A viewer asks: “The Lancet medical journal, renowned for publishing cutting-edge, peer-reviewed research, published an article in February 2026 “Assessment of adverse effects attributed to statin therapy …” citing “Widespread confusion about statin safety”. The researchers used data from 19 large, double-blind, randomized controlled trials. The paper concludes that while statins can cause a few side effects, such as slight liver issues, changes in urine, and swelling, these are rare and not very serious. They claim other side effects people worry about were not linked to statins at all. I seem to recall Creator saying the use of statins should be discontinued, however. Has this research been manipulated?”

This research is biased from several standpoints, particularly in having an agenda in mind to prop up use of statins as a goal. We cannot be too leading in describing precise ways such manipulations are carried out, other than to say whether a broad body of work will be accurate, reliable, and trustworthy to follow or not, depending on the likely impact. And this is one of the times where the questioner is raising a legitimate issue in seeing a level of enthusiasm here for something that we have described as being not worth doing and inimical to your interests and well-being. It is not that they are terribly toxic. After all, that is a question of interpretation. Physicians are quite jaded in dealing routinely with invasive techniques across the board having often a significant downside, and are quite used to relying on percentages as a safety margin. But that does not help those individuals who happen to develop a serious liability. So even though a majority of patients might get away with taking statins without a seeming liability, there will be some with shortened lifespan, so it comes down to who you would talk to as to what the answer might be in whether to take such agents or not. But we can also tell you that a major aspect of our dismissal of statins was the fact that physicians, particularly cardiologists, are woefully ignorant of the true causes of illness and focused on the wrong things to begin with. The whole paradigm of countering the lipid chemistry of the body in an attempt to prevent plaque formation and the consequential narrowing of blood vessels is misguided. And even to counter the side effects of the vessel narrowing with respect to hypertension is largely of little benefit except for extreme cases where there is a severe strain on the heart from extremely high blood pressure to work against. But mild hypertension is not the risk factor doctors believe it to be. So this is a complicated series of variables in play. However, there is often extraterrestrial discouragement of research that will uncover medical shortcomings. They want complacency to keep humans in the dark about what they are missing because it serves their agenda of working against humanity.