Nezam El-Tayebat Fact CheckA scientific assessment of the “نظام الطيبات” nutrition system
Choose country
Choose language: English

False Scientifically refuted Certainty of evidence: high provisional C-SRC-60

For six or seven years he alone has said that statins (Crestor, Ator, Lipitor) are forbidden, and that Controloc (pantoprazole) is forbidden.

Safety note: Do not stop a prescribed statin, especially after a heart attack, stroke or stent, without talking to your physician. Stopping raises the risk of further cardiovascular events.
In short: This claim is false: statins have small, real side effects, but blinded trials show they prevent heart attacks, strokes and deaths; whether a low-risk person takes one is an individual decision, not a reason for a general ban.
Conclusion: This claim is false: statins have small, real side effects but prevent heart attacks, strokes and deaths; whether a low-risk person takes one is an individual decision, not a reason for a ban.
  1. Original statement
  2. Scientific assessment
  3. Scientific evidence in detail
  4. In plain language
  5. Studies on this claim
  6. Regional context
  7. What applies in my country?
  8. References

Original statement

قلت الكلام ده من ست سبع سنين لوحدي كنت لوحدي بقول الستاتنز والي هم اللي هم الكريستور والاتور والليبيتور والحاجات دي كنت لوحدي بقول ممنوعه وبقول الكونترولوكس ممنوع وكنت لوحدي دي ماشي

verbatim according to source. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.

Translation

For six or seven years he alone has said that statins (Crestor, Ator, Lipitor) are forbidden, and that Controloc (pantoprazole) is forbidden.

Origin

Source status
Video transcript (own words)
Attribution
Elawady (machine transcript)
Video
Dr Diaa Al Awady د ضياء العوضي is live! مقاومة الأنسولين ٢ (Open source)
Published
1 July 2025
Timestamp
1:31:13 (location in the original video’s automatic YouTube caption track; confirms where the words occur, not who speaks)
Attribution uncertainty
Transcript is YouTube CC or machine-generated (no timestamps); wording may contain speech-recognition errors. Speaker attribution within live streams/podcasts is not marked in the transcript; the excerpt was judged to be Elawady's own speech from context. Recurrence = number of archive transcripts matching the keyword pattern ['ستاتين|الستاتنز|ليبيتور|كريستور'] (approximate; includes re-uploads/clips; 29 distinct text passages).
Claimed mechanism

Not stated in this excerpt.

Claimed health effect

Not specified.

Population concerned

Everyone.

Geographic restriction by Elawady

none found; he does not limit this statement to a country or to a production system

Diverging source versions

Source status
Video transcript (own words)
Attribution
Elawady (machine transcript)
Video
Dr Diaa Al Awady د ضياء العوضي is live! لايف هزار (Open source)
Published
1 September 2025
Timestamp
not available (transcript has no timings)
Attribution uncertainty
Further video in which the same statement recurs; no excerpt recorded. Archive transcript without timestamps.

Scientific assessment

False – The statement contradicts the robust evidence.

Certainty of evidence: high – Further research is very unlikely to change the assessment.

1. What was claimed?

Statins (rosuvastatin/Crestor, atorvastatin/Ator, Lipitor) are forbidden, and Controloc (pantoprazole) is forbidden; he says he alone said this for six or seven years.

2. What is demonstrably correct?

Statins are not free of harm: they cause a small excess of mostly mild muscle pain, mainly in the first year (absolute excess 11 per 1000 person-years; only about 1 in 15 muscle complaints on statins was due to the statin) (I-INTB-19), and a small increase in diabetes risk (OR 1.09; one extra case per 255 people treated for 4 years) (I-INTB-20). Whether a low-risk person should take a statin is a legitimate individual decision. In absolute terms the benefit is modest for many people: across 21 trials statins reduced death by 0.8, heart attacks by 1.3 and strokes by 0.4 percentage points (I-SRC-111), and a 2026 guideline suggests stopping statins in older adults at the end of life (I-SRC-132).

3. What is wrong or exaggerated?

A general ban is contradicted by the evidence: per 1 mmol/L LDL reduction, major vascular events fell by about a fifth (RR 0.78) and all-cause mortality by 10% (RR 0.90), with no increase in cancer (I-INTB-18). The authors of both harm meta-analyses concluded that the risks are much lower than the cardiovascular benefits (I-INTB-19, I-INTB-20). For acid blockers see C-PPI-10. In blinded trials with 123,940 participants, only 4 of 66 side effects listed in statin labels were more common on statins (mainly liver-test changes, absolute excess 0.13% per year); there was no support for cognitive problems, depression, sleep disturbance or neuropathy (I-SRC-110).

4. What remains unclear?

The claim that he was the only person criticising statins cannot be verified.

5. Which studies support it?

I-INTB-19, I-INTB-20 (small harms); I-SRC-111 (modest absolute benefit); I-SRC-132 (stop at end of life).

6. Which studies contradict it?

I-INTB-18, I-SRC-110.

7. What applies to Germany and Europe?

UK NICE guideline NG238 (fetched 2026-10-26) recommends atorvastatin for primary prevention at 10-year QRISK3 of 10% or more and states that statin treatment for secondary prevention should not be delayed; European ESC/EAS guidance could not be fetched for this review.

8. What is known about Egypt?

Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of death in Egypt (general knowledge; not sourced here); the same trial evidence applies.

9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?

People who had a heart attack or stroke, or who are at high risk, should not stop statins without medical advice. Side effects can be discussed with the physician.

Assessment details

Rationale for certainty of evidence

Individual participant data from 26 RCTs show that statins reduce major vascular events and mortality (I-INTB-18). Real harms exist but are small (I-INTB-19, I-INTB-20). The acid-blocker part is assessed in C-PPI-10. His statement that he alone held this view is not verifiable and not assessed.

Source quality

Machine transcript of a live stream; wording may contain recognition errors; meaning checked in context.

Regional transferability

High.

Individual exceptions

Absolute benefit depends on baseline cardiovascular risk; in people at very low risk the benefit is small and an individual decision with a physician is appropriate.

Regional scope of the claim
general (biological/medical)
Last reviewed
26 October 2026 provisional

Scientific evidence in detail

Scientifically refuted – High-quality evidence shows the opposite, or the claim contradicts well-established physiology.

Research question: Should statins (and pantoprazole) be forbidden for everyone, i.e. do their harms outweigh their benefits in people for whom they are prescribed?

Research question in detail (PICO)
Population
Adults prescribed statins (primary and secondary prevention)
Intervention or exposure
Statin therapy
Comparison
Placebo / no statin
Geographic scope
universal biology
Outcomes
  • Major vascular events
  • All-cause mortality
  • Adverse effects

Study results as reported by the authors. Our assessment follows below.

What speaks for the claim?

What speaks against the claim?

  • Statins: what 26 trials show

    CTT Collaboration, Baigent C et al.. Lancet 2010 · PMID 21067804 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61350-5 Meta-analysisfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment

    CTT individual-participant meta-analysis (170,000).

    Actual result
    Per 1 mmol/L LDL reduction: major vascular events RR 0.78, all-cause mortality RR 0.90; no cancer increase.
    Methodological quality
    high
    Relevance
    direct
    Limitations
    Trial populations.

    Original publication

  • Most side effects listed for statins are not caused by them

    Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' (CTT) Collaboration. Lancet 2026 · PMID 41655587 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(25)01578-8 Meta-analysisabstract checkednewly added

    CTT 2026 blinded IPD meta-analysis of label-listed side effects.

    Actual result
    Only 4 of 66 listed outcomes confirmed; liver-test abnormalities excess 0.13%/year; no support for cognitive impairment, depression, sleep disturbance, neuropathy.
    Methodological quality
    high
    Relevance
    direct for harms
    Limitations
    Rare events may be missed.

    Original publication

What does the overall evidence say?

Editorial assessment based on the studies above – not itself a study result.

Which position is better supported?

Statins are beneficial for people at increased cardiovascular risk; harms are real but small; decisions in low-risk or end-of-life patients are individual.

Why some studies weigh more

IPD meta-analyses of blinded RCTs (CTT) carry most weight; overlapping CTT analyses share trials and are counted as one body of evidence.

Is a causal relationship established? Yes, established Randomised blinded trials.

Remaining uncertainty

Benefit size in very low-risk people and very old adults.

Justified conclusion

A blanket ban on statins contradicts high-quality randomised evidence; the defensible kernel is that absolute benefit varies and some people (low risk, end of life) may reasonably decide not to take them.

Why do studies seem to disagree?

Byrne (I-SRC-111) and CTT (I-INTB-18) agree on direction; they differ in emphasis (absolute vs relative effects).

Does this depend on the country?
General biological effects
Universal pharmacology.
Eating habits
Not applicable.
Origin of the food
Not applicable.
Contaminants
Not applicable.
National production conditions
Not applicable.
Legal rules
Prescription medicines; NICE NG238 recommends statins by risk.
Actual monitoring data
No Egyptian statin outcome data reviewed.

A regional difference that changes the conclusion is not supported by robust data.

Statistical re-check
  • NNT from reported ARR – NNT about 125 (death), 77 (MI), 250 (stroke) over trial follow-up recalculated
  • Absolute excess per year and RR CI symmetry – Transaminases +0.08, other LFT +0.05, oedema +0.07 points/year; CIs symmetric recalculated
Certainty of the overall evidence (GRADE, simplified)
Main outcome
Major vascular events with statin therapy
Starting level
high (randomised trials)
Result
high

Simplified assessment by a single reviewer, following the GRADE approach; not a formal GRADE panel. GRADE rates the body of evidence for one outcome, not individual studies.

Clinical guidelines and official statements checked
  • NICE: NG238 Cardiovascular disease: risk assessment and reduction, including lipid modification (2023) · Original publication
    Offer atorvastatin 20 mg for primary prevention with QRISK3 >=10%; do not delay statin treatment for secondary prevention; do not stop statins because of a rise in blood glucose or HbA1c; check creatine kinase for unexplained muscle symptoms.
  • ESC/EAS: 2025 Focused Update of the 2019 ESC/EAS Guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias (2025) · Original publication could not be retrieved; content not used
Search strategy

Documented literature searches for this review (search strings in the original database syntax).

DatabaseDateSearchLooking forHitsIncluded
PubMed26 October 2026Cholesterol Treatment Trialists statin adverse events randomised trials meta-analysis 2025both directions1
PubMed26 October 2026N-of-1 trial statin nocebo SAMSON side effectscontradicting evidence1
PubMed26 October 2026statins primary prevention absolute risk reduction relative risk meta-analysis JAMA Intern Medsupporting evidence1
Europe PMC26 October 2026(statin* AND (discontinuation OR "stopping") AND (cardiovascular events OR mortality) AND (cohort)) AND PUB_YEAR:[2016 TO 2026]contradicting evidence8805
PubMed26 October 2026AGA clinical practice update deprescribing proton pump inhibitorsboth directions1
PubMed26 October 20262025 Focused Update 2019 ESC/EAS Guidelines management of dyslipidaemiasguidelines15
Europe PMC26 October 2026(statin*) AND ("primary prevention") AND ("Cochrane Database Syst Rev" OR "meta-analysis") AND ("adverse events" OR harms OR "absolute risk")supporting evidence3472
NICE / ESC / OUP websites26 October 2026NICE NG238 recommendations; ESC/EAS 2025 focused update (EHJ and Atherosclerosis full texts returned 403; escardio page 404)guidelines3

How deeply was this checked?

6 linked studies: 2 checked in full text (2 of them with a structured risk-of-bias assessment), 4 on the basis of the abstract, 0 bibliographically only. No formal assessment with two independent reviewers and no independent human expert review has taken place yet.

Last scientific review: 26 October 2026

History of the verdict
  1. 25 October 2026 · Phase 1 · Initial assessment: False (high)
  2. 26 October 2026 · Phase 4 (systematic evidence review) · Re-examined with extended evidence; verdict unchanged: False (high)
    New CTT 2026 and absolute-effect data confirm the verdict and quantify the legitimate kernel; wording sharpened.
    New sources: I-SRC-110 I-SRC-111 I-SRC-132

In plain language

Dr. Elawady said statins such as Crestor and Lipitor are forbidden. Large trials with about 170,000 people show that statins prevent heart attacks and strokes and lower the risk of dying. Statins do have side effects: a few people get muscle pain, and the risk of diabetes rises slightly. For people at high risk, the benefit is much larger than the harm. For people at very low risk, the decision should be made together with a doctor.

Studies on this claim

Studies supporting the claim (0)

No studies in this group.

Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (2)

  • Statins: what 26 trials show

    CTT Collaboration, Baigent C et al.. Lancet 2010 · PMID 21067804 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61350-5
    Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment★ key study

    Each 1 mmol/L LDL reduction cut major vascular events by about a fifth and deaths by 10%, without more cancer.

    Statins reduce vascular events and mortality.

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Assess statin efficacy and safety

    How was the study done?

    IPD meta-analysis

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    about 170,000

    What was actually found?

    Fewer heart attacks, strokes and deaths

    How large was the observed effect?

    RR 0.78 per mmol/L for major vascular events; 2.8% vs 3.6% events per year (statin vs control)

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Statins prevent heart attacks and strokes; the absolute gain is larger the higher the person's risk.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Most trials industry-funded; data from 3 trials unavailable; only severe muscle damage (rhabdomyolysis) assessed

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts 'statins are forbidden'.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    High

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Does not decide whether a specific low-risk person needs a statin.

    Scientific details →

  • Most side effects listed for statins are not caused by them

    Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' (CTT) Collaboration. Lancet 2026 · PMID 41655587 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(25)01578-8
    Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study

    In blinded trials with 124,000 people, only a few listed side effects (mainly liver-test changes) were more common on statins, and only slightly.

    Only few label-listed harms confirmed in blinded trials; absolute excess small.

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Check statin side effects

    How was the study done?

    Meta-analysis of blinded trials

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    123,940 participants

    What was actually found?

    Only 4 of 66 listed harms confirmed; small excess

    How large was the observed effect?

    Liver tests +0.13% per year

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Statins are safer than labels suggest

    What are the study's limitations?

    Rare events may be missed

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts a ban

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    High

    Scientific details →

Studies with mixed or unclear results (4)

  • Do statins cause muscle pain?

    Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' Collaboration. Lancet 2022 · PMID 36049498 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01545-8
    Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment

    Statins cause a small excess of mild muscle pain, mostly in year 1; most muscle complaints are not caused by the statin.

    Real but small muscle-symptom risk.

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Quantify statin muscle effects

    How was the study done?

    IPD meta-analysis

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    154,664 participants in 23 double-blind trials

    What was actually found?

    Small excess, mainly year 1

    How large was the observed effect?

    RR 1.03; 11/1000 person-years

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Muscle aches on statins are usually not from the statin, but a few are.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Different trials recorded muscle symptoms differently; creatine kinase rarely measured

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Acknowledges a real side effect; contradicts banning statins.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    High

    Scientific details →

  • Statins slightly raise diabetes risk

    Sattar N et al.. Lancet 2010 · PMID 20167359 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61965-6
    Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checked

    About one extra diabetes case per 255 people treated for 4 years.

    Small diabetes risk; benefit outweighs in moderate/high risk.

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Test statin-diabetes link

    How was the study done?

    Meta-analysis of RCTs

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    91,140

    What was actually found?

    9% higher risk

    How large was the observed effect?

    OR 1.09; NNH 255 over 4 years

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Statins have a small diabetes risk that is usually outweighed by fewer heart attacks.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Abstract only

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Supports that statins are not harmless; contradicts a ban.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    High

    Scientific details →

  • How much statins help in absolute terms

    Byrne P et al.. JAMA Intern Med 2022 · PMID 35285850 · DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.0134
    Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checked

    Statins lowered death by 0.8, heart attacks by 1.3 and strokes by 0.4 percentage points over the trials.

    Absolute benefit modest (NNT ~125 for death), but positive; supports shared decisions, not a ban.

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Quantify absolute statin benefit

    How was the study done?

    Meta-analysis

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    21 trials

    What was actually found?

    Modest absolute but real reductions

    How large was the observed effect?

    ARR 0.8% death; 1.3% MI; 0.4% stroke

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Benefit depends on personal risk

    What are the study's limitations?

    Heterogeneity

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Supports individual choice, not a ban

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    High

    Scientific details →

  • When older adults can stop statins

    Thompson W et al.. Can Fam Physician 2026 · PMID 42728062 · DOI 10.46747/cfp.7209534
    Guideline / position statementindependent cross-checkabstract checked

    A 2026 guideline suggests stopping statins near the end of life but continuing them in other older adults.

    Stopping statins is appropriate at end of life; otherwise continue.

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Guide statin stopping in older people

    How was the study done?

    GRADE guideline

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    Adults 65+

    What was actually found?

    Stop at end of life; otherwise continue

    How large was the observed effect?

    not applicable

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Stopping is an individual medical decision

    What are the study's limitations?

    Abstract only

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Partly fits (some can stop), but not a ban

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Moderate

    Scientific details →

Regional context

Germany / EU

UK NICE guideline NG238 (fetched 2026-10-26) recommends atorvastatin for primary prevention at 10-year QRISK3 of 10% or more and states that statin treatment for secondary prevention should not be delayed; European ESC/EAS guidance could not be fetched for this review.

Egypt

Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of death in Egypt (general knowledge; not sourced here); the same trial evidence applies.

What applies in my country?

General scientific assessment

False This claim is false: statins have small, real side effects but prevent heart attacks, strokes and deaths; whether a low-risk person takes one is an individual decision, not a reason for a ban.

This statement concerns biological or medical relationships. The scientific assessment above applies regardless of the country; country-specific food data do not change it.

References

  1. Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a meta-analysis of data from 170,000 participants in 26 randomised trials.. CTT Collaboration, Baigent C et al.. Lancet 2010 · PMID 21067804 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61350-5
  2. Assessment of adverse effects attributed to statin therapy in product labels: a meta-analysis of double-blind randomised controlled trials.. Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' (CTT) Collaboration. Lancet 2026 · PMID 41655587 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(25)01578-8
  3. Effect of statin therapy on muscle symptoms: an individual participant data meta-analysis of large-scale, randomised, double-blind trials.. Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' Collaboration. Lancet 2022 · PMID 36049498 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01545-8
  4. Statins and risk of incident diabetes: a collaborative meta-analysis of randomised statin trials.. Sattar N et al.. Lancet 2010 · PMID 20167359 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61965-6
  5. Evaluating the Association Between Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Reduction and Relative and Absolute Effects of Statin Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.. Byrne P et al.. JAMA Intern Med 2022 · PMID 35285850 · DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.0134
  6. Deprescribing statins for adults 65 years of age and older: Evidence-based clinical practice guideline.. Thompson W et al.. Can Fam Physician 2026 · PMID 42728062 · DOI 10.46747/cfp.7209534

← Back to overview