6 replies to this topic

[stocks]

A striking report just published in the New England Journal of Medicine indicates the accumulation of calcium in coronary arteries, and not cholesterol, more accurately predicts a future heart attack or other heart trouble, far more than cholesterol or other standard risk factors.

This report gives evidence of a major misdirection by modern medicine – the creation of cholesterol phobia in the population at large. Prior studies show use of cholesterol-lowering drugs does not reduce mortality rates for coronary artery disease. This report follows a front-page report in Business Week Magazine declaring cholesterol-lowering drugs to be of marginal value.

http://www.knowledge...ium,Cholesterol

http://content.nejm....ort/358/13/1336


A health study by Japanese researchers has found that people with low levels of LDL cholesterol -- often referred to as "bad cholesterol" -- are more likely to die than those with higher levels.

The finding comes as Japan prepares to introduce special health checkups from April, which list high LDL cholesterol as a factor in deciding whether a person has metabolic syndrome. It is likely the results of the survey will stir debate over the designation of LDL cholesterol as "bad."

http://mdn.mainichi....0na021000c.html



For decades, the theory that lowering cholesterol is always beneficial has been a core principle of cardiology. It has been accepted by doctors and used by drug makers to win quick approval for new medicines to reduce cholesterol.

But now some prominent cardiologists say the results of two recent clinical trials have raised serious questions about that theory — and the value of two widely used cholesterol-lowering medicines, Zetia and its sister drug, Vytorin. Other new cholesterol-fighting drugs, including one that Merck hopes to begin selling this year, may also require closer scrutiny, they say.

First, Pfizer stopped development of its experimental cholesterol drug torcetrapib in December 2006, when a trial involving 15,000 patients showed that the medicine caused heart attacks and strokes. That trial — somewhat unusual in that it was conducted before Pfizer sought F.D.A. approval — also showed that torcetrapib lowered LDL cholesterol while raising HDL, or good cholesterol.

Torcetrapib’s failure, Dr. Taylor said, shows that lowering cholesterol alone does not prove a drug will benefit patients.

Then, on Monday, Merck and Schering-Plough announced that Vytorin, which combines Zetia with Zocor, had failed to reduce the growth of fatty arterial plaque in a trial of 720 patients. In fact, patients taking Vytorin actually had more plaque growth than those who took Zocor alone.


http://www.nytimes.c...amp;oref=slogin

[stocks]

Colpo, Anthony
LDL Cholesterol: "Bad" Cholesterol, Or Bad Science. A brilliant review of the cholesterol folly published in Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
Ellison, Shane*
Hidden Truth About Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs. A medicinal chemist´s clear-eyed view on the cholesterol-heart issue.
Groves, Barry* Second Opinions. Exposing Dietary And Medical Misinformation. According to Petr Skrabanek and James McCormick Scepticaemia is "an uncommon generalised disorder of low infectivity. Medical school education is likely to confer life-long immunity". This review is written by an individual whose scepticism is undisturbed, possibly because he has never attended a medical school
Why a calorie isn't necessarily a calorie BMJ Rapid Response Dec 24, 2005.
Enig, Mary* Cholesterol and Heart Disease - a Phony Issue. As usual, Mary Enig is sharp and to the point.
International
Coenzyme Q10 Association Home page. Do you know that the statins also inhibit the body's synthesis of coenzyme Q10, a molecule essential for energy production in all cells?

Kendrick, Malcolm* Why The Cholesterol-Heart Disease Theory is Wrong.
(originally published in RedFlagsDaily)
Have we been conned about cholesterol? An article in Daily Mail about Malcolm Kendrick's new book.
Why raised cholesterol levels do not cause heart disease. Talk at a meeting of the Leeds branch of the Briish Medical Association. Five parts on Youtube:
Part 1: Cholesterol http://uk.youtube.co...h?v=XPPYaVcXo1I
Part 2: Familial Hypercholesterolaemia http://uk.youtube.co...h?v=-Xrr8MjDJ78
Part 3: About Statins http://uk.youtube.co...h?v=jE_RIQY53ys
Part 4: Stress and the HPA axis (Bjorntorp) http://uk.youtube.co...h?v=fHIA8usGxEM
Part 5: CVD Populations and Stress http://uk.youtube.co...h?v=Na_Ear8OdJM

Loren, Karl High Cholesterol Causes Heart Disease? Truth Revealed!
Moore, Thomas J The Cholesterol Myth. A classical review of the cholesterol madness, written by a highly esteemed science journalist
Ravnskov, Uffe* New Cholesterol Guidelines For Converting Healthy People Into Patients
Very soon, half of adult mankind is on statin treatment. Is it really wise?
Talk given in Sydney August 2006 (audio)
The Cholesterol Myths. Do you think high cholesterol and animal fat are the direct route to cardiovascular death? Read this!
Vos, Eddie* Nutrition, Health and Heart Disease

http://www.thincs.or...nks.htm#similar

[calmcookie]

A plummeting cholesterol level is also one of the first signs of cancer. Like most substances in the body, we need a BALANCE of cholesterol to remain healthy. The only thing worse than the bogus cholesterol hysteria is the idea that dietary fat is the big villian that raises bad (LDL) cholesterol. Utter nonsense. It's been scientifically proven by dozens of researchers, that excess carbohydrate is a far greater contributor to increased LDL. Cheers and happy prime ribbing, C.C.

[stocks]

Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) Has Little to Do With Cholesterol

CHD was an epidemic caused by an unknown pathogen. The epidemic is now over.

The time sequence, magnitude and widespread
nature of the epidemic of CHD indicate that it
could not realistically have been due to behavioural
factors or dietary factors. There has clearly been an
environmental factor. In theory, it could have been a
physical, chemical or biological factor. There is no
evidence of a physical factor, and there is no consistent
evidence of chemical poisoning, even dietary.
Cholesterol cannot explain the epidemic. It was
almost certainly a biological factor, as has been the
case with other epidemics.

The epidemic is now virtually at an end, but we
are left with the question, has CHD been due to an
environmental biological factor, which is a
micro-organism, a bacterium or a virus? If so, it
has not been clearly identified, but it has never
been fully investigated. Chlamydia pneumonia has
been a culprit micro-organism, but research has
been inconclusive.61–64 The failure to identify a specific
micro-organism does not invalidate the likelihood
that CHD is due to a chronic infection, and
Koch himself was aware that his postulates, with
high specificity but low sensitivity, would ‘rule in’
but could not ‘rule out’ a putative causal
micro-organism.

The earlier major causes of heart
disease (syphilis, rheumatic fever, endocarditis)
were due to micro-organisms but initially obscure
in causation. Ninety per cent of the cells that constitute
the human adult are micro-organisms, the
vast majority of which cannot yet be identified.
We must remember that these are mainly inherited,
especially from the mother, and these
micro-organisms carry up to 3 million genes, compared
to our 25 000 human genes.65 Microbiology
can be said to be still in its infancy, and so is
genetics.



http://qjmed.oxfordj...9.full.pdf html

[stocks]

BMJ: Why we can’t trust clinical guidelines

In 2004, newly issued cholesterol guidelines greatly expanded the number of people for whom treatment is recommended.
A firestorm broke out when it was learnt that all but one of the guideline authors had ties to the manufacturers of cholesterol lowering drugs.

Yet these and other guidelines continue to be followed despite concerns about bias, because as one lecturer said at a meeting earlier this year,

“We like to stick within the standard of care, because when the [bleeeep] hits the fan we all want to be able to say we were just doing what everyone else is doing—even if what everyone else is doing isn’t very good.”



http://forums.phoeni...mit-cois.23906/

[stocks]

The U.S. government is poised to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol

The nation's top nutrition advisory panel has decided to drop its caution about eating cholesterol-laden food, a move that could undo almost 40 years of government warnings about its consumption.

The group's finding that cholesterol in the diet need no longer be considered a “nutrient of concern” stands in contrast to the committee's findings five years ago, the last time it convened. During those proceedings, as in previous years, the panel deemed the issue of "excess dietary cholesterol" a public health concern.

The new view on cholesterol in the diet does not reverse warnings about high levels of "bad" cholesterol in the blood, which have been linked to heart disease.

Yet even today, after more than a century of scientific inquiry, scientists are divided. Some nutritionists said lifting the cholesterol warning is long overdue, noting that the United States is out-of-step with other countries, where diet guidelines do not single out cholesterol. Others support maintaining a warning.

The forthcoming version of the Dietary Guidelines -- the document is revised every five years -- is expected to navigate myriad similar controversies. Among them: salt, red meat, sugar, saturated fats and the latest darling of food-makers, Omega-3s.

“Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome,” John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford and one of the harshest critics of nutritional science, has written. “In this literature of epidemic proportions, how many results are correct?”


http://www.washingto...ry-cholesterol/

[stocks]

Cholesterol — how the web and books were years ahead of the “Consensus”

Finally the official consensus on cholesterol is admitting defeat:

“Any day now, the US government will officially accept the advice to drop cholesterol from its list of “nutrients of concern” altogether. It wants also to “de-emphasise” saturated fat, given “the lack of evidence connecting it with cardiovascular disease”. “

Matt Ridley, a Tory peer and science author, yesterday said there should be an inquiry ‘into how the medical and scientific profession made such an epic blunder’.

He described the change of advice in the US as a ‘mighty U-turn’ and said studies linking high cholesterol and saturated fat in food to heart disease were ‘tinged with scandal’.

In the late 1990′s it was widely known online that our livers are mostly in charge of our cholesterol levels, not what’s on our dinner plates. Something like 80% of the cholesterol in our blood came from our own livers, not the food we eat.

“Cholesterol is not some vile poison but an essential ingredient of life, which makes animal cell membranes flexible and is the raw material for making hormones, like testosterone and oestrogen.”


http://joannenova.co...ensus-and-govt/

Edited by stocks, 30 May 2015 - 04:19 PM.