|
The astute predictions made by Bill Sardi in the past are beginning to take root. See also:
Orthomolecular Solutions to Heart Disease - Share The Wealth
Chris Gupta
The collapse of western medicine was reported by this writer first in 2002, and with the recall or pending withdrawal of anti-inflammatory drugs like Vioxx, Celebrex, Bextra, public confidence in modern medicine has been shaken. But what you have heard or read is just the tip of the iceberg. More drugs are soon to be removed. The failure of conventional medicine to adopt natural medicines has not only been costly from a financial standpoint, it has cost hundreds of thousands of lives, far more than the Sumatra earthquake/tsunami you have heard about in the news media recently.
12/28/2004
Predicted collapse of conventional medicine now underway - one vitamin could save Medicare from bankruptcy.
By Bill Sardi
Two years ago this writer authored an e-book entitled The Collapse of Conventional Medicine in the wake of reports which indicated estrogen replacement therapy, arthroscopic knee surgery, prostate cancer surgery, bone marrow transplantation and radical mastectomy for breast cancer were worthless and possibly problematic treatments.
We are now witnessing another round of news reports centered on the failure of prescription drugs. Anti-inflammatory drugs (Vioxx, Bextra, Celebrex) have come into question with the realization they increase the risk of dying from heart disease. To make matters worse, arthritic patients who experience pain are likely to switch back to ibuprofen and aspirin, medicines that increase the risk of gastrointestinal hemorrhage that kills an estimated 16,000 people annually. Alternatives such as fish oil, curcumin from turmeric, oral hyaluronic acid, SAMe, bromelain from pineapple, should be utilized as safer alternatives, but are rarely prescribed by doctors.
The unsafe drugs you are hearing about in news reports are just the tip of the iceberg. Ralph Nader's Public Citizen organization is calling for 181 drugs to be removed from the marketplace because of a lack of safety or ineffectiveness. The safety system for new drugs is flawed. An estimated 30,000-40,000 lives were lost before the FDA begrudgingly took action to recall Vioxx. Britain recalled Rezulin, an anti-diabetic drug, in 1997 but it took three years for it to be removed from the marketplace in the US.
You and your loved ones are at avoidable mortal risk when taking FDA approved drugs.
Amidst the chaos, a drug company airs a television ad saying "the FDA has confidence in Crestor," a cholesterol-lowering statin drug, but the FDA says the ad is "false and misleading." Public Citizen is calling for this drug to be recalled because of an increased risk for kidney failure. In reality, all statin drugs should be removed from the marketplace because they potentially increase the risk for liver and kidney disease, mental depression, cancer and heart failure.
To make matters worse, a front-page report in the Los Angeles Times reveals that Crestor was approved upon the recommendation of researchers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), most who were paid consultants to the drug company. One NIH doctor was interviewed on television wearing a white coat with the emblem of the NIH without revealing he was a paid consultant to the company that makes Crestor. The NIH has invoked a partial ban on outside income. Astonishingly, 200 NIH scientists have submitted a letter of appeal, saying a permanent ban on outside income will make them "second-class citizens in the scientific community." The referees see nothing wrong with being bought off! [Los Angeles Times Dec. 22, 2004]
If doctors do not express their outrage over being misled about the safety of drugs, they will be considered as conspiring partners with the FDA, the NIH and the drug companies. A crisis looms in physician credibility.
 
How will doctors respond when they find that, since 1992, they have been misled about vitamin C? Doctors were told by NIH researchers that high-dose vitamin C (beyond 200 milligrams per day) is excreted and produces "expensive urine." A newly published report reveals earlier studies were flawed if not intentionally designed to fail, and oral-dose vitamin C can achieve blood concentrations three times greater than previously thought possible. [Annals Internal Medicine 140:533-7, 2004]
More and more Americans are searching for alternatives. If 100 million Americans who have low vitamin C consumption would take vitamin C pills, mortality rates would drop suddenly in the US. A confirming report, a review of nine different studies, indicates adults who regularly take vitamin C pills providing greater than 700 milligrams per day will experience a 25% drop in their risk for coronary heart disease, the nation's number one killer. [American Journal Clinical Nutrition 80: 1508-20, 2004] Compare that to statin cholesterol drugs which only reduce mortality rates by 0.4%! [Journal American Medical Assn 288: 2998-307, 2002] The best diet, 5 servings of fruits and vegetables a day, will only
provide 200 milligrams of vitamin C and has not been shown to reduce mortality rates from cancer or heart disease.
America is on the precipice of a great change. With prescription medicines in question, if the truth about natural medicines gets into public view, and the public begins to experience health benefits, there will be no turning back. Medicare ran an $87 billion deficit in 2008 and had to draw money out of the general fund. This entire deficit could be eradicated if the public took just one 1000-milligram vitamin C pill on a daily basis.
Copyright 2004 Bill Sardi, Knowledge of Health, Inc.
Learn more at......... https://www.askbillsardi.com
addendum:
The Misguided War On Cholesterol is an incredible book (an update of an the earlier book "LIPITOR,®
THIEF OF MEMORY," no longer available, now includes all statin side effects not just cognitive, hence a new a title and cover). A must read for anyone who is even remotely interested in how our sickness care, billed as health care, system works.
Dr. Graveline, like many, obviously a very
conscientious doctor, was suddenly faced with a number of dilemmas when he experienced transient global amnesia (memory loss) induced by Lipitor (one of the statin cholesterol lowering drugs). Interestingly the manufacturer even proclaims that there is no connection with its use to prevent heart disease or heart attacks yet the use of this useless drug continuers through slick marketing. For example:
"The Ontario government in Canada spends nearly 50% of its budget on health care, up from approximately 35% twenty years ago. In Canada $1.1 billion is spent on cholesterol lowering statin drugs like Lipitor each year. Ontario taxpayers spent $170 million for Lipitor in 2003-04." From NPI Daily news @ npinewsletters.com June 21, 2005.
This short eminently readable work discusses, among other issues, what Transient Global Amnesia
(TGA) is, how the statin drugs work, the myth of the Cholesterol/Modified Low Fat Diet etc. of special interest is the role of cholesterol particularly in the brain. It is shown how statins can transverse the blood brain
barrier and interfere with the normal functioning of the brain. This is most important in those who have a dramatic reduction when using statins ..."abrupt, major decreases of serum cholesterol from statin drug therapy should be taken more as a warning than as an indication of success, for cognitive side effects seemed more likely to occur in these cases."...
Mention is made of a ..."recent PROSPER trial published in Lancet, that statin therapy increased the incidence of cancer deaths, completely offsetting the SLIGHT decrease in deaths from cardiovascular disease and further complicating interpretation of reported benefits from statin therapy." Not to
mention other significant side effects of liver/kidney damage, muscle pain/injury, Coenzyme 10 (CQ10) depletion essential for heart health and continued deficiency of
heart essential Vitamin Bs and other nutrients.
Their is a cogent discussion between correlation of good diet and disease. This alone is worth the price of the book. No one, but no one, has ever had a drug deficiency yet our medical system continues to discourage the use of nutrients in lieu of generally toxic drugs! They never even look at the underlying causes which these drugs sadly mask - much to the detriment of the patient.
Given the benefits of cholesterol lowering borders more on speculation then in fact (mostly from manipulated statistics) it is surprising that there is a need to reduce cholesterol at all. Yet both Drs. Graveline and Cohen (in the forward) still seem to feel the need to do so indicates how ingrained the cholesterol lowering mantra has taken hold in the medical community.
Should your doctor suggest statins or for that matter any other cholesterol lowering drug just say "here take this (book) and call me in the morning...."
Chris Gupta
See also:
Orthomolecular Solutions to Heart Disease
Lipitor: Side Effects And Natural Remedy
NATURE'S PERFECT STATIN®
Statin Drugs & Memory Loss
"Statin Drugs Side Effects: the misguided war on cholesterol" is now available through direct purchase. It is not available from Amazon or your local bookstore at this time. To receive your autographed copy: Within US, mail $20.00 check or money order to Duane Graveline MD, 4414 Cormorant Ln, Merritt Island, FL 32953. All others, $25.00. (see additional info at www.spacedoc.net)
Duane Graveline MD MPH
Many are confused about the contradictory stance (to the mainstream) taken on this and other sites
regarding the relationship between cholesterol and heart disease?
Shane Ellison has
cut through the propaganda and provided a cogent response.
This response should more than adequately deflate the skeptics and those who contumely wine that if
this was true then the almighty experts would have long figured this out by now camp.
Next time an arm chair critic gets on her/his high horse regarding the prevalent dogma just hand her/him this post to chew on...
Chris Gupta
See also:
What's a little cholesterol amongst friends?
Shane Ellison [author of
Health Myths Exposed] wrote that there was a JAMA report which stated that the Framingham study showed that there was an INCREASED death rate for LOWER blood cholesterol in older men [over 50 years old]. This is contrary to the prevailing medical thinking of the day.
Question: How can I obtain a copy or an abstract of the report so I can read it for myself? I am 75 years old and my doctor has put me on Pravachol, and if what Shane quoted is true, this drug could have put me in a higher risk of death than without it.
I have found that there are some authors that misquote research papers, or take statements out of context in order to make their information more sensational and increase the sales numbers of their book. I hope Shane is not one of these.
I have read a number of JAMA Framingham abstracts, and I can only find data that says that statins are very effective in preventing heart attacks.
Answer: The Framingham NEVER studied the effects of “statins.” It was a statistical study looking at cholesterol levels, cardiovascular disease and longevity.
And yes, of course the assertion that statin drugs are ineffective is contrary to prevailing medical thinking...common sense always is. Make a special note that this assertion IS NOT contrary to prevailing medical science. There is a sharp contrast between prevailing medical thinking and prevailing medical science. Ponder that for a minute... I’m not sure why medical doctors fail to recognize this contrast. Perhaps it is the estimated $21,000 that each doctor receives from drug companies every year in “consulting fees” that has crippled their common sense.
Remember, prevailing medical thinking also dictated that those who suffer from joint pain should be on VIOXX – not glucosamine sulfate. Prevailing medical thinking also dictates that children should be on antidepressants and methamphetamines – instead of being parented. Prevailing medical thinking also dictates that vaccines are safe and effective – more so than hygiene and proper eating. Prevailing medical thinking also dictates that nutritional supplements are ineffective – pretending that ephedra and the like will kill us all. Prevailing medical thinking also dictated to women that they should be on hormone replacement therapy derived from horse piss...Shall I go on?
Jury Calls Merck Liable in Death of Man on Vioxx
By ALEX BERENSON
A Texas jury said the widow of a man who died in 2001 after taking the pain drug Vioxx should be awarded $253.5 million.
Despite this BLATANT disregard for our health by "prevailing medical thinking," few are willing to
question "prevailing medical thinking." I’m awe-struck at this ignorance and lack of responsibility among consumers. I doubt I could find another time in human history when people were so hypnotized and stupid (Fortunately, there are still smart people who are at Bioenergetic Spectrum reading this).
Here is the abstract (note the sentence that begins with "After the age 50..."):
JAMA. 1987 Apr 24;257(16):2176-80.
Cholesterol and mortality. 30 years of follow-up from the Framingham study, by Anderson KM, Castelli WP, Levy D.
From 1951 to 1955 serum cholesterol levels were measured in 1959 men and 2415 women aged between 31 and 65 years who were free of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer. Under age 50 years, cholesterol levels are directly related with 30-year overall and CVD mortality; overall death increases 5% and CVD death 9% for each 10 mg/dL. After age 50 years there is no increased overall mortality with either high or low serum cholesterol levels. There is a direct association between falling cholesterol levels over the first 14 years and mortality over the following 18 years (11% overall and 14% CVD death rate increase per 1 mg/dL per year drop in cholesterol levels). Under age 50 years these data suggest that having a very low cholesterol level improves longevity. After age 50 years the association of mortality with cholesterol values is confounded by people whose cholesterol levels are falling--perhaps due to diseases predisposing to death.
Drug worshipping doctors are misquoting the Framingham study.
Still though, you CANT make a decision on whether or not to lower cholesterol on this ONE study!
This is a STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION, not a CAUSAL. Know the difference. You might infer that high cholesterol increases life span for those aged 50 and older. But you still must decipher WHY! To do
this you have to learn about the factors that cause heart disease, the inflammation process that leads to plaque and the role of cholesterol in the body.
At this point, most are saying “Do I have to?” Of
course you do – if you want to be healthy. One cannot be lazy minded and healthy at the same time.
Get your brain cells turned on.
references:
DEATH BY MEDICINE, December 2003 (46 pages), Gary Null PhD, Carolyn Dean MD ND, Martin Feldman MD, Debora Rasio MD, Dorothy Smith PhD.
Health Myths Exposed, LLC, 2005
Review published September 1, 2005.
Shane Ellison's Hidden Truth About Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs is yet another weapon fit for your arsenal of intellectual self-defense against the myth that cholesterol causes heart disease and that, to protect your health, you must contribute your fair share to the $26 billion/year empire of
cholesterol-lowering statin drugs.
Ellison possesses a Master's degree in organic chemistry. After first-hand experience in drug design, he abandoned what he calls "synthetic medicine" to become an independent researcher, nutritional consultant, developer of product testing certification, and designer of numerous nutritional supplements. He is also a member of The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics.
The Statin Financial Empire
In Hidden Truth, Ellison identifies the huge profits made from cholesterol-lowering drugs as the driving force behind not only the production of the drugs, but the official government recommendations on cholesterol and statins as well.
The new cholesterol-lowering drugs account for 6.5% of the market share and brought in $12.5 billion in 2002. In 2004, Lipitor became the first drug to bring in $10 billion annually, and statins now rake in $26 billion per year.
Between 2002 and 2004, of course, arrived in 2003 the updated recommendations of the U.S. government's National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) that, as discussed in the
second issue of our newsletter, aimed to triple the number of U.S. citizens taking statin drugs.
Who is the NCEP? The NCEP is a is a project of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, itself under the aegis of the National Institutes of Health and the Federal Department of Health and Human Services.
But that's not all. The NCEP is also a panel of industry scientists tying together the financial interests of the major pharmaceuticals and the public power of the Federal government, into what I have
called elsewhere the "Public Health-Industrial Complex."
Ellison exposes this connection, citing evidence that among nine members of the NCEP, only one did not have financial links to cholesterol-lowering drug producers. The connections of the other eight were undisclosed at the time the panel's recommendations were released.
The Cholesterol Myth
The myth surrounding statins-- that statins will protect against disease by lowering LDL cholesterol-- rests on the myth that LDL cholesterol plays a causal role in disease.
Ellison cites evidence from the 1930s through the 1960s using post-mortem analysis showing cholesterol levels to be unrelated to the degree of atherosclerosis.
Electron beam tomography now allows medical researchers to analyze plaque levels in live patients. Ellison cites Hecht and Harman of New York's Beth Israel Medical Center, who determined cholesterol-lowering drugs, both alone and in combination with niacin, to have no effect on atherosclerotic plaque, despite lowering LDL cholesterol.
Hecht and Harman report ". . . with respect to LDL cholesterol-lowering, 'lower is better' is not supported by changes in calcified plaque progression."
The Statin Myth
Despite contrary evidence, the statin myth progresses full-force ahead, assuming that LDL cholesterol-lowering will prevent disease, and thus recommending continuous expansion of the number and type of patients who should be prescribed statins.
Cholesterol May Save Your Health
Yet according to Ellison, studies have consistently linked high cholesterol to lower mortality. For example:
Low cholesterol is associated with heart arrhythmia. The European Heart Journal published a 3-year study of 11,500 patients finding those with low cholesterol to have a risk of all-cause death 2.27 times higher than those with high cholesterol. The Journal of Cardiac Failure published an analysis of 1134 patients with heart disease and found low cholesterol to be associated with the worst outcomes in heart failure patients and impaired survival, while high cholesterol improved survival rates. The American Geriatrics Society reported in 2003 that, in patients over the age of 65, even cholesterol levels up to 417 mg/dL were associated with lower mortality compared to levels under 189 mg/dL.
Yet the growth of cholesterol-lowering drugs expands.
Fibrates-- the FDA-Approved Carcinogens
An older class of cholesterol-lowering drugs called fibrates were notoriously unsuccessful.
The US General Accounting Office reported in Cholesterol Treatment -- A Review of the Clinical Trials Evidence that fibrates offered no improvement in survival rates to patients with or without known heart disease.
In fact, Ellison cites several studies showing fibrates increased mortality, and are carcinogenic. When the FDA approved fibrates, 6 of 9 advisory board members voted against approval, while the FDA chose
to enact the minority recommendation and approve the drugs.
Statins, Statin Cocktails, and More Cancer
The new cholesterol-lowering drugs, statins, also called HMG CoA-reductase inhibitors, or by such names as Lipitor, Zocor, Mevacor, Leschol, Pravachol, etc, share a similar story, according to Ellison.
Ellison cites hysterical proclamations by leading medical authorities about the wide expansion of statin use that should take place, including calls to put statins in the public water supply.
Wald and Law advocate statin "cocktails," be given to all people over the age of 55, consisting of one statin drug, 3 blood pressure-lowering drugs, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, folic acid, and aspirin, without any clinical evidence that this is either safe or effective.
Yet there are a few secrets about the effectiveness of statins that are rarely brought to light.
Ellison criticizes the use of relative risk figures, which exaggerate a cardiovascular benefit. For example, if a drug is shown to lower the risk of some disease from 2% to 1%, a doctor may tell her patient that the drug will reduce his risk of disease by 50%. This sounds dramatic to the patient. Yet in absolute terms, there is only a reduction of one percentage point.
The doctor could also have told the patient that he has a 1 in 100 chance of receiving a benefit from the drug!
Ellison also points out the massive gender bias in statin research. From 1990 to 1999, all statin trials were overwhelmingly conducted with men. The trial with the lowest percentage of patients who were men was the 4S trial, in which 81% of patients were men, and the highest was the WOSCOPS trial, in which 100% of the patients were men.
That there was no evidence allowing for sex-specific analysis was ignored for nearly ten years. Walsh and Grady analyzed 13 studies together in a meta-analysis (an analysis that takes data from many studies and combines it into one) that had some data for women patients, and found no evidence of any benefit at all to healthy women.
Ellison also points out that some statin trials found no reduction in mortality with statins. The PROSPER trial, for example, found no reduction in mortality with Lipitor.
Dr. Steven Nissen, the lead investigator of the REVERSAL Pravachol trial, writes:
"Surprisingly, despite attaining a low LDL level on pravastatin, these patients showed highly significant progression for percent atheroma volume and percent obstructive volume . . . When I started
this study, I believed that any reduction in progression would just be due to lower LDL levels, but now I'm not so sure."
Finally, Ellison also discusses evidence that the very small benefit of statins in relation to cardiovascular health shown in some trials is not related to their effects on LDL cholesterol, but to other, independent effects of statins.
More Cancer
Like fibrates, there is some evidence that statins cause cancer. The PROSPER trial, according to Ellison, showed statins to increase breast cancer by a factor of 15.
Vascular endothelial growth factor is a compound necessary for angiogenesis, which benefits the heart, but also fuels the growth of cancers by providing cancerous cells with new blood vessels. Statins
mimic this compound, which could be related to their apparent carcinogenic potential.
Some natural food medicines claimed to reduce cancer risk, such as green tea, may exert their actions by blocking vascular endothelial growth factor.
What Does Cause Heart Disease?
Shane Ellison cuts through the shoddy speculations about correlative data and looks at the actual mechanisms of heart disease. Like Dr. Al Sears in The Doctor's Heart cure, reviewed on this site here, Ellison primarily blames damage to blood vessels, and identifies LDL and immune responses as corrective actions against this damage, rather than the mere presence of LDL as the cause of atherosclerotic plaque.
Ellison also highlights the importance of such factors as insulin resistance and homocysteine.
Hidden Truth recommends various supplements, dietary changes, and lifestyle changes that can help protect blood vessels from the assaults of toxic and abrasive compounds, and thus keep the heart healthy, strong and protected from heart disease.
Make Hidden Truth Part of Your Arsenal of Intellectual Self-Defense
The only caveat I have about Hidden Truths is that it could use more discussion about the effects of statins on those who have established heart disease. Ellison discusses several studies that found no benefit to people without established heart disease, without analyzing the findings for those with established heart disease.
Nevertheless, Ellison's emphasis on the effects of statins on healthy people is necessary, because many medical authorities have recommended the use of statins even for perfectly healthy people.
Ellison also cites many studies showing that high cholesterol is beneficial in cases of heart disease, which would make a discussion of how statins effect those with established heart disease even more interesting, since statins lower cholesterol, while also exerting many other effects.
Ellison occasionally injects some dark sarcasm into the pages of Hidden Truths. Some people might dislike this, while others will enjoy it. Either way, the depth of junk science and financial corruption revealed by Ellison would be considered truly tragicomic by many a reader.
Ellison's Hidden Truth is a welcome addition to a growing minority of perspectives that abandon the simplistic notion that the mere presence of high cholesterol in the blood causes its deposition into plaques, challenges the purveyors of health myths who draw in tens of billions of dollars annually from pseudo-science, and gives practical advice based on cutting edge science about how you can make less expensive, natural changes to protect against heart disease while improving your health, mental function, and stamina rather than compromising it.
Hidden Truth About Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs belongs in your arsenal of intellectual self-defense against the purveyors of the cholesterol myths.
You can buy Hidden Truths at www.healthmyths.net
Debunking the Myths About Cholesterol
The idea that cholesterol is the cause of heart disease has been repeated so many times over the last half-century that most people assume it to be true without a second thought.
Now that statins, the cholesterol-lowering drugs, have begun to bring in a bonanza of profits for pharmaceutical companies, any new disease that can be pinned on cholesterol represents a chance
to broaden the scope of profits ever more wide.
The result?
Alzheimer's disease is now being blamed on cholesterol. Does the scientific evidence back it up? Or is it just another "cholesterol myth?"
Dr. Ravnskov and The Cholesterol Myths
Dr. Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PhD, coined the term "cholesterol myth" in his 2000 book
The Cholesterol Myths: Exposing the Fallacy That Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Cause Heart Disease.
Dr. Ravnksov's website on the cholesterol myths* details his credentials and summarizes his fascinating exposure of how nine myths about saturated fat, cholesterol, and heart disease came to be established orthodoxy without solid scientific evidence to back them up.
Despite Dr. Ravnskov's credentials, his meticulous research, and iron-clad arguments, his book has been so provocative, that it was literally set on fire on national TV in Finland!
Researchers Question the Cholesterol Myths
Dr. Ravnskov's ninth cholesterol myth is that all scientists support the position that dietary saturated fat and cholesterol cause heart disease. As Dr. Ravnskov shows, there have always been dissenters within the scientific community. One can take a principled stand against the idea that cholesterol causes heart disease and be in good scientific standing and in the company of many qualified researchers.
Some of the many medical doctors and researcher who question the relationship between cholesterol
and heart disease and the general negative bias against cholesterol can be found at the website
of THINCS, The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics.
This section of Cholesterol-And-Health.com is dedicated to exposing commonly perpetrated myths about cholesterol, and is fully documented with research from peer-reviewed journals.
Myths About Cholesterol -- Articles
The following articles debunk myths about cholesterol that drug companies would prefer you believe:
Myth:
Cholesterol Causes Heart Disease. This Review of Dr. Uffe Ravnskov's (MD, PhD) The Cholesterol
Myths takes you on a fascinating tour through Dr. Ravnskov's brilliant expose of shoddy science at
its worst, from the origin of the "diet-heart idea" to the present.
Myth:
Cholesterol Causes Alzheimer's Disease. Part I: Debunking the Myth Websites push "brain-healthy"
diets based on low-fat, low-cholesterol foods and researchers celebrate the fact that they are able
to lower brain cholesterol levels with pills. But does it make any scientific sense? This article
shows how the idea that cholesterol causes Alzheimer's disease is being perpetuated against the scientific evidence, and why research shows that cholesterol is a substance that actually protects your brain.
The Real Causes of Alzheimer's Disease Cholesterol is not the cause of Alzheimer's disease, and low-fat diets are not the solution. In fact, the hardcore science indicates that deficiency of DHA, a nutrient found in animal fats, and insulin resistance, caused by a diet excessively high in carbohydrates, are major contributors to the development of Alzheimers!
Facts!
1. Cholesterol is not a deadly poison, but a substance vital to the cells of all mammals. There are no such things as good or bad cholesterol, but mental stress, physical activity and change of body weight may influence the level of blood cholesterol. A high cholesterol is not dangerous by itself, but may reflect an unhealthy condition, or it may be totally innocent [i.e. a living organism always seeks homeostasis; biological systems inherently and holistically compensate for each other. e.g. a higher cholesterol count means greater low density lipoprotein activity because your body is probably responding to your diet]. In a decadent, industrialised culture where tons of artificial fats and oils and hydrogenated and refined products are produced everyday for the average consumer, it's small wonder that sickness prevails in a culture due to poor diet.
2. A high blood cholesterol is said to promote atherosclerosis and thus also coronary heart disease. But many studies have shown that people whose blood cholesterol is low become just as atherosclerotic as people whose cholesterol is high.
3. Your body produces three to four times more cholesterol than you eat. The production of cholesterol increases when you eat little cholesterol and decreases when you eat much. This explains why the ”prudent” diet cannot lower cholesterol more than on average a few per cent.
4. There is no evidence that too much animal fat and cholesterol in the diet promotes atherosclerosis or heart attacks. For instance, more than twenty studies have shown that people who have had a heart attack haven't eaten more fat of any kind than other people, and degree of atherosclerosis at autopsy is unrelated with the diet.
5. The only effective way to lower cholesterol is with drugs, but neither heart mortality or total mortality have been improved with drugs the effect of which is cholesterol-lowering only. On the contrary, these drugs are dangerous to your health and may shorten your life.
6 The new cholesterol-lowering drugs, the statins, do prevent cardio-vascular disease, but this is due to other mechanisms than cholesterol-lowering. Unfortunately, they also stimulate cancer in rodents, disturb the functions of the muscles, the heart and the brain and pregnant women taking statins may give birth to children with malformations more severe than those seen after thalidomide.
7 Many of these facts have been presented in scientific journals and books for decades but are rarely told to the public by the proponents of the diet-heart idea.
8 The reason why laymen, doctors and most scientists have been misled is because opposing and disagreeing results are systematically ignored or misquoted in the scientific press.
9 The Benefits Of High Cholesterol
Do you want to know more? Read Dr. Ravnskov's book, "The
Cholesterol Myths." This is an updated and greatly extended version of this site. In addition to the subjects mentioned above, you can read about
...the many unsuccesful cholesterol-lowering
experiments,
...the meaningless animal experiments,
...familial hypercholesterolemia and why you
shouldn´t bother too much about it,
...the myths about triglycerides,
...the dangers associated with an overconsumption
of polyunsaturated oils,
...the illogicalities around the Mediterranean diet,
...the fallacies of Dr. Ornish´s life-style trial,
...and
much more
|
