Statins linked to 40 percent higher risk of potentially deadly infections

Throughout ancient times and the Middle Ages, physicians and apothecaries searched for a “cure all” or “panacea” that could cure all ills. Of course, in the 20th century, big pharma picked up this quest in the name of big profits.

And when cholesterol-lowering statin drugs first entered the market in 1987, mainstream medicine tried to hail them as wonder drugs that prevent everything from heart disease to Type II diabetes to dementia.

But, it turns out, instead of preventing these ailments, these drugs actually increase your risk of developing them! In fact, as I commented last month, sometimes I wonder if there’s a disease left that these drugs haven’t been linked to!

After all, the list now includes:

  • Cataracts
  • Dementia
  • Gluttony effect (whereby people abandon effective, heart-healthy diets)
  • Kidney failure
  • Muscle damage
  • Heart disease
  • Osteoporosis
  • Type II diabetes

And now, we can add yet another new, devastating side effect to the list…

Statins increase risk of potentially deadly skin infections

For this new study, researchers used data from the Australian Department of Veterans’ Affairs to analyze the relations among statin drug prescriptions, diabetes drug prescriptions, and antibiotic prescriptions for skin infections.

As expected, there was a “significant” association between statin use and Type II diabetes risk. This finding doesn’t come as a surprise, as previous studies have also found a strong link between statin use and risk of Type II diabetes.

However, there was a shocking, new finding…

Statin users also had a staggering 40 percent increase in risk for developing staphylococcus skin infections.

I’ve talked about the staph family of bacteria before. There are more than 30 types, including the deadly methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) strain. But even the common staph skin infections turn deadly if the bacteria enter your bloodstream; and they can also invade your joints, bones, lungs, or heart.

Furthermore, Lipitor® (atorvastatin) and Zocor® (simvastatin) had the strongest associations with skin infections. The risk of developing a staph infection was the highest three months after starting statin drugs, but remained high one year later.

Of course, as you may know, people with Type II diabetes already run a higher risk of developing any kind of infection. Including skin infections.

But in this study, the risk of developing a staph infection was equally “significant” among statin-users both with and without Type II diabetes! In other words, people without Type II diabetes who took statins had just as high a risk of a staph infection as people with Type II diabetes who took statins.

So, clearly, as the researchers themselves concluded, statins have a direct effect on skin infections that they said is “independent of diabetes.”

No end in sight to the carnage

Of course, despite these disastrous findings that further indict statin drugs, the researchers still insist that, “more research is needed.” Worse yet, lead researcher, Dr. Humphrey H. T. Ko, of Curtin University in Perth, Australia, said, “People taking statins should continue their medications as prescribed and discuss their concerns with their physician.”

Thankfully, some experts here in the U.S. have seen enough to call it quits on these horrible drugs. In fact, publications in the journal of the American Medical Association (AMA) and geriatric doctors began recommending that we stop prescribing statins to people older than 69.

But really—we should stop prescribing them to anyone and everyone! They’re simply not a safe or effective solution to preventing heart disease.

Instead, protect your heart with safe, effective, natural approaches. You can learn all about them in my Heart Attack Prevention and Repair Protocol. So click here to enroll today!

Source:

“A sequence symmetry analysis of the interrelationships between statins, diabetes and skin infections.” British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, November 4, 2019. doi.org/10.1111/bcp.14077


CLOSE
CLOSE