction within two to two years of the narrowly artery. 70% became 50, 50 became 30.

So he did it through this healthy lifestyle program. It was a, there were devout Hindus, hundreds of patients, right? High fiber vegetarian diet, because they were devout Hindus, fine. Two 30 minute brisk walks a day. Okay. And then something called Raja yoga meditation.

And when he did a deep dive analysis into what caused a reversal, the only independent factor for reversal of heart disease was 40 minutes of raw yoga meditation a day. So I went to India and I thought, is this true? Is this real? Let me look at the angigrams on myself. I trained in this stuff. I know this stuff inside out.

It was unbelievable what I was seeing. I've seen those patients, I've seen the angiogram reports. There was clear reversal. In some patients, there was a complete 100% occlusion that then opened up, right? So I think it's because you've turned down the chronic inflammation by getting on top of the stress, but it wasn't just about breathwork and meditation. This comes into something that we are dealing with right now in society, which is a crisis of morality.

Okay. It was a spiritual transformation. These people changed their mindset. They became less materialistic. They became more spiritual. They thought how to reduce their anger. They were, you know, he got them into the ashram with their wives, for example, the men and vice versa to talk about why were they getting more angry? Like, how is your relationship? What's going on with your work? It was a real spiritual transformation that reduced probably the stress. And I think that probably has a scientific basis because we know chronic stress increases chronic low grade information.

We've talked about heart disease being a chronic inflammatory process. You turn down the inflammation and the body can heal. The body has a capacity to heal itself. So kind of wrapping up, you know, kind of what I'm hearing is it stands have a role, but they're not all the correct up to be. Yeah.

Just know, just know where they write for you. Are you being told the absolute benefit is, and then what do you think? Like, you know, do you want to take it or not? And that you have critiques of the way the research was done and how the studies sort of sort and sit through the statistics to show the benefit. Yeah. How it's reported is relative risk versus absolute risk. If you get a risk reduction from 3%, 2%, that's a 30% risk reduction. Sounds great, but it's really a 3% to 2%, right? It's 1%, yeah. 1%. And, you know,

There are flaws in the ways in which a lot of these studies are done.

some of the big data that you kind of critique. Can you sort of unpack that a little bit, because I think we need to dive deep in enough into that. I want you to understand, this is not just sort of a heretical opinion, but this is what you're looking at, the way these studies were designed, the way they were done, what the data actually show. So when they do the randomized trials, where you're trying to compare two groups, which are the same, and you're trying to get show a benefit of an intervention, what's reported in the results often underestimates massively under reports of side effects, because what the drug companies do, control

how the trials are designed and how they're conducted. Think about that. They're only interested in profit, not looking after you. So they will try and design the trials to maximize ultimately the sales of the drugs. They have what we call a pre-randomization running phase, where they get these volunteers who are interested in being in the trial. And for six weeks, for example, one of the trials is a heart protection study. A third of the patients, thousands of patients were removed before the trial began.

because of so-called non-compliance, in other words, they got side effects. So imagine they take the people out with side effects at the beginning, and then they only start the trial once they've taken the people out with side effects to get them early on, and then report. And then that's probably one of the reasons they've massively underreported the side effects. I'm sorry, Mark.

It's fraud. I'm sorry. It's fraud and let me be definitive about how I describe that. What's the definition of fraud? Deliberate deception or to make money. I'm sorry. That's the way I interpret it. Yeah, this is fraud. Yeah. Right. The system is fraudulent. Some of the independent studies also show benefit. Yeah.

Well, the independent studies that have been done have shown very little benefit, but I agree that I think there is a small benefit. But the question then is you also look at the side effects issue. And the independent studies have never been able to get hold of the raw data as well on statins, a totality of evidence around statins. The raw data has never been independently evaluated for side effects. So we still don't know the true side effects. But we know is what's published, not what's actually been tracked because pharmaceutical companies don't have to release that data and not hold it.

They hold it. And then you think the regulators are going to be able to ask for it and look for it. They rarely do that. Well, they have it, but they don't publish it, which is interesting to me. The FDA does this because if you probably dig far enough and deep enough, you can find it online or through the FDA databases. But it's not in the literature because they're not published. But the pharmaceutical company has to report all that data before it goes approved. They can't cherry pick what they provide the FDA.

But it's not published. And the FDA doesn't do a good job of saying, hey, yeah, this is what they publish. But you know, all this other stuff shows that it really didn't work out. Well, what they often give the FDA mark is curated information from 10 to thousands of pages of clinical study reports on patients in the trial. So the FDA normally doesn't go and then reanalyze it. They just trust what the drug industry, the summary results.

And then the other issue is, of course, the financial conflicts of interest. 65% of the funding of the FDA in the U.S. comes from big pharma. 86% of the funding in the U.K. of the M.H.R.A. comes from big pharma. This is a problem. They don't want to bite the hand that feeds him. So there's a huge claim in why it seemed that the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association still recommends statins for people with high LDL for primary prevention, meaning if you've never had a heart attack, which is 75% of the prescriptions,

You know, is it because they're captured too? I think it's a combination of factors, but yes, I think at the root of it is thought science, dogma, and money. And then even if people know there's an issue, they're afraid to speak out because they're worried about their jobs. But if we're all doing this collectively, it's going to be a complete part of my language, a shit show for healthcare. And that's why we are where we are in America right now.

So it's time to, you know, I think, I love this phrase. I know this is not a political podcast and it shouldn't be, but you know, a good friend of mine and good friend of yours is Robert Kennedy Jr. And I love the fact that he's come out with this, make America healthy again. I think we should all get behind that. Yeah, it's been caught that unfortunately. And you can't campaign, but well,

No, but you can't make America healthy again until you remove commercial distortions of the scientific evidence. And that, unless that is addressed head on, we're not going anywhere. Okay, I want to say again, commercial distortions of the scientific evidence. Unless you correct that, you won't fix health. There's actually a paper. I'm going to link to it in the show notes called the Commercial Determinants of Health, talking about the data on how multinational corporations like pharma, food and ag companies, subvert public health and privatized profits. And it's a WHO report that's

It's sort of partly published, but also coming out in a much, much bigger report. And it's going to be interesting when that hits, because we talk about the social determinants of health, but this is really how the industry is driving it. And just the American Heart Association alone receives $192 million a year from food and pharma companies.

Right. Crazy. So mind blowing. It's mind blowing. How can we trust that are being independent with their information? Come on. I mean, it's people need to just, you know, wake up, wake up. And you're not telling everybody who's on a stand to stop it. You're not telling them anybody. Let's get better informed. Get better informed. Yeah.

read the data. I wrote an article years ago called Fat, What I Got Wrong, What I Got Right, which goes through a lot of this data. Yeah, it was published about eight years ago. But still, I think there's more and more data coming out all the time. And I think they can check your books. Where do they learn more about your work and what you're doing? Yeah, so I understand.

Yeah, of course. Dig in a little bit. Just very quickly on that. I love the fact you've brought up commercial determinants of health. There's a definition in public health, because I talk about this as well. So, just so people can assemble, that means strategies and approaches adopted by the private sector to promote products and choices that are detrimental to health.

That's the definition of commercial attempts. I have evolved that. And in fact, reference in the Lancet, because Richard Horton, the editor, came to one of my lectures. And I've said that the way that drug companies, big corporations conduct business, not individuals within it. I'm not putting individuals who work for them. As legal entities, the way they conduct their business actually fulfills the criteria for psychopath.

No, but this comes from Robert. Not immoral, right? Yeah, forensic psychologist, Robert Hare, behind the original DSM criteria of psychopathy, defined them in the book corporation. He said, so what does that mean? Callison concerned for the safety of others in capacity to experience guilt, repeated lying and conning others for profit. So there's another one to throw in there. Maybe next time. Psychopathic determinants of health is my new term.

So this is what the root of the problem, right? And of course downstream effects, we know what's going on. So yeah, people can, I've got a website.proseem.com. I think to be honest, if they want to get an overview of this, it's a one hour, 50 minutes. It's an educational tool. Please go and download First Do No Farm from nofarmfilm.com.

And if you want to read about statins in particular, but we covered this in the film a little bit, the whole drama of statins, which is quite interesting. My third book is called the statin free life. And I think that really breaks down all the cholesterol stuff and the statin stuff and the lifestyle stuff as well. Yeah. So in summer, you're not anti science or anti drug or anti pharma, you're just for pro health, real health, real health.

I'm pro ethical evidence-based medical practice. There you go. So it's really been an amazing conversation. I could talk to you for hours, unfortunately, we have stuff to do. And I encourage people to dig deep into the scientific work you published, which is where I first came across your work with the British Medical Journal or BMJ as they call it now. And your books, your films, you're kind of a tireless advocate for

a contrary opinion that is really advocating for a better approach to understanding nutrition, health, and making informed choices as opposed to just swallowing, hook, lung, and sinker, the dogma that we're all taught in this society, which is that the only path to success in medicine is through pharma. And I am not in de-pharma. I prescribe drugs regularly.

However, I want to prescribe the right treatment for the problem. Yes. And because all we have in our toolkit as physicians is a prescription pad, that's all we know how to use. Yeah. Or diet and lifestyle work far better and are far more effective at achieving the same or even better results than drugs. And if there was a drug that could instantly reverse diabetes or fix insulin resistance or prevent. With those side effects. With those side effects. Yeah.

I would do it, but you know, I've never seen anything work as well as food when applied in the right dose. Yeah, the right medicine. Yeah. And for the right duration, 100%. And I think people don't understand that about food. It's not like, oh, food is medicine. It's like hippie, dippy term. Yeah.

It's actually very precise, just like you need to know the drug, you need to know the pharmacology, you need to know the dose, you need to know the frequency, you need to know the duration of a drug that you're prescribing for a particular condition, you need to know the same about food. That's how nuance and detail it is because food is full of tens of thousands of molecules that regulate every single aspect of your biology and understanding how to leverage that tool for healing is profound.

100%. And Mark, another point before we finish is that, you know, which you've just raised is that these pills for chronic disease rarely improve your quality of life. They may affect a blood marker. They may reduce your risk to some degree in the long term. But lifestyle changes come with outside effects by and large, and they improve your quality of life. Well, there are a lot of side effects. You feel better, you have more energy, you sleep better, better sex drive, less depression, you know, so all the side effects are good ones.

Well, thanks again for being on the Doctors' Pharmacy and we'll see you next time and keep up the good work, man. Thank you, Mark. Love to see you.

I'm always getting questions about my favorite books, podcasts, gadgets, supplements, recipes and lots more. And now you can have access to all of this information by signing up for my free marks picks newsletter at drheimman.com forward slash marks picks. I promise I'll only email you once a week on Fridays and I'll never share your email address or send you anything else besides my recommendations. These are the things that have helped me on my health journey. And I hope they'll help you too. Again, that's drheimman.com forward slash marks picks. Thank you again. And we'll see you next time on the doctor's pharmacy.

This podcast is separate from my clinical practice at the Eltraboma Center and my work at Cleveland Clinic and Function Health where I'm the Chief Medical Officer. This podcast represents my opinions and my guess opinions and neither myself nor the podcast endorsed the views or statements of my guess. This podcast is for educational purposes only. This podcast is not a substitute for professional care by a doctor or other qualified medical professional. This podcast is provided on the understanding that it does not constitute medical or other professional advice or services.

If you're looking for your help in your journey, seek out a qualified medical practitioner. You can come see us at the Ultra Wellness Center in Lennox, Massachusetts. Just go to ultrawellnesscenter.com. If you're looking for a functional medicine practitioner near you, you can visit ifm.org and search, find, and practice in your database.

It's important that you have someone in your corner who is trained, who's a licensed healthcare practitioner, and can help you make changes, especially when it comes to your health. Keeping this podcast free is part of my mission to bring practical ways of improving health to the general public. And keeping with that theme, I'd like to express gratitude to the sponsors that made today's podcast possible.