Dr. Aseem Malhotra

So 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 cardiology, major cardiology journals, a summary of Framingham, specifically 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 coronary artery disease.

LDL.

LDL.

Now, why is that?

When you correct for triglycerides and HDL,

which by the way is a more important predictor of 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 for heart disease, and I believe with everything I know now that to be the case, okay, 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 cholesterol, whether it's PCK9 inhibitors, whether it's statins, whatever.

Is there a clear correlation?

Is this dogma true that the lower, the better?