The founder of Low Carb Skipton has delivered a powerful message on carbohydrates, cholesterol and a range of other issues on one of Ireland’s biggest radio stations.

Dr Verner Wheelock was the headline guest on the Republic’s LM/FM Late Lunch show hosted by Gerry Kelly.

He, along with organic gardening expert Nicky Kyle, faced a series of questions on a wide range of health-related issues.

Former food science professor Dr Wheelock pulled no punches during the interview, laying the blame for the Type 2 diabetes epidemic squarely on the “disastrous” pro-carbohydrate advice doled out by the majority of medical professionals.

He told the host that Type 2 diabetics who cut their carbs significantly and replace them with a diet which includes healthy fats, can achieve immediate positive results, something that had been proven across the world but also closer to home within the Low Carb Skipton group.

He was backed up by organic food expert Nicky Kyle who said people who ditched sugar-laden foods such as cakes and biscuits saw energy benefits immediately.

Dr Wheelock also weighed in on sugar. “It’s an addiction and should be treated in the same way as a drug.”

Asked his opinion on statins, Dr Wheelock pointed to a Norway study which he said proved that the positive effects of the drug were neglible and he described the mainstream advice on cholesterol as “rubbish”.

In the interview, which sparked an avalanche of questions from listeners, he said that those wanting to lose weight should also look primarily at slashing their sugar and carbohydrate intake.

Listen to the interview in full: https://www.lmfm.ie/on-air/shows/late-lunch/late-lunch-podcasts-(1)/healthy-eating-the-big-mistake/?fbclid=IwAR3izDNibeFexLs2Y4KwcPSSrTVoiYXnPDFtbHr-wO0ivNox9rGqnssoDFs#.XG7ajv3CBbk.facebook

The Mail on Sunday has just launched a hard hitting campaign defending the effectiveness of statins and condemning the growing number of experts who believe nearly all of the pro statin assertions are bogus. Here Low Carb Skipton founder and former food science professor Verner Wheelock weighs in to dismantle some of the common arguments put forward by the statin supporters, including most NHS doctors.

Cholesterol: Cause for Concern?

“Who on earth can I believe?” is a question I hear repeatedly from individuals about various medical treatments that are being recommended.

An excellent example is the use of the blood cholesterol level (TC) as an indicator of the risk of developing heart disease. A value that is “high” is regarded as very bad news. The official NHS stance is that anyone with high cholesterol should take steps to reduce it. These include changes to the diet and very often, a prescription to take statins regularly.

So, how critical is the cholesterol? There is only one way to find out. It is necessary to monitor the cholesterol and see what happens to those with the different levels. In my opinion, the only valid characteristic to measure is the mortality. It is not much comfort to learn that any reduction in heart disease deaths is accompanied by an increase in deaths from other causes such as cancer.

A major study in Norway started off with 52,087 men and women aged 20-74 years who were followed for a 10-year period (1). TC levels were measured and details of any deaths which occurred were recorded. The results are shown in Tables 1 and 2.

The critical aspect of the results is for those in their 60s and 70s because this is when most deaths occur.

Surprise, surprise, we find that the HIGHEST deaths rates are in those with TC levels < 5.0 mmol/L. It is especially marked in women. The astonishing fact is that these low values are regarded as optimum by the medical establishment. In the light of this knowledge, it simply beggars belief that anyone would wish to lower their TC to these levels. For women, the higher the TC, the lower the death rate.

 

The authors commented as follows:

‘’If our findings are generalizable, clinical and public health recommendations regarding the ‘dangers’ of cholesterol should be revised. This is especially true for women, for whom moderately elevated cholesterol (by current standards) may prove to be not only harmless but beneficial.’’

They went on to conclude:

‘’Our results contradict the guidelines’ well-established demarcation line (5 mmol /L) between ‘good’ and ‘too high’ levels of cholesterol. They also contradict the popularized idea of a positive, linear relationship between cholesterol and fatal disease. Guideline-based advice regarding CVD prevention may thus be outdated and misleading, particularly regarding many women who have cholesterol levels in the range of 5–7 mmol/L and are currently encouraged to take better care of their health’’.

This is not an isolated study. Confirmation has been provided by similar investigations in Japan, Hawaii, Finland and Holland (2).

This information is absolutely cast iron and it follows that the primary justification for the use of stains is a false prospectus. This is because there is no evidence that lowering TC will reduce the risk of developing heart disease.

Possible benefits of statins
Nevertheless, there remains the possibility that statins may be effective, irrespective of any impact on TC. We must accept that this can happen. However, the key questions are:

“How big is the effect?”

“How many people benefit?”

We are told that lives are saved but what this really means is that death has been delayed. A paper published a few years ago concluded that, on average, death was postponed by 3 to 4 days if a person took a statin for 5 years (3).

With respect to the number who would benefit, buried in the recent report from Oxford University that appeared in The Lancet, were data which meant that 1040 people would have take a statin for one year in order that one person would benefit (4). Data from other sources indicate that if those who are already suffering from heart disease take statins for 5 years, about one in 100 will benefit. Either way, the chances of deriving any worthwhile benefit from statins are infinitesimal.

Side effects
This is crucial. With most drugs and treatments, any expected benefit has to be balanced against the chances that there will be adverse side effects or that something will go badly wrong. You pay your money and you take your choice.

We need look no further than the patient information leaflet on the commonly used statin, Lipitor. There is a one in 10 chance of:

  • inflammation of the nasal passages
  • pain in the throat
  • nose bleed
  • headache
  • nausea
  • constipation
  • wind
  • indigestion
  • diarrhoea
  • joint pain
  • muscle pain
  • back pain (5).

In addition, there individual case histories of more serious damage to health. These can include memory loss (6) and major degenerative diseases (7).

The reliability of trials to test drugs
The drug Vioxx caused at least 55,000 deaths (possibly 500,000). As a result, the regulations for drug trials were tightened up considerably in 2005/6. Since then NO trials on statins have demonstrated effectiveness (8). Hence, there must be serious doubts about the quality and reliability of information used for the regulatory approval of statins.

Conclusion
Once all the hype is stripped out and we try to answer basic questions, it soon becomes clear that the benefits are very much less than we are led to believe by the high priests of the medical profession. It may come as a surprise to most that the possibility that any individual will benefit is so small. Even if one in 100 benefit, it is still possible to claim that 10,000 lives will be saved (ie death delayed) but to achieve that success, it would be necessary for one million people to be on statins. When set against the risks of very nasty side effects, it is difficult to see why anyone would agree to have the drug. Perhaps the clinching reason for avoiding statins is that they depress the vital metabolite CoQ10, which is an essential step in the synthesis of Vitamin D and several hormones. In other word it disrupts the normal functioning of the body. It would actually be a very great surprise if statins did not cause all these adverse side effects.

References

 

One of the leading figures in the campaign to promote low carb eating has praised Low Carb Skipton as a shining example of what can be achieved at the grassroots.

Dr David Unwin, a Southport GP, gained international recognition after achieving outstanding results at his practice with his low carb approach to diabetes, obesity and other serious conditions.

Dr Unwin is a former NHS Innovator of the Year and regularly appears on TV and in the national press.

He recently joined diners at a special low carb lunch at Skipton’s Rendezvous Hotel organised by the hotel in conjunction with Low Carb Skipton founder Verner Wheelock.

Dr Unwin praised the work of Low Carb Skipton, which has helped a number of people across North and West Yorkshire to lower their blood glucose levels.

He said: “ We are seeing a grassroots revolution. The internet is democratising medicine for the first time and Low Carb Skipton is a wonderful example of that.”

Low Carb Skipton was showing the way and he said it was inspiring to see that people were educating themselves about the realities surrounding subjects like carbohydrates and diabetes.

Dr Unwin’s practice has seen around one third of the 175 pre and Type 2 diabetics, who are following his low carb programme, reach drug free remission. His drug-free strategy is also saving his practice £57,000 a year.

His low carb message is also going out to other medical professionals around the country but he expressed frustration that the majority of GPs were still not adopting his approach.

Many GPs were too overworked to develop their expertise in diabetes, he said, but he called on them to study his diabetes e-learning module if they haven’t already done so.

Dr Unwin, who also held a Q and A session with the lunch guests, said he was deeply concerned about the alarming rise in Type 2 diabetes, particularly amongst the young.

He called on people to sharply reduce their carbs (which break down into sugar) but he reserved his harshest words for the escalation in the consumption of sugary foods. “Sugar is nothing less than a poison for Type 2 diabetics,” he said.

An international network of independent researchers has severely criticised an article in The Lancet which backed the use of statins.

The article by the Cholesterol Treatment Triallists Collaboration in the February issue claimed that everyone over the age of 75 should be considered for “cholesterol-lowering” statins. The CTT said its data showed that by doing this 8,000 lives could be saved.

But THINCS, an organisation which believes research by pro-statins supporters is fundamentally flawed, challenged the CTT paper’s assertion that coronary mortality was significantly reduced amongst those on statins.

THINCS pointed out that closer analysis of the figures showed that the difference was minimal and calculated to a few days. that you would need to treat 1040 for a year to prevent one death.

Thincs also takes issue with the paper’s claim that the side effects among those on statins was negligible, pointing to other studies which showed much higher figures.

Meanwhile Dr Malcom Kendrick, an active THINCS member also took aim at the research. “Statins (in the over 75s) do not reduce mortality. They do not prevent fatal heart attacks and strokes. Whilst they reduce serious cardiac events, previously published results demonstrate they do not reduce total serious adverse events”.

Verner Wheelock, founder of Low Carb Skipton and a former food science professor, said: “There is now overwhelming evidence that the Total Cholesterol (TC) in the blood is NOT a valid risk factor for death from heart disease.In fact, the all-cause mortality for those in their sixties and seventies, is HIGHEST in people who have a low TC value. These are the individuals who comply with the official TC guidelines.

“Hence, taking statins to lower TC does not make sense. The justification for lowering cholesterol is totally bogus. Statins work by reducing the amount of CoQ10, which is essential for the production of Vitamin D and many important hormones.

“So, it is not in the least surprising that many taking statins suffer nasty side effects, including aches and pains in muscles, Type 2 Diabetes and even memory loss.”