The Truth About Cholesterol

[Tolley]

Was just reading a thread in the main health forum about cholesterol lowering meds and thought it timely to post this link by Dr Mercola which sums up pretty well a lot of the misinformation about cholesterol and statins.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/08/10/making-sense-of-your-cholesterol-numbers.aspx

[Sheryl]

The referenced article is a mixture of fact, half fact and complete nonsense.

The author is a multi-millionaire who has several times been cited for making unfound claims for the "alternative" products he hawks.

[Tolley]

The referenced article is a mixture of fact, half fact and complete nonsense.

The author is a multi-millionaire who has several times been cited for making unfound claims for the "alternative" products he hawks.

I would be interested in what you consider to be true and what you consider to be complete nonsense? From my research on the subject it seems a lot of what is stated is correct.

And it is not just Dr Mercola saying so as plenty of established medical researchers maintain similar positions. http://www.cambridgemedscience.org/reports/CholMythCamb.pdf

Edited May 1, 2013 by Tolley

[Tolley]

The referenced article is a mixture of fact, half fact and complete nonsense.

The author is a multi-millionaire who has several times been cited for making unfound claims for the "alternative" products he hawks.

The author may well be a multi millionaire as you say but it pales into insignificance when measured against the billions that big pharma is making and of course they have been caught out countless times falsifying results leading to many deaths and unnecessary hospitilisations.

[partington]

The referenced article is a mixture of fact, half fact and complete nonsense.

The author is a multi-millionaire who has several times been cited for making unfound claims for the "alternative" products he hawks.

I would be interested in what you consider to be true and what you consider to be complete nonsense? From my research on the subject it seems a lot of what is stated is correct.

And it is not just Dr Mercola saying so as plenty of established medical researchers maintain similar positions. http://www.cambridgemedscience.org/reports/CholMythCamb.pdf

Yes but MOST (99%)of established medical researchers in the field, who know a lot more than Mercola about these matters, and who, unlike him have spent their lives researching the subject and providing actual evidence for their conclusions in research papers that are published and freely available to read, do NOT agree with Mercola.

Mercola's writings deliberately falsely state current medical positions in order to discredit them. He uses cheap tabloid techniques to fool the credulous.

For example: in this childish article he argues that "Cholesterol can't be dangerous! What doctors don't tell you is every cell in the body has cholesterol ! And it's necessary for cell membranes to work! So it can't be evil!!!"

Firstly, every doctor in the world knows enough cell biology to be aware that the body makes cholesterol, it's in cells. and it's actually necessary for correct cellular functioning. You learn this when you're 15 years old in science courses.

No doctor tries to pretend cholesterol isn't necessary for the body, but Mercola implies they do. Having set up this false idea (based not on what doctors say, but relying on the fact that his readers don't really have a clear understanding of the subject, so can be persuaded that's what doctors say) he then uses this observation to support his contention that therefore "cholesterol can't be dangerous."

Even a child could see the failure of logic here. It's the same as saying we all have sugar in our blood, it's necessary for the body, so sugar can't harm you. Or don't worry about letting your child swim unattended, it's only water, we all have water in our bodies, it's necessary. Yes, right, but if it's in your lungs you drown. If your blood sugar rises to dangerous levels you have diabetes and it can kill you. It's entirely irrelevant that it may or may not already be in your body.

Don't trust Mercola. Mercola is a con-artist. Don't quote Mercola. Quote scientific papers produced in universities and hospitals. This is where scientific knowledge comes from. Or at least quote summaries based on evidence that can be read and assessed.

If you can't be bothered to find and assess real evidence, don't quote your "researches" if that just means you've read the latest myths Mercola has decided to peddle.

[Tolley]

The referenced article is a mixture of fact, half fact and complete nonsense.

The author is a multi-millionaire who has several times been cited for making unfound claims for the "alternative" products he hawks.

I would be interested in what you consider to be true and what you consider to be complete nonsense? From my research on the subject it seems a lot of what is stated is correct.

And it is not just Dr Mercola saying so as plenty of established medical researchers maintain similar positions. http://www.cambridgemedscience.org/reports/CholMythCamb.pdf

Yes but MOST (99%)of established medical researchers in the field, who know a lot more than Mercola about these matters, and who, unlike him have spent their lives researching the subject and providing actual evidence for their conclusions in research papers that are published and freely available to read, do NOT agree with Mercola.

Mercola's writings deliberately falsely state current medical positions in order to discredit them. He uses cheap tabloid techniques to fool the credulous.

For example: in this childish article he argues that "Cholesterol can't be dangerous! What doctors don't tell you is every cell in the body has cholesterol ! And it's necessary for cell membranes to work! So it can't be evil!!!"

Firstly, every doctor in the world knows enough cell biology to be aware that the body makes cholesterol, it's in cells. and it's actually necessary for correct cellular functioning. You learn this when you're 15 years old in science courses.

No doctor tries to pretend cholesterol isn't necessary for the body, but Mercola implies they do. Having set up this false idea (based not on what doctors say, but relying on the fact that his readers don't really have a clear understanding of the subject, so can be persuaded that's what doctors say) he then uses this observation to support his contention that therefore "cholesterol can't be dangerous."

Even a child could see the failure of logic here. It's the same as saying we all have sugar in our blood, it's necessary for the body, so sugar can't harm you. Or don't worry about letting your child swim unattended, it's only water, we all have water in our bodies, it's necessary. Yes, right, but if it's in your lungs you drown. If your blood sugar rises to dangerous levels you have diabetes and it can kill you. It's entirely irrelevant that it may or may not already be in your body.

Don't trust Mercola. Mercola is a con-artist. Don't quote Mercola. Quote scientific papers produced in universities and hospitals. This is where scientific knowledge comes from. Or at least quote summaries based on evidence that can be read and assessed.

If you can't be bothered to find and assess real evidence, don't quote your "researches" if that just means you've read the latest myths Mercola has decided to peddle.

You are wrong about most researchers not agreeing with Mercola. Where do you think Mercola gets his ideas from? He gets them from researchers that is where. You don't have to dig too hard to find many researchers who question the whole cholesterol myth. There is a plethora of evidence out there on the over prescription of statins and their so called benefits and of course their side effects.

Most of the researchers on the side of statins and cholesterol lowering drugs are being either directly or indirectly bankrolled by big Pharma so it is no surprise what their research findings might be.

Fact is that half of all heart patients admitted to hospital don't even have high cholesterol. Now that is interesting isn't it?

Fact is that high fat diets don't cause cholesterol problems at all. Yet patients are put on low fat diets which cause even more problems for them.

If you dig deep enough the whole cholesterol thing has been a giant rip off with big Pharma laughing all the way to the bank at the expense of the public and creating even more adverse health conditions for many.

[Tolley]

In case you are interested in some of the research out there:

Statins may not reduce your risk of death. If you've been prescribed a statin because you're in the primary prevention category, like 75 percent of all people who take the drugs, you'd do well to question whether you really need to be taking it, and whether it might be doing more harm than good.

A comprehensive review of previous studies published in 2011 by the Cochrane Collaboration, a well-respected nonprofit research organization, found no "strong evidence" that statins reduce deaths from coronary heart disease among patients of any age who have not suffered a heart attack or other cardiovascular event.

A similar review of studies published in the Archives of Internal Medicine in 2010 found "little evidence that statins reduce the risk of dying from any cause in individuals without heart disease."

http://www.nextavenue.org/article/2013-02/case-against-statins

[Sheryl]

Instead of citing non-scientific mass media versions of what studies supposedly found, please read and cite the actual studies themselves.

Statins have been proven to reduce all cause mortality in people with CHD.

It is true that there is no proof that they do so in individuals without CHD.

It is also true that statins are often over-prescribed (particularly by Thai doctors in my experience). But that hardly means that everyone taking them should not be, or that they do not have a valuable role to play in preventing disability and death for some people.

The actual situation is far more complex and nuanced than you suggest. The decision as to whether to use this class of drugs has to be be made on an individual basis taking a host of factors specific to each individual into account. There is nio "one size fits all" answer. Trytng to scare people off statins indiscriminately is even worse than putting people on them indiscriminately. No thoughtful, well informed health care provider would do either.

[Tolley]

Sheryl, on 01 May 2013 - 21:05, said:

Instead of citing non-scientific mass media versions of what studies supposedly found, please read and cite the actual studies themselves.

Statins have been proven to reduce all cause mortality in people with CHD.

It is true that there is no proof that they do so in individuals without CHD.

It is also true that statins are often over-prescribed (particularly by Thai doctors in my experience). But that hardly means that everyone taking them should not be, or that they do not have a valuable role to play in preventing disability and death for some people.

The actual situation is far more complex and nuanced than you suggest. The decision as to whether to use this class of drugs has to be be made on an individual basis taking a host of factors specific to each individual into account. There is nio "one size fits all" answer. Trytng to scare people off statins indiscriminately is even worse than putting people on them indiscriminately. No thoughtful, well informed health care provider would do either.

Well there is no evidence to support taking statins if you don't have CFD which accounts for a large percentage of the market around 75 percent. That has been repeatedly proven in numerous studies. So that is an out an out scam.

Yes there is scientific evidence to support the use of statins but only for those who have existing heart conditions. Having said that there are other less invasive methods that could also help those with existing heart conditions rather than being dependent forever on statins.

[tropo]

The referenced article is a mixture of fact, half fact and complete nonsense.

The author is a multi-millionaire who has several times been cited for making unfound claims for the "alternative" products he hawks.

Sheryl, on 01 May 2013 - 21:05, said:

Instead of citing non-scientific mass media versions of what studies supposedly found, please read and cite the actual studies themselves.

Statins have been proven to reduce all cause mortality in people with CHD.

It is true that there is no proof that they do so in individuals without CHD.

It is also true that statins are often over-prescribed (particularly by Thai doctors in my experience). But that hardly means that everyone taking them should not be, or that they do not have a valuable role to play in preventing disability and death for some people.

The actual situation is far more complex and nuanced than you suggest. The decision as to whether to use this class of drugs has to be be made on an individual basis taking a host of factors specific to each individual into account. There is nio "one size fits all" answer. Trytng to scare people off statins indiscriminately is even worse than putting people on them indiscriminately. No thoughtful, well informed health care provider would do either.

Well there is no evidence to support taking statins if you don't have CFD which accounts for a large percentage of the market around 75 percent. That has been repeatedly proven in numerous studies. So that is an out an out scam.

Yes there is scientific evidence to support the use of statins but only for those who have existing heart conditions. Having said that there are other less invasive methods that could also help those with existing heart conditions rather than being dependent forever on statins.

I'm with you 100% on this.

It was surprising how Sheryl attacked you on this. It would seem she's attacking the author and not interested in reading the material because of her feelings about the author.

Mercola is merely one messenger of 1000's on this subject. This is old news already.

It takes the medical community a long time to catch up, especially when the driving force is huge pharmaceutical companies getting rich selling the drugs.

Here's the guy who Mercola was interviewing about cholesterol etc.

His blog is well referenced. All his statements have references to the relevant LATEST studies:

http://chriskresser.com/the-diet-heart-myth-why-everyone-should-know-their-ldl-particle-number?inf_contact_key=f815ac063dbe92307f24b7fc75974d21c3c6b06d466fba4a037bb286cfbc583f

http://chriskresser.com/the-diet-heart-myth-cholesterol-and-saturated-fat-are-not-the-enemy

I'm quite happy to post the references if necessary and cover points one by one. I think we owe it to the community to expose these myths - myths which are killing people.

Edited May 1, 2013 by tropo

[tropo]

The referenced article is a mixture of fact, half fact and complete nonsense.

The author is a multi-millionaire who has several times been cited for making unfound claims for the "alternative" products he hawks.

I would be interested in what you consider to be true and what you consider to be complete nonsense? From my research on the subject it seems a lot of what is stated is correct.

And it is not just Dr Mercola saying so as plenty of established medical researchers maintain similar positions. http://www.cambridgemedscience.org/reports/CholMythCamb.pdf

Yes but MOST (99%)of established medical researchers in the field, who know a lot more than Mercola about these matters, and who, unlike him have spent their lives researching the subject and providing actual evidence for their conclusions in research papers that are published and freely available to read, do NOT agree with Mercola.

Mercola's writings deliberately falsely state current medical positions in order to discredit them. He uses cheap tabloid techniques to fool the credulous.

For example: in this childish article he argues that "Cholesterol can't be dangerous! What doctors don't tell you is every cell in the body has cholesterol ! And it's necessary for cell membranes to work! So it can't be evil!!!"

Firstly, every doctor in the world knows enough cell biology to be aware that the body makes cholesterol, it's in cells. and it's actually necessary for correct cellular functioning. You learn this when you're 15 years old in science courses.

No doctor tries to pretend cholesterol isn't necessary for the body, but Mercola implies they do. Having set up this false idea (based not on what doctors say, but relying on the fact that his readers don't really have a clear understanding of the subject, so can be persuaded that's what doctors say) he then uses this observation to support his contention that therefore "cholesterol can't be dangerous."

Even a child could see the failure of logic here. It's the same as saying we all have sugar in our blood, it's necessary for the body, so sugar can't harm you. Or don't worry about letting your child swim unattended, it's only water, we all have water in our bodies, it's necessary. Yes, right, but if it's in your lungs you drown. If your blood sugar rises to dangerous levels you have diabetes and it can kill you. It's entirely irrelevant that it may or may not already be in your body.

Don't trust Mercola. Mercola is a con-artist. Don't quote Mercola. Quote scientific papers produced in universities and hospitals. This is where scientific knowledge comes from. Or at least quote summaries based on evidence that can be read and assessed.

If you can't be bothered to find and assess real evidence, don't quote your "researches" if that just means you've read the latest myths Mercola has decided to peddle.

Seriously, do you think Dr Mercola is the only one "peddling" this information? There's been people lecturing on this for many years - he's just another messenger.

Having said that, I wouldn't make health decisions based on what Mercola states, I would always do further research.

Please ignore Dr Mercola for a moment, and read Chris Kresser's articles I linked just above and let us know if he too is being "childish"? His statements all have references to the latest scientific studies.

[Jingthing]

If you are on statins, especially for a long time, you can't just stop them cold turkey. Well, you can, but you'll put your life at risk.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Jingthing

[partington]

The referenced article is a mixture of fact, half fact and complete nonsense.

The author is a multi-millionaire who has several times been cited for making unfound claims for the "alternative" products he hawks.

I would be interested in what you consider to be true and what you consider to be complete nonsense? From my research on the subject it seems a lot of what is stated is correct.

And it is not just Dr Mercola saying so as plenty of established medical researchers maintain similar positions. http://www.cambridgemedscience.org/reports/CholMythCamb.pdf

Yes but MOST (99%)of established medical researchers in the field, who know a lot more than Mercola about these matters, and who, unlike him have spent their lives researching the subject and providing actual evidence for their conclusions in research papers that are published and freely available to read, do NOT agree with Mercola.

Mercola's writings deliberately falsely state current medical positions in order to discredit them. He uses cheap tabloid techniques to fool the credulous.

For example: in this childish article he argues that "Cholesterol can't be dangerous! What doctors don't tell you is every cell in the body has cholesterol ! And it's necessary for cell membranes to work! So it can't be evil!!!"

Firstly, every doctor in the world knows enough cell biology to be aware that the body makes cholesterol, it's in cells. and it's actually necessary for correct cellular functioning. You learn this when you're 15 years old in science courses.

No doctor tries to pretend cholesterol isn't necessary for the body, but Mercola implies they do. Having set up this false idea (based not on what doctors say, but relying on the fact that his readers don't really have a clear understanding of the subject, so can be persuaded that's what doctors say) he then uses this observation to support his contention that therefore "cholesterol can't be dangerous."

Even a child could see the failure of logic here. It's the same as saying we all have sugar in our blood, it's necessary for the body, so sugar can't harm you. Or don't worry about letting your child swim unattended, it's only water, we all have water in our bodies, it's necessary. Yes, right, but if it's in your lungs you drown. If your blood sugar rises to dangerous levels you have diabetes and it can kill you. It's entirely irrelevant that it may or may not already be in your body.

Don't trust Mercola. Mercola is a con-artist. Don't quote Mercola. Quote scientific papers produced in universities and hospitals. This is where scientific knowledge comes from. Or at least quote summaries based on evidence that can be read and assessed.

If you can't be bothered to find and assess real evidence, don't quote your "researches" if that just means you've read the latest myths Mercola has decided to peddle.

Seriously, do you think Dr Mercola is the only one "peddling" this information? There's been people lecturing on this for many years - he's just another messenger.

Having said that, I wouldn't make health decisions based on what Mercola states, I would always do further research.

Please ignore Dr Mercola for a moment, and read Chris Kresser's articles I linked just above and let us know if he too is being "childish"? His statements all have references to the latest scientific studies.

Of course Mercola is not the only one. Many doctors are trying to sell things, and one way to make your product seem desirable is to imply that it is very special because it "goes against conventional thinking", or some such formula. Add to that the implication that there is a conspiracy to suppress your information by big pharma or the White House, or some other unpopular entity, and you immediately make it more believable to many people, and therefore more attractive.

Many of the thousands of doctors who seek to increase their business have realised this is a good technique, and so create websites designed to misinform or slant information in order to enhance their image as courageous dragon-slayers fighting to reveal "the truth" against all the odds. This "truth" is usually a set of beliefs, or world view, tailored to suggest that the particular treatment the doctor is peddling is more valuable than it really is.

Some of these doctors really believe what they are saying but have lost all scientific objectivity and ignore evidence.

Others are deliberately dishonest and do not actually believe what they are saying but are cynical exploiters. Some are just dumb.

Chris "I consult with patients around the world by phone and Skype" Kresser charges $250 an hour for webcam consultations that often end with prescribing expensive supplements. He appears not to have had any real scientific training, has never done any published medical research and is NOT even a qualified medical doctor, though he apparently got a masters in acupuncture at an alternative medicine school in Berkeley (the town not the University!). So he IS selling something, what he writes is heavily influenced by what he is selling, and he comes from a background that, to say the least, makes his approach to evidence-based medicine somewhat suspect.

Trustworthy scientists present evidence. They do not present websites where they huckster their particular brands of "anti-establishment" (and therefore by definition good ?) nostrums. Reputable honest scientists are not selling anything. They don't have websites with advertisements on them. They present their research in a neutral, factual manner, telling you what experiments they did, how they did them, and what conclusions they drew from the results, which they also present, so you can judge for yourself whether their conclusions seem justified. If they try to sell you something they are automatically suspect.

Look up Chris Kresser here http://paleohacks.com/questions/107178/tell-me-about-your-personal-experience-with-chris-kresser#ixzz2S4w5hmRF

One comment (there are many others):

"I tend to be more of a lurker than a poster, but I think it's important to share that I didn't have a good experience with Chris Kresser, either. The other reviews here touch on all the same problems I had: he is very expensive, 'prescribes' excessive amounts of expensive supplements without checking in on their efficacy, comes off as arrogant and didn't seem to really like talking during our phone consultations, seems fairly indifferent to patient health issues, and has unpleasant and sometimes unresponsive office staff. I saw another review on another site where the poster said he was uncomfotable with Chris's "aggressive business practices" and I very much agree. We all need to make a living, but this seemed to bleed a little bit too far into the realm of taking advantage of people.

Most importantly, many rounds of testing and more than $1000 later, (yes, I'm a fool, but I felt desperate) he didn't enlighten me to anything that led to any resolution of my symptoms. My impression of him is one of someone who speaks with great respect and deference to people he wants to impress, such as other big names in Paleoland, but treats others, like his patients who are paying him huge sums of money, with a dismissive and somewhat condescending attitude. The indifference leave me feeling a little violated, having shared such intimate details of my health, in the sincere hope that he could help.

If you need help, I don't think Chris Kresser's practice is a good place to look."

Edited May 1, 2013 by partington

[Tolley]

The referenced article is a mixture of fact, half fact and complete nonsense.

The author is a multi-millionaire who has several times been cited for making unfound claims for the "alternative" products he hawks.

>

Sheryl, on 01 May 2013 - 21:05, said:

Instead of citing non-scientific mass media versions of what studies supposedly found, please read and cite the actual studies themselves.

Statins have been proven to reduce all cause mortality in people with CHD.

It is true that there is no proof that they do so in individuals without CHD.

It is also true that statins are often over-prescribed (particularly by Thai doctors in my experience). But that hardly means that everyone taking them should not be, or that they do not have a valuable role to play in preventing disability and death for some people.

The actual situation is far more complex and nuanced than you suggest. The decision as to whether to use this class of drugs has to be be made on an individual basis taking a host of factors specific to each individual into account. There is nio "one size fits all" answer. Trytng to scare people off statins indiscriminately is even worse than putting people on them indiscriminately. No thoughtful, well informed health care provider would do either.

Well there is no evidence to support taking statins if you don't have CFD which accounts for a large percentage of the market around 75 percent. That has been repeatedly proven in numerous studies. So that is an out an out scam.

Yes there is scientific evidence to support the use of statins but only for those who have existing heart conditions. Having said that there are other less invasive methods that could also help those with existing heart conditions rather than being dependent forever on statins.

I'm with you 100% on this.

It was surprising how Sheryl attacked you on this. It would seem she's attacking the author and not interested in reading the material because of her feelings about the author.

Mercola is merely one messenger of 1000's on this subject. This is old news already.

It takes the medical community a long time to catch up, especially when the driving force is huge pharmaceutical companies getting rich selling the drugs.

Here's the guy who Mercola was interviewing about cholesterol etc.

His blog is well referenced. All his statements have references to the relevant LATEST studies:

http://chriskresser.com/the-diet-heart-myth-why-everyone-should-know-their-ldl-particle-number?inf_contact_key=f815ac063dbe92307f24b7fc75974d21c3c6b06d466fba4a037bb286cfbc583f

http://chriskresser.com/the-diet-heart-myth-cholesterol-and-saturated-fat-are-not-the-enemy

I'm quite happy to post the references if necessary and cover points one by one. I think we owe it to the community to expose these myths - myths which are killing people.

Exactly right. It is old news already.

You can attack Mercola or Kresser but they are only the messengers. They are responding to the current research on cholesterol and statins of which there is abounding evidence. I have already mentioned in the post above re the Cochrane Institute a non profit highly respected organisation and their findings based on examining many research papers. Feel free to access that information yourself and do your own research on the subject.

[bangkokburning]

Can anyone explain the fad of ingesting coconut oil to.lower cholesterol? Not first time Ive read it. Seems counter intuitive, tropical oil and all.

Is it because its not heated or cooked?

??

[geriatrickid]

The referenced article is a mixture of fact, half fact and complete nonsense.

The author is a multi-millionaire who has several times been cited for making unfound claims for the "alternative" products he hawks.

The author may well be a multi millionaire as you say but it pales into insignificance when measured against the billions that big pharma is making and of course they have been caught out countless times falsifying results leading to many deaths and unnecessary hospitilisations.

The author is not qualified to judge the value of research or the medical strategies used to treat heart disease.

He is not a medical doctor and has no medical research experience. He makes claims, but does not have any actual empirical data to back it up. There can be no argument nor doubt, statins have saved lives.

[Tolley]

The referenced article is a mixture of fact, half fact and complete nonsense.

The author is a multi-millionaire who has several times been cited for making unfound claims for the "alternative" products he hawks.

The author may well be a multi millionaire as you say but it pales into insignificance when measured against the billions that big pharma is making and of course they have been caught out countless times falsifying results leading to many deaths and unnecessary hospitilisations.

The author is not qualified to judge the value of research or the medical strategies used to treat heart disease.

He is not a medical doctor and has no medical research experience. He makes claims, but does not have any actual empirical data to back it up. There can be no argument nor doubt, statins have saved lives.

Statins have made big Pharma very rich indeed and caused many health problems to the millions who don't have CFD and who get no benefit from statins.

Mercola is only repeating what other researchers have stated.

Have a look at thislink which quotes numerous studies. Then if you are still not satisfied go and look at the studies themselves.

http://ethicalnag.org/2011/05/03/can-statin-drugs-really-save-your-life/

[moe666]

If you are over the age of 40 and start taking a cholestrol reducing drug you may add 6 months to your life. A very good book to read on the subject is the Cholestrol Myth. I have the problem of low cholestrol129-130 arebgive or take a few points. Two years ago I went to a Dr. in the states his Drs. assistant interviewed me first and when I said I had low cholestrol he says on lucky you. The I explanied to him the problem one can have from low cholesstrol; memory loss, lower libido = less testosterone and a few other things he respond I didn't know there was a problem with low cholestrol and this comes from a medicial professional. But of course they have been brain washed by big the companies that sale statins to get it as low as possible

[Douggie Style]

 

The referenced article is a mixture of fact, half fact and complete nonsense.

The author is a multi-millionaire who has several times been cited for making unfound claims for the "alternative" products he hawks.

 

With respect I don't agree with you Sheryl. The article is one of the more balanced on cholesterol and confirms other research I have read.

If you have a cholesterol problem you should read this and any mainstream literature, more knowledge is good, it is up to you to filter and research further.

Few GP's have little understanding of the complexity of the blood lipids and are trained to deal with a problem through a corresponding standard drug treatment. For high cholesterol prescribe anti cholesterol drugs.

What is increasingly obvious is that the medical fraternity are influenced by uncritical dogma and receive large inducements to prescribe cholesterol. This dogma is picked up by the media and repeated until everyone is an expert on cholesterol.

Some 50-70% of cholesterol produced by the body and is recycled . It also has many functions including hormone effects eg

For these reasons, cholesterol intake in food has little, if any, effect on total body cholesterol content or concentrations of cholesterol in the blood.

Cholesterol is recycled. The liver excretes it in a non-esterified form (via bile) into the digestive tract. Typically about 50% of the excreted cholesterol is reabsorbed by the small bowel back into the bloodstream.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholesterol >

It may turn out that inflammation is the root cause behind heart disease and stroke and the relationship to cholesterol is indirect and less significant.

The inflammation is possibly from a massive change in the EFA3 to EFA6 essential fatty acids ratio, caused through widespread introduction of oils not typically found in the diet eg such as sunflower, and canola. Further farmed salmon present in sushi may also upset this ratio.

This results in a large increases In arachidonic acid and inflammation causing secondary problems. If you are interested in the subject read Chilton, and for a brief background;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arachidonic_acid#Dietary_arachidonic_acid_and_inflammation

However the chemistry is complex. What is clear is that along with many other changes we have radically changed the EFA 3:6 profile and general fat profile in our diet over the last few decades, returning that profile to where it was post food industrialization may not be a bad thing.

Canola oil is a case in point, try to find a processed food product without it however where was it in the 60s? it was apparently originally rapeseed oil and used as an industrial lubricant, only after WWII with a market glut did its later form find use as a food;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canola_oil#History

Many people have this problem and are looking for a solution, I do not think there are any experts only more knowledge to be gained and applied thorough trial and error.

For this reason I feel the best approach is to stay open to new knowledge and avoid falling in love with any theory and vehemently opposing or supporting any theory.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Douggie Style

[tropo]

Of course Mercola is not the only one. Many doctors are trying to sell things, and one way to make your product seem desirable is to imply that it is very special because it "goes against conventional thinking", or some such formula. Add to that the implication that there is a conspiracy to suppress your information by big pharma or the White House, or some other unpopular entity, and you immediately make it more believable to many people, and therefore more attractive.

Many of the thousands of doctors who seek to increase their business have realised this is a good technique, and so create websites designed to misinform or slant information in order to enhance their image as courageous dragon-slayers fighting to reveal "the truth" against all the odds. This "truth" is usually a set of beliefs, or world view, tailored to suggest that the particular treatment the doctor is peddling is more valuable than it really is.

Some of these doctors really believe what they are saying but have lost all scientific objectivity and ignore evidence.

Others are deliberately dishonest and do not actually believe what they are saying but are cynical exploiters. Some are just dumb.

Chris "I consult with patients around the world by phone and Skype" Kresser charges $250 an hour for webcam consultations that often end with prescribing expensive supplements. He appears not to have had any real scientific training, has never done any published medical research and is NOT even a qualified medical doctor, though he apparently got a masters in acupuncture at an alternative medicine school in Berkeley (the town not the University!). So he IS selling something, what he writes is heavily influenced by what he is selling, and he comes from a background that, to say the least, makes his approach to evidence-based medicine somewhat suspect.

Trustworthy scientists present evidence. They do not present websites where they huckster their particular brands of "anti-establishment" (and therefore by definition good ?) nostrums. Reputable honest scientists are not selling anything. They don't have websites with advertisements on them. They present their research in a neutral, factual manner, telling you what experiments they did, how they did them, and what conclusions they drew from the results, which they also present, so you can judge for yourself whether their conclusions seem justified. If they try to sell you something they are automatically suspect.

Look up Chris Kresser here http://paleohacks.com/questions/107178/tell-me-about-your-personal-experience-with-chris-kresser#ixzz2S4w5hmRF

One comment (there are many others):

"I tend to be more of a lurker than a poster, but I think it's important to share that I didn't have a good experience with Chris Kresser, either. The other reviews here touch on all the same problems I had: he is very expensive, 'prescribes' excessive amounts of expensive supplements without checking in on their efficacy, comes off as arrogant and didn't seem to really like talking during our phone consultations, seems fairly indifferent to patient health issues, and has unpleasant and sometimes unresponsive office staff. I saw another review on another site where the poster said he was uncomfotable with Chris's "aggressive business practices" and I very much agree. We all need to make a living, but this seemed to bleed a little bit too far into the realm of taking advantage of people.

Most importantly, many rounds of testing and more than $1000 later, (yes, I'm a fool, but I felt desperate) he didn't enlighten me to anything that led to any resolution of my symptoms. My impression of him is one of someone who speaks with great respect and deference to people he wants to impress, such as other big names in Paleoland, but treats others, like his patients who are paying him huge sums of money, with a dismissive and somewhat condescending attitude. The indifference leave me feeling a little violated, having shared such intimate details of my health, in the sincere hope that he could help.

If you need help, I don't think Chris Kresser's practice is a good place to look."

(Obviously after a bit of Googling), all you've been doing is attacking the 2 messengers mentioned here (Mercola & Kresser).

... and then given us a psychology/business lesson (along with appropriate insults i.e. we have the intelligence/education of 15 years olds) explaining why we should not listen to anyone who doesn't adhere to standard medical practices.

Instead of trying to do this the easy way by finding a few complaints (opinions) about the messengers, why not attack the so called myths presented and give us good scientific evidence as to why they are not valid. That would be useful to all of us. If we are wrong, we would like to know.

Unfortunately I doubt you will as you are so anti-Mercola and Kresser it's unlikely you'll read anything they've presented.

What to do next? Reference other doctors and lecturers (of which there are many) who have expounded on the cholesterol myth?... but then you'll find some way to discredit those messengers too before you've read a thing.

It looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Thanks for your input.

[Tolley]

Of course Mercola is not the only one. Many doctors are trying to sell things, and one way to make your product seem desirable is to imply that it is very special because it "goes against conventional thinking", or some such formula. Add to that the implication that there is a conspiracy to suppress your information by big pharma or the White House, or some other unpopular entity, and you immediately make it more believable to many people, and therefore more attractive.

Many of the thousands of doctors who seek to increase their business have realised this is a good technique, and so create websites designed to misinform or slant information in order to enhance their image as courageous dragon-slayers fighting to reveal "the truth" against all the odds. This "truth" is usually a set of beliefs, or world view, tailored to suggest that the particular treatment the doctor is peddling is more valuable than it really is.

Some of these doctors really believe what they are saying but have lost all scientific objectivity and ignore evidence.

Others are deliberately dishonest and do not actually believe what they are saying but are cynical exploiters. Some are just dumb.

Chris "I consult with patients around the world by phone and Skype" Kresser charges $250 an hour for webcam consultations that often end with prescribing expensive supplements. He appears not to have had any real scientific training, has never done any published medical research and is NOT even a qualified medical doctor, though he apparently got a masters in acupuncture at an alternative medicine school in Berkeley (the town not the University!). So he IS selling something, what he writes is heavily influenced by what he is selling, and he comes from a background that, to say the least, makes his approach to evidence-based medicine somewhat suspect.

Trustworthy scientists present evidence. They do not present websites where they huckster their particular brands of "anti-establishment" (and therefore by definition good ?) nostrums. Reputable honest scientists are not selling anything. They don't have websites with advertisements on them. They present their research in a neutral, factual manner, telling you what experiments they did, how they did them, and what conclusions they drew from the results, which they also present, so you can judge for yourself whether their conclusions seem justified. If they try to sell you something they are automatically suspect.

Look up Chris Kresser here http://paleohacks.com/questions/107178/tell-me-about-your-personal-experience-with-chris-kresser#ixzz2S4w5hmRF

One comment (there are many others):

"I tend to be more of a lurker than a poster, but I think it's important to share that I didn't have a good experience with Chris Kresser, either. The other reviews here touch on all the same problems I had: he is very expensive, 'prescribes' excessive amounts of expensive supplements without checking in on their efficacy, comes off as arrogant and didn't seem to really like talking during our phone consultations, seems fairly indifferent to patient health issues, and has unpleasant and sometimes unresponsive office staff. I saw another review on another site where the poster said he was uncomfotable with Chris's "aggressive business practices" and I very much agree. We all need to make a living, but this seemed to bleed a little bit too far into the realm of taking advantage of people.

Most importantly, many rounds of testing and more than $1000 later, (yes, I'm a fool, but I felt desperate) he didn't enlighten me to anything that led to any resolution of my symptoms. My impression of him is one of someone who speaks with great respect and deference to people he wants to impress, such as other big names in Paleoland, but treats others, like his patients who are paying him huge sums of money, with a dismissive and somewhat condescending attitude. The indifference leave me feeling a little violated, having shared such intimate details of my health, in the sincere hope that he could help.

If you need help, I don't think Chris Kresser's practice is a good place to look."

(Obviously after a bit of Googling), all you've been doing is attacking the 2 messengers mentioned here (Mercola & Kresser).

... and then given us a psychology/business lesson (along with appropriate insults i.e. we have the intelligence/education of 15 years olds) explaining why we should not listen to anyone who doesn't adhere to standard medical practices.

Instead of trying to do this the easy way by finding a few complaints (opinions) about the messengers, why not attack the so called myths presented and give us good scientific evidence as to why they are not valid. That would be useful to all of us. If we are wrong, we would like to know.

Unfortunately I doubt you will as you are so anti-Mercola and Kresser it's unlikely you'll read anything they've presented.

What to do next? Reference other doctors and lecturers (of which there are many) who have expounded on the cholesterol myth?... but then you'll find some way to discredit those messengers too before you've read a thing.

It looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Thanks for your input.

The reason they haven't provided any sources or studies is quite apparent . Most of the research when careful analysed reveals that for the vast majority of people taking statins( those who don't have CVD ) there is no benefit and there is a very big downside with a plethora of reported side effects including diabetes, parkinsons, and guess what heart disease too amongst others.

[partington]

Thanks for your input.

No problem, it's a pleasure.

I read Kresser's article and found it biased and unconvincing because it leaves out every study that disagrees with his slanted views, and only quotes a minute amount of the work that has been done on the subject.

If you want to read a genuine scientific article that thoroughly reviews the evidence that led up to the current understanding of the involvement of plasma cholesterol in heart disease and the use of statins, and quotes 1000's of scientific studies, not just seven as Kresser does, ( hint: Kresser leaves out anything that disagrees with him, i.e. most existing work,) I recommend the following link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16585781

It's a review by Dan Steinberg, a clinician and research professor who has three decades of scientific contribution to the field but is unfortunately not a licensed acupuncturist. It does not leave much out.

It is not quite up to date because it is free, unlike many completely current scientific journal articles, but if you genuinely want to study the undistorted evidence this is a good place to start. If you follow the link, click on the pink button saying 'Final Version Free' on the top right hand side of the page to get the complete article. Happy reading!

Here's a summary of what it's about:

J Lipid Res. 2006 Jul;47(7):1339-51. Epub 2006 Apr 3.

Thematic review series: the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis. An interpretive history of the cholesterol controversy, part V: the discovery of the statins and the end of the controversy.

Steinberg D.

Source

Department of Medicine, University of California-San Diego, La Jolla, CA.

Abstract

The first four reviews in this series (Steinberg, D. 2004. J. Lipid Res. 45: 1583-1593; Steinberg, D. 2005. J. Lipid Res. 46: 179-190; Steinberg, D. 2005. J. Lipid Res. 46: 2037-2051; Steinberg, D. 2006. J. Lipid Res. 47: 1-14) traced the gradual accumulation of evidence, evidence of several different kinds, supporting the lipid hypothesis. They tracked the history from Anitschkow's 1913 classic work on the cholesterol-fed rabbit model to the breakthrough 1984 Coronary Primary Prevention Trial, the first large, randomized, double-blind primary intervention trial showing that decreasing blood cholesterol (using cholestyramine) significantly reduces coronary heart disease events. At that point, for the first time, decreasing blood cholesterol levels became an official national public health goal. Still, only a small fraction of patients at high risk were getting appropriate cholesterol-lowering treatment, and a number of important clinical questions remained unanswered. This final review in the series traces the early studies that led to the discovery of the statins and briefly reviews the now familiar large-scale clinical trials demonstrating their safety and their remarkable effectiveness in reducing coronary heart disease morbidity and mortality.

Edited May 2, 2013 by partington

[tropo]

Thanks for your input.

No problem, it's a pleasure.

I read Kresser's article and found it biased and unconvincing because it leaves out every study that disagrees with his slanted views, and only quotes a minute amount of the work that has been done on the subject.

If you want to read a genuine scientific article that thoroughly reviews the evidence that led up to the current understanding of the involvement of plasma cholesterol in heart disease and the use of statins, and quotes 1000's of scientific studies, not just seven as Kresser does, ( hint: Kresser leaves out anything that disagrees with him, i.e. most existing work,) I recommend the following link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16585781

It's a review by Dan Steinberg, a clinician and research professor who has three decades of scientific contribution to the field but is unfortunately not a licensed acupuncturist. It does not leave much out.

It is not quite up to date because it is free, unlike many completely current scientific journal articles, but if you genuinely want to study the undistorted evidence this is a good place to start. If you follow the link, click on the pink button saying 'Final Version Free' on the top right hand side of the page to get the complete article. Happy reading!

Here's a summary of what it's about:

J Lipid Res. 2006 Jul;47(7):1339-51. Epub 2006 Apr 3.

Thematic review series: the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis. An interpretive history of the cholesterol controversy, part V: the discovery of the statins and the end of the controversy.

Steinberg D.

Source

Department of Medicine, University of California-San Diego, La Jolla, CA.

Abstract

The first four reviews in this series (Steinberg, D. 2004. J. Lipid Res. 45: 1583-1593; Steinberg, D. 2005. J. Lipid Res. 46: 179-190; Steinberg, D. 2005. J. Lipid Res. 46: 2037-2051; Steinberg, D. 2006. J. Lipid Res. 47: 1-14) traced the gradual accumulation of evidence, evidence of several different kinds, supporting the lipid hypothesis. They tracked the history from Anitschkow's 1913 classic work on the cholesterol-fed rabbit model to the breakthrough 1984 Coronary Primary Prevention Trial, the first large, randomized, double-blind primary intervention trial showing that decreasing blood cholesterol (using cholestyramine) significantly reduces coronary heart disease events. At that point, for the first time, decreasing blood cholesterol levels became an official national public health goal. Still, only a small fraction of patients at high risk were getting appropriate cholesterol-lowering treatment, and a number of important clinical questions remained unanswered. This final review in the series traces the early studies that led to the discovery of the statins and briefly reviews the now familiar large-scale clinical trials demonstrating their safety and their remarkable effectiveness in reducing coronary heart disease morbidity and mortality.

Now this is the kind of debate which is useful.

I will study your link. It is a bit of a worry that Daniel Steinberg is not a licensed acupuncturist though.

Here's an interesting (2007) review of his book by Chris Masterjohn PhD:

The Cholesterol Wars: The Skeptics vs. the Preponderance of the Evidence by Daniel Steinberg, MD, PhD.

(Does Daniel Steinberg donate the proceeds of his book sales to charity?)

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Daniel-Steinberg-Cholesterol-Wars.html

Here's a few interesting excerpts from this review:

(Note: red highlighting added for emphasis)

Conclusions About Cholesterol and Who Should Read This Book

All criticism aside for a moment, this book is an important addition to the cholesterol debate. Steinberg presents a compelling case for the relevancy of animal studies and the success of the Coronary Primary Prevention Trial. His two chapters on the basic science of cholesterol and lipoproteins add a great deal to the debate, which is too often dominated by epidemiology.

Steinberg presents the history of the controversy as one who was intimately involved with it. It is fascinating to read how intertwined the development of the lipid hypothesis has been with the development of modern biological science itself. For example, the LDL receptor was the first of the cell surface receptors discovered and the meta-analysis of cholesterol-lowering drug trials at the 1984 Consensus Conference was one of the first if not the first use of the meta-analysis as a statistical tool.

It is also interesting to contemplate the sheer movement of cash (representing real economic resources) into these studies and to consider how fruitless the use of these resources has actually been. The technology developed by private industry has saved more lives by making heart disease less fatal. Meanwhile, cattle-herding tribes like the Masai have protected themselves against heart disease far more effectively than we have, having neither hundreds of millions of dollars for even a single placebo-controlled trial nor any of the fancy technology that industrial capitalism produces.

Steinberg aims the book primarily at the medical community, but anyone who is reading books like Ravnskov's The Cholesterol Myths, Colpo's The Great Cholesterol Con, or Kendrick's book by the same title should read this book to get the other side of the story.

Conversely, no one should read this book without also reading at least one of the above selections from the leading skeptics. Steinberg often includes important details from studies that others leave out, but he also often leaves out important details himself, or even whole studies that disagree with his conclusions.

Ultimately, Steinberg fails to produce a convincing argument that total and LDL cholesterol are the primary villains in heart disease, but he does make a convincing case that they are not completely irrelevant. The basic science showing that oxidized and glycated LDL can not only accumulate into foam cells but initiate and aggravate the inflammatory cascade shows clearly that there is nothing protective about this lipid accumulation, and that there is no analogy between it and firemen being found at the scene of a fire.

At the same time, one would get the idea from reading The Cholesterol Wars that there is actually good science showing that we should reduce our intake of butter and use vegetable oil instead! And nothing could be further from the truth.

As always, it is best to read both sides. Thanks to Dr. Steinberg, we now can.

And he leaves studies out too....

Leaving a Few Out...

Whereas Steinberg cites only seven studies in his treatment of this issue, Colpo cites nineteen. Among the research Steinberg leaves out stand the following two embarrassing studies:

• Rose, et al. (1965): Replacing animal fat with corn oil for two years lowered serum cholesterol by 23 mg/dL but quadrupled cardiac and total mortality.
• Sydney Diet-Heart Study (1978): Replacing animal fat with vegetable fat for five years lowered cholesterol by five percent but increased total mortality by 50 percent.

Granted, Steinberg only means to cover pre-1970s studies -- but missing the extremely embarrassing Rose study is hardly an excusable oversight.

In his own analysis, Colpo cites a number of other unsuccessful trials attempting to reduce heart disease by reducing the intake of total or saturated fat or replacing saturated fat with vegetable oil, sometimes despite a large decrease in serum cholesterol. For example, Ball et al. (1965) were able to reduce serum cholesterol by 25 mg/dL with a diet low in total and saturated fat, but the treatment had no effect on the risk of heart disease.

After reviewing all the evidence, Colpo concludes:

It must again be emphasized that the dietary intervention studies discussed in this chapter represent sixty years' worth of intensive research, the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars in public funds, and an enormous amount of time and effort. The reason this massive undertaking has failed miserably to find any causative role for highly saturated animal or tropical fats in the development of CHD should by now be obvious -- there is none!

If saturated fats caused even a portion of the damage for which they are frequently blamed, their negative effects should be readily and repeatedly demonstrable in controlled clinical trials. However, after excluding the results of the poorly designed and sloppily conducted northern European studies, it quickly becomes apparent that there does not exist a single tightly controlled trial which shows that saturated fat restriction can save even a single life.

Some of these trials, in fact, suggest the exact opposite. The Rose et al., Anti-Coronary Club and Sydney Diet Heart studies all showed significant increases in overall mortality from replacing animal fats with omega-6-rich vegetable fats. The longest-running study focusing on saturated fat restriction (the Los Angeles Veterans study) showed a significant increase in cancer mortality among the intervention subjects -- despite their lower rate of smoking! . . .

Edited May 2, 2013 by tropo

[partington]

The reason they haven't provided any sources or studies is quite apparent . Most of the research when careful analysed reveals that for the vast majority of people taking statins( those who don't have CVD ) there is no benefit and there is a very big downside with a plethora of reported side effects including diabetes, parkinsons, and guess what heart disease too amongst others.

Here's an interesting question. Just last year a huge meta-analysis of statin treatment, published in the Lancet (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673612603675) made headlines because it showed huge benefits of statin treatment to very low risk individuals, without existing heart disease, and who because their heart disease risk was lower than 10% would not normally be considered candidates for statin prescription. The study suggested that the benefits, even to these people, were so large that the prescription guidelines would have to be at least reconsidered.

If you don't want to read the actual paper linked above, here is is how the study was reported in the UK Guardian:

'a big study of statins' effectiveness, published in the online version of the Lancet medical journal, challenges that policy and concludes that even for people with no record of heart problems, taking statins can reduce their risk by a fifth.

The international criteria for who should receive statins should be reviewed and extended, the authors say. As many as 20 million Britons could be offered them, which would add up to £240m to the NHS's annual drugs bill.

"If we want to prevent heart attacks and strokes that come out of the blue in people with no previous evidence of problems – and about half such events happen in the absence of any prior history of disease – then we have to identify and treat people who are currently healthy but are known to be at increased risk of developing heart disease," said Professor Colin Baigent of Oxford University, co-author of the study.

The researchers reviewed 175,000 patients who took part in 27 previous randomised trials. They divided the participants into five groups, each with a different five-year risk of a major vascular event. They found that taking statins reduced the risk of such events by 21% for each unit reduction achieved in someone's level of harmful low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. The benefit applied even in the patients deemed at lowest risk, they concluded.

"This benefit greatly exceeds any known hazards of statin therapy. Under present guidelines, such individuals would not typically be regarded as suitable for LDL-lowering statin therapy. The present report suggests, therefore, that these guidelines might need to be reconsidered." they said. The research also found no evidence that that statins increased incidence of cancer or deaths from non-vascular causes"

Yet the Kessler articles you cite don't even mention this headline making publication. Do you think it's because he didn't know it had happened? Or do you thnk it was because he deliberately didn't want to bring up a major research finding that completely undercut his position?

These people are just not giving you the full picture. Why?

[tropo]

Here's an interesting question. Just last year a huge meta-analysis of statin treatment, published in the Lancet (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673612603675) made headlines because it showed huge benefits of statin treatment to very low risk individuals, without existing heart disease, and who because their heart disease risk was lower than 10% would not normally be considered candidates for statin prescription. The study suggested that the benefits, even to these people, were so large that the prescription guidelines would have to be at least reconsidered.

If you don't want to read the actual paper linked above, here is is how the study was reported in the UK Guardian:

'a big study of statins' effectiveness, published in the online version of the Lancet medical journal, challenges that policy and concludes that even for people with no record of heart problems, taking statins can reduce their risk by a fifth.

The international criteria for who should receive statins should be reviewed and extended, the authors say. As many as 20 million Britons could be offered them, which would add up to £240m to the NHS's annual drugs bill.

"If we want to prevent heart attacks and strokes that come out of the blue in people with no previous evidence of problems – and about half such events happen in the absence of any prior history of disease – then we have to identify and treat people who are currently healthy but are known to be at increased risk of developing heart disease," said Professor Colin Baigent of Oxford University, co-author of the study.

The researchers reviewed 175,000 patients who took part in 27 previous randomised trials. They divided the participants into five groups, each with a different five-year risk of a major vascular event. They found that taking statins reduced the risk of such events by 21% for each unit reduction achieved in someone's level of harmful low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. The benefit applied even in the patients deemed at lowest risk, they concluded.

"This benefit greatly exceeds any known hazards of statin therapy. Under present guidelines, such individuals would not typically be regarded as suitable for LDL-lowering statin therapy. The present report suggests, therefore, that these guidelines might need to be reconsidered." they said. The research also found no evidence that that statins increased incidence of cancer or deaths from non-vascular causes"

Yet the Kessler articles you cite don't even mention this headline making publication. Do you think it's because he didn't know it had happened? Or do you thnk it was because he deliberately didn't want to bring up a major research finding that completely undercut his position?

These people are just not giving you the full picture. Why?

It's a lousy trade off....

http://www.theheart.org/article/1383271.do

"For every 100 patients with elevated cholesterol levels who take statins for five years, a myocardial infarction will be prevented in one or two patients," they write. "Preventing a heart attack is a meaningful outcome. However, by taking statins, one or more patients will develop diabetes and 20% or more will experience disabling symptoms, including muscle weakness, fatigue, and memory loss."

[Douggie Style]

I have to say this is one of the better topics and thank all the posters particularly
those contrary to my views..

My mother and a friend at work are taking the standard anti cholesterol
meds, they are both experiencing an obvious reduction in mental capacity and
have other very severe side effects.

This is the point to me, it may or may not be these drugs help some people
however the consequences may not be worth it.

It seems counter intuitive to broadly and crudely block a system of
transporting important nutrients and 'brain fats' around the body and may ultimately
damage the brain. These may be long term effects that may not be apparent in a
short term study.

The brain requires a good dose of the right 'fats' to be healthy and
function well along with a few other nutrients (pls see John B Arden a researchers
researcher in 'Rewire your Brain) the long term effects of interfering
with this system (really crudely through reducing ‘cholesterol’) may not yet be
fully apparent.

One of the problems with the scientific method and 'studies' is that they
are often time or number limited and may not have sufficient controls. Few authorities
actually go back into the studies and understand the parameters and therefore
what weight to give these studies.

Further there is certainly an industry of paying good money for a study
where the outcome is intended to support a particular outcome. Money does talk
to researchers; there are guns to hire who need to pay for their degrees. Some
of these studies are better used as toilet paper but can get picked up and
widely distributed by the media.

For this reason relying heavily on these studies either for or against is
misguided, better to research how to interpret the worth of a study, read it
yourself and therefore give it the appropriate weight.

Each to their own but lets stay open and get all views out there as it may
help someone have a quality life.

[tropo]

I have to say this is one of the better topics and thank all the posters particularly

those contrary to my views..

My mother and a friend at work are taking the standard anti cholesterol

meds, they are both experiencing an obvious reduction in mental capacity and

have other very severe side effects.

This is the point to me, it may or may not be these drugs help some people

however the consequences may not be worth it.

It seems counter intuitive to broadly and crudely block a system of

transporting important nutrients and 'brain fats' around the body and may ultimately

damage the brain. These may be long term effects that may not be apparent in a

short term study.

The brain requires a good dose of the right 'fats' to be healthy and

function well along with a few other nutrients (pls see John B Arden a researchers

researcher in 'Rewire your Brain) the long term effects of interfering

with this system (really crudely through reducing ‘cholesterol’) may not yet be

fully apparent.

One of the problems with the scientific method and 'studies' is that they

are often time or number limited and may not have sufficient controls. Few authorities

actually go back into the studies and understand the parameters and therefore

what weight to give these studies.

Further there is certainly an industry of paying good money for a study

where the outcome is intended to support a particular outcome. Money does talk

to researchers; there are guns to hire who need to pay for their degrees. Some

of these studies are better used as toilet paper but can get picked up and

widely distributed by the media.

For this reason relying heavily on these studies either for or against is

misguided, better to research how to interpret the worth of a study, read it

yourself and therefore give it the appropriate weight.

Each to their own but lets stay open and get all views out there as it may

help someone have a quality life.

That's a fantastic summation of the situation and from someone actively involved with the drug (your mother and friend) it has considerable worth.

It would seem the most prudent way is to first "do no harm" rather than attempt improvement by taking drugs.

The case for taking the drug should be a lot stronger than the case against taking it, because these drugs upset natural balances in the body that researches are yet to consider or even discover.

In light of this debate, I don't believe the case for is yet strong enough... or more to the point, recent studies have cast doubt upon the case for taking the drug. At the very least there is reasonable doubt.

[Tolley]

tropo, on 03 May 2013 - 00:28, said:

partington, on 02 May 2013 - 23:13, said:

tropo, on 02 May 2013 - 21:35, said:

Thanks for your input.

No problem, it's a pleasure.

I read Kresser's article and found it biased and unconvincing because it leaves out every study that disagrees with his slanted views, and only quotes a minute amount of the work that has been done on the subject.

If you want to read a genuine scientific article that thoroughly reviews the evidence that led up to the current understanding of the involvement of plasma cholesterol in heart disease and the use of statins, and quotes 1000's of scientific studies, not just seven as Kresser does, ( hint: Kresser leaves out anything that disagrees with him, i.e. most existing work,) I recommend the following link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16585781

It's a review by Dan Steinberg, a clinician and research professor who has three decades of scientific contribution to the field but is unfortunately not a licensed acupuncturist. It does not leave much out.

It is not quite up to date because it is free, unlike many completely current scientific journal articles, but if you genuinely want to study the undistorted evidence this is a good place to start. If you follow the link, click on the pink button saying 'Final Version Free' on the top right hand side of the page to get the complete article. Happy reading!

Here's a summary of what it's about:

J Lipid Res. 2006 Jul;47(7):1339-51. Epub 2006 Apr 3.

Thematic review series: the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis. An interpretive history of the cholesterol controversy, part V: the discovery of the statins and the end of the controversy.

Steinberg D.

Source

Department of Medicine, University of California-San Diego, La Jolla, CA.

Abstract

The first four reviews in this series (Steinberg, D. 2004. J. Lipid Res. 45: 1583-1593; Steinberg, D. 2005. J. Lipid Res. 46: 179-190; Steinberg, D. 2005. J. Lipid Res. 46: 2037-2051; Steinberg, D. 2006. J. Lipid Res. 47: 1-14) traced the gradual accumulation of evidence, evidence of several different kinds, supporting the lipid hypothesis. They tracked the history from Anitschkow's 1913 classic work on the cholesterol-fed rabbit model to the breakthrough 1984 Coronary Primary Prevention Trial, the first large, randomized, double-blind primary intervention trial showing that decreasing blood cholesterol (using cholestyramine) significantly reduces coronary heart disease events. At that point, for the first time, decreasing blood cholesterol levels became an official national public health goal. Still, only a small fraction of patients at high risk were getting appropriate cholesterol-lowering treatment, and a number of important clinical questions remained unanswered. This final review in the series traces the early studies that led to the discovery of the statins and briefly reviews the now familiar large-scale clinical trials demonstrating their safety and their remarkable effectiveness in reducing coronary heart disease morbidity and mortality.

Now this is the kind of debate which is useful.

I will study your link. It is a bit of a worry that Daniel Steinberg is not a licensed acupuncturist though.

Here's an interesting (2007) review of his book by Chris Masterjohn PhD:

The Cholesterol Wars: The Skeptics vs. the Preponderance of the Evidence by Daniel Steinberg, MD, PhD.

(Does Daniel Steinberg donate the proceeds of his book sales to charity?)

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Daniel-Steinberg-Cholesterol-Wars.html

Here's a few interesting excerpts from this review:

(Note: red highlighting added for emphasis)

Conclusions About Cholesterol and Who Should Read This Book

All criticism aside for a moment, this book is an important addition to the cholesterol debate. Steinberg presents a compelling case for the relevancy of animal studies and the success of the Coronary Primary Prevention Trial. His two chapters on the basic science of cholesterol and lipoproteins add a great deal to the debate, which is too often dominated by epidemiology.

Steinberg presents the history of the controversy as one who was intimately involved with it. It is fascinating to read how intertwined the development of the lipid hypothesis has been with the development of modern biological science itself. For example, the LDL receptor was the first of the cell surface receptors discovered and the meta-analysis of cholesterol-lowering drug trials at the 1984 Consensus Conference was one of the first if not the first use of the meta-analysis as a statistical tool.

It is also interesting to contemplate the sheer movement of cash (representing real economic resources) into these studies and to consider how fruitless the use of these resources has actually been. The technology developed by private industry has saved more lives by making heart disease less fatal. Meanwhile, cattle-herding tribes like the Masai have protected themselves against heart disease far more effectively than we have, having neither hundreds of millions of dollars for even a single placebo-controlled trial nor any of the fancy technology that industrial capitalism produces.

Steinberg aims the book primarily at the medical community, but anyone who is reading books like Ravnskov's The Cholesterol Myths, Colpo's The Great Cholesterol Con, or Kendrick's book by the same title should read this book to get the other side of the story.

Conversely, no one should read this book without also reading at least one of the above selections from the leading skeptics. Steinberg often includes important details from studies that others leave out, but he also often leaves out important details himself, or even whole studies that disagree with his conclusions.

Ultimately, Steinberg fails to produce a convincing argument that total and LDL cholesterol are the primary villains in heart disease, but he does make a convincing case that they are not completely irrelevant. The basic science showing that oxidized and glycated LDL can not only accumulate into foam cells but initiate and aggravate the inflammatory cascade shows clearly that there is nothing protective about this lipid accumulation, and that there is no analogy between it and firemen being found at the scene of a fire.

At the same time, one would get the idea from reading The Cholesterol Wars that there is actually good science showing that we should reduce our intake of butter and use vegetable oil instead! And nothing could be further from the truth.

As always, it is best to read both sides. Thanks to Dr. Steinberg, we now can.

And he leaves studies out too....

Leaving a Few Out...

Whereas Steinberg cites only seven studies in his treatment of this issue, Colpo cites nineteen. Among the research Steinberg leaves out stand the following two embarrassing studies:

• Rose, et al. (1965): Replacing animal fat with corn oil for two years lowered serum cholesterol by 23 mg/dL but quadrupled cardiac and total mortality.
• Sydney Diet-Heart Study (1978): Replacing animal fat with vegetable fat for five years lowered cholesterol by five percent but increased total mortality by 50 percent.

Granted, Steinberg only means to cover pre-1970s studies -- but missing the extremely embarrassing Rose study is hardly an excusable oversight.

In his own analysis, Colpo cites a number of other unsuccessful trials attempting to reduce heart disease by reducing the intake of total or saturated fat or replacing saturated fat with vegetable oil, sometimes despite a large decrease in serum cholesterol. For example, Ball et al. (1965) were able to reduce serum cholesterol by 25 mg/dL with a diet low in total and saturated fat, but the treatment had no effect on the risk of heart disease.

After reviewing all the evidence, Colpo concludes:

It must again be emphasized that the dietary intervention studies discussed in this chapter represent sixty years' worth of intensive research, the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars in public funds, and an enormous amount of time and effort. The reason this massive undertaking has failed miserably to find any causative role for highly saturated animal or tropical fats in the development of CHD should by now be obvious -- there is none!

If saturated fats caused even a portion of the damage for which they are frequently blamed, their negative effects should be readily and repeatedly demonstrable in controlled clinical trials. However, after excluding the results of the poorly designed and sloppily conducted northern European studies, it quickly becomes apparent that there does not exist a single tightly controlled trial which shows that saturated fat restriction can save even a single life.

Some of these trials, in fact, suggest the exact opposite. The Rose et al., Anti-Coronary Club and Sydney Diet Heart studies all showed significant increases in overall mortality from replacing animal fats with omega-6-rich vegetable fats. The longest-running study focusing on saturated fat restriction (the Los Angeles Veterans study) showed a significant increase in cancer mortality among the intervention subjects -- despite their lower rate of smoking! . . .

Good work and good research.

The bottom line when it comes down to is that people who dont have CVD dont need statins and in fact would be far better off without them considering the side effects that come with them.

The problem is that people have been fed so much misinformation about diet that they are totally following the wrong diet path when it comes to heart health.

Refined grains and too much grains of any kind , sugar, low fat products, margarine, trans fatty acids are the things to avoid if you want to avoid heart problems not butter and meat.

Even people who have CVD would be wise to try diet and lifestyle changes rather than go down the path of taking statins long term considering the nasty side effects of long term useage.

Finally statins do not attack the root causes of the problem so they never actually fix the problem. In the end they exacerbate the problem by lowering cholesterol to levels that cause all sorts of other problems.

Edited May 3, 2013 by Tolley