Insulin (and injected insulin) is a principal driver of atherosclerosis.
Original statement
ويصفه بأنه «المسبب الرئيسي للسمنة» و«من أسباب تصلب الشرايين».
verbatim according to source. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.
Translation
Insulin (and injected insulin) is a principal driver of atherosclerosis.
Origin
- Source status
- Archive quote (no location given)
- Attribution
- Elawady (archive paraphrase; source video not given)
- Origin
- https://eltayebat.com/rule/insulin-injections/
- Attribution uncertainty
- The archive attributes this text to Dr. Diaa in its 'د. ضياء يقول' box but gives no video reference. Transcript check (the project's research files, keyword search of 307 archive transcripts): similar_idea_only. A passage links insulin use to clots and narrowing of coronary arteries (5H-C06AT55Q); the term 'atherosclerosis' and the claim that insulin is its 'principal driver' were not checked verbatim. The central sentence of the same archive quote ('insulin is the only hormone causing obesity') is found verbatim (3j32fjfYRbU) but belongs to C-INS-01.
- Claimed mechanism
High insulin levels damage arteries.
- Claimed health effect
Atherosclerosis, cardiovascular disease
- Population concerned
People with high insulin / insulin-treated diabetes
- Geographic restriction by Elawady
none found
Diverging source versions
مش صدفه مش صدفه اللي بياخد انسولين دايما كل سنه يجي له جلطه في الشران بتاع عينيه ولا جلطه في شيران التاجي بالصدفه بالصدفه يضيق عليك وانت بتاخد
It is not a coincidence that whoever takes insulin gets a clot every year in the artery of his eyes or in the coronary arteries; it narrows on you while you are taking [insulin].
- Source status
- Video transcript (own words)
- Attribution
- Elawady (machine transcript)
- Video
- الذبحة الصدرية ؟! (Open source)
- Published
- 3 February 2025
- Timestamp
- 1:13:35 (location in the original video’s automatic YouTube caption track; confirms where the words occur, not who speaks)
- Attribution uncertainty
- Archive transcript (YouTube CC or AI-generated); no timestamps; YouTube original not checked; wording may contain recognition errors. Similar idea only (clots/narrowing, not 'atherosclerosis' as a term).
Scientific assessment
Mostly false – Essential parts of the statement are not supported by the evidence or are strongly exaggerated.
Certainty of evidence: moderate – Further research may still affect the assessment.
1. What was claimed?
Insulin causes hardening of the arteries.
2. What is demonstrably correct?
Endogenous hyperinsulinaemia (a marker of insulin resistance) is weakly associated with ischaemic heart disease: odds ratio 1.7 per SD in a Quebec case-control study (A-INS-21); summary RR 1.18 in a meta-analysis that called hyperinsulinaemia a 'weak risk indicator' (A-INS-22). UKPDS 33 itself noted the historical concern that high insulin concentrations may enhance atheroma (A-INS-16).
3. What is wrong or exaggerated?
Association with endogenous hyperinsulinaemia is not proof that therapeutic insulin causes atherosclerosis. In ORIGIN (12,537 people, 6.2 years) insulin glargine had a neutral effect on cardiovascular outcomes (HR 1.02) (A-INS-07). In UKPDS 33 intensive therapy with insulin or sulfonylurea did not increase macrovascular disease (A-INS-16), and 10-year post-trial follow-up showed a 15% reduction in myocardial infarction and 13% in all-cause death in the sulfonylurea-insulin group (I-INS-02). Even in the archive's own observational study of insulin added to metformin, myocardial infarction or stroke (aHR 0.88, 0.59-1.30) and MI/stroke/CV death (aHR 0.98, 0.71-1.34) were not increased; the excess deaths were mainly from cancer and other non-cardiovascular causes (cancer death aHR 1.85), which points to confounding rather than atherogenesis (A-INS-13).
4. What remains unclear?
Whether very high doses in severely insulin-resistant patients carry specific vascular risk cannot be separated from confounding in observational data (A-INS-10).
5. Which studies support it?
A-INS-21, A-INS-22 (association of endogenous insulin with CHD).
6. Which studies contradict it?
A-INS-07, A-INS-16, I-INS-02 (RCTs: no excess cardiovascular events; long-term benefit); A-INS-13 (observational: no excess MI/stroke with insulin).
7. What applies to Germany and Europe?
European (EASD) and German (DDG) guidance follow the same evidence base as the ADA/EASD consensus: individualised HbA1c targets, insulin as mandatory therapy in type 1 diabetes, and SGLT2 inhibitors/GLP-1 receptor agonists for people with cardiovascular or kidney disease. No country-specific difference changes the assessment.
8. What is known about Egypt?
Egypt has one of the highest diabetes prevalences in the region; the same drug classes and insulins are used. Access barriers and cost may make advice to stop medication attractive, which increases the practical risk of this claim. No Egypt-specific evidence changes the assessment.
9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?
High insulin levels in the blood are a sign of insulin resistance, which is linked to heart disease. Randomised trials do not show that insulin treatment itself causes heart attacks.
Assessment details
- Rationale for certainty of evidence
Cohort data show a weak association of fasting hyperinsulinaemia with heart disease (A-INS-21, A-INS-22), but this reflects insulin resistance/metabolic syndrome. Large RCTs of insulin therapy (ORIGIN, UKPDS) found no increase in cardiovascular events, and UKPDS long-term follow-up showed fewer myocardial infarctions.
- Source quality
Archive paraphrase without video reference.
- Regional transferability
Universal.
- Regional scope of the claim
- general (biological/medical)
- Last reviewed
- 25 October 2026 provisional
In plain language
People whose bodies make a lot of insulin because of insulin resistance have slightly more heart disease. But when doctors tested insulin treatment in large randomised trials, it did not increase heart attacks or strokes. In one long British study, people treated early with insulin or tablets had fewer heart attacks years later.
Studies on this claim
Studies supporting the claim (2)
-
High natural insulin and heart disease
Després JP et al.. N Engl J Med 1996 · PMID 8596596 · DOI 10.1056/NEJM199604113341504Case-control studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checkedMen with higher fasting insulin had more heart disease.
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?
Is fasting hyperinsulinaemia an independent risk factor for IHD?
- How was the study done?
Nested case-control within prospective cohort (Quebec)
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
2,103 men; 91 cases, 105 controls; Non-diabetic men 45-76
- What was actually found?
OR 1.7 per SD.
- How large was the observed effect?
OR 1.6-1.7
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Insulin resistance is a heart risk marker.
- What are the study's limitations?
Small number of cases; Men only; Endogenous insulin, not therapy
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Association for C-INS-03.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Canadian men.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
That insulin injections cause heart disease.
-
Insulin levels and heart disease: pooled analysis
Ruige JB et al.. Circulation 1998 · PMID 9529268 · DOI 10.1161/01.cir.97.10.996Meta-analysiscited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checkedHigher insulin was only weakly linked to heart disease (18% higher risk).
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?
Strength of relation between hyperinsulinaemia and CVD
- How was the study done?
Meta-analysis of prospective cohorts and nested case-control studies
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
12 studies; General population cohorts
- What was actually found?
RR 1.18.
- How large was the observed effect?
RR 1.18 (1.08-1.29)
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Weak signal.
- What are the study's limitations?
Old assays; Heterogeneity
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Weak association for C-INS-03.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Includes Dutch data.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Causation; anything about insulin therapy.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (4)
-
Long-term insulin glargine in early diabetes (ORIGIN)
ORIGIN Trial Investigators; Gerstein HC et al.. N Engl J Med 2012 · PMID 22686416 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1203858Randomised controlled trialcited by the Tayebat archivefull text checked★ key studyOver six years insulin did not change heart attacks, strokes or cancers, but caused more low-sugar episodes and 2 kg weight difference.
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?
Does basal insulin glargine targeting normal fasting glucose reduce CV events in dysglycaemia?
- How was the study done?
International multicentre RCT, 2x2 factorial (ORIGIN)
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
12,537; CV risk factors plus IFG, IGT or type 2 diabetes; mean age 63.5
- What was actually found?
Neutral CV and cancer outcomes; more hypoglycaemia, slight weight gain.
- How large was the observed effect?
HR 1.02 CV; HR 1.00 cancer
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Insulin itself did not cause heart disease or cancer in this large trial.
- What are the study's limitations?
Open-label; funded by the glargine manufacturer; early-diabetes population on moderate doses (~28 units/day for 70 kg).
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Key randomised evidence against C-INS-03, C-INS-05, C-INS-06; supports hypoglycaemia/weight side effects.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Multinational/US/UK/European data; directly transferable to Germany/EU clinical practice.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Safety in very high-dose, late-stage type 2 diabetes.
-
UKPDS: tablets or insulin for new type 2 diabetes
UKPDS Group. Lancet 1998 · PMID 9742976Randomised controlled trialcited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked★ key studyBetter sugar control with tablets or insulin cut eye/kidney complications by a quarter; insulin caused more weight gain and low-sugar episodes.
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?
Intensive control with sulfonylurea or insulin vs diet on complications
- How was the study done?
Multicentre RCT (UKPDS 33)
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
3,867; Newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, median age 54
- What was actually found?
Microvascular -25%; more hypoglycaemia and weight gain with insulin.
- How large was the observed effect?
RR reduction 25% microvascular
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Insulin helps prevent complications but has side effects.
- What are the study's limitations?
Open-label; Older drug regimens
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports weight/hypoglycaemia (C-INS-01); contradicts C-INS-03, C-INS-05, C-DIAB-01.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
UK; directly relevant.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
That insulin is harmful overall.
-
UKPDS legacy: 10 years after the trial
Holman RR et al.. N Engl J Med 2008 · PMID 18784090 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa0806470Randomised controlled trialindependent cross-checkabstract only checked★ key studyPeople treated intensively early with sulfonylureas or insulin had 15% fewer heart attacks and 13% fewer deaths years later.
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?
Do UKPDS benefits persist and do macrovascular effects emerge?
- How was the study done?
Post-trial monitoring of an RCT (UKPDS 80)
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
4,209 randomised; 3,277 monitored; Newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes from UKPDS
- What was actually found?
Legacy reductions in MI and death.
- How large was the observed effect?
Death -13% (SU/insulin), -27% (metformin)
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Early good control pays off for decades.
- What are the study's limitations?
Post-trial therapy not controlled; Questionnaire follow-up
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts C-INS-03, C-INS-05 and C-DIAB-01: early insulin/SU therapy reduced MI and death long-term.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
UK; directly relevant.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Effects of extreme targets in late disease.
-
Second drug after metformin: insulin or sulfonylurea
Roumie CL et al.. JAMA 2014 · PMID 24915260 · DOI 10.1001/jama.2014.4312Cohort studycited by the Tayebat archivefull text checked★ key studyVeterans who added insulin died more often than those who added a sulfonylurea, but heart attacks and strokes were not more frequent.
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?
Adding insulin vs sulfonylurea to metformin: AMI, stroke, death
- How was the study done?
Retrospective cohort with propensity matching and marginal structural models (VHA, Medicare, NDI)
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
178,341 (matched 2,436 insulin vs 12,180 SU); Veterans initially treated with metformin
- What was actually found?
Composite aHR 1.30; death aHR 1.44; CV events not increased.
- How large was the observed effect?
aHR 1.30 (1.07-1.58)
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Possibly reflects sicker patients getting insulin.
- What are the study's limitations?
Residual confounding (sicker patients get insulin); median follow-up about 1 year; mostly male veterans; extra deaths were mainly from cancer and other non-heart causes.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Association for C-INS-05; mixed for C-INS-03 (no CV increase).
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
US veterans.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
That insulin causes death.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Studies with mixed or unclear results (1)
-
Higher insulin doses and outcomes
Holden SE et al.. Diabetes Obes Metab 2015 · PMID 25399739 · DOI 10.1111/dom.12412Cohort studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked★ key studyPeople on higher insulin doses died more often, but higher doses are needed by sicker, more insulin-resistant people.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: low · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Association of insulin dose with mortality, MACE, cancer
- How was the study done?
Retrospective cohort, UK CPRD, time-dependent dose exposure
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
6,484; Type 2 diabetes progressing to insulin monotherapy from 2000
- What was actually found?
Dose-associated increases in death, MACE, cancer.
- How large was the observed effect?
aHR 1.54 per IU/kg/day
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
High doses mark severe disease; cause unclear.
- What are the study's limitations?
Dose reflects insulin resistance and illness; Reverse causation; Residual confounding
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
UK data.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
That lowering doses would save lives.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Regional context
Germany / EU
European (EASD) and German (DDG) guidance follow the same evidence base as the ADA/EASD consensus: individualised HbA1c targets, insulin as mandatory therapy in type 1 diabetes, and SGLT2 inhibitors/GLP-1 receptor agonists for people with cardiovascular or kidney disease. No country-specific difference changes the assessment.
Egypt
Egypt has one of the highest diabetes prevalences in the region; the same drug classes and insulins are used. Access barriers and cost may make advice to stop medication attractive, which increases the practical risk of this claim. No Egypt-specific evidence changes the assessment.
What applies in my country?
General scientific assessment
Mostly false High natural insulin levels are a weak risk marker, but insulin therapy has not been shown to cause atherosclerosis.
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
- Hyperinsulinemia as an independent risk factor for ischemic heart disease.. Després JP et al.. N Engl J Med 1996 · PMID 8596596 · DOI 10.1056/NEJM199604113341504
- Insulin and risk of cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis.. Ruige JB et al.. Circulation 1998 · PMID 9529268 · DOI 10.1161/01.cir.97.10.996
- Basal insulin and cardiovascular and other outcomes in dysglycemia.. ORIGIN Trial Investigators; Gerstein HC et al.. N Engl J Med 2012 · PMID 22686416 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1203858
- Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group.. UKPDS Group. Lancet 1998 · PMID 9742976
- 10-year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes.. Holman RR et al.. N Engl J Med 2008 · PMID 18784090 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa0806470
- Association between intensification of metformin treatment with insulin vs sulfonylureas and cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality among patients with diabetes.. Roumie CL et al.. JAMA 2014 · PMID 24915260 · DOI 10.1001/jama.2014.4312
- Glucose-lowering with exogenous insulin monotherapy in type 2 diabetes: dose association with all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events and cancer.. Holden SE et al.. Diabetes Obes Metab 2015 · PMID 25399739 · DOI 10.1111/dom.12412