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

False 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.
Conclusion: Statins have small, real side effects but clearly prevent heart attacks and strokes; a blanket ban is wrong.
  1. Original statement
  2. Scientific assessment
  3. In plain language
  4. Studies on this claim
  5. Regional context
  6. What applies in my country?
  7. 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.

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.

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).

6. Which studies contradict it?

I-INTB-18.

7. What applies to Germany and Europe?

European cardiology guidelines recommend statins for people at high risk and after heart attack or stroke (general knowledge; not separately fetched).

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
25 October 2026 provisional

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 (1)

  • 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 checked★ 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 →

Studies with mixed or unclear results (2)

  • 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 checked

    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 only 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 →

Regional context

Germany / EU

European cardiology guidelines recommend statins for people at high risk and after heart attack or stroke (general knowledge; not separately fetched).

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 Statins have small, real side effects but clearly prevent heart attacks and strokes; a blanket ban is wrong.

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. 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
  3. 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

← Back to overview