[quote]Razwell wrote:
(Nothing personal against your wife, just doctor-wise tell her to stop scamming patients with nonsense)
[/quote]
Well, she’s a doctor and has done some research on heart disease but she is actually only in the beginning stages of her cardiology specialty and has not practiced cardiology. I presented the original post as an eye-opener. Perhaps she has already been brainwashed, I don’t know, but it’s easy for doctors to fall into the trap of believing the conventional wisdom because they jsut don’t have time to evaluate studies.
One thing though that I remember from some of her research was that blockage/damage/scarring of the lung capillaries may be the root problem that eventually manifests itself as heart disease.
I’m just curious as I am not an expert here. What’s the deal with this? My wife seems to think that the 10-year risk assessment calculator is based on straight regression equations off of large population studies. If your overall risk factor is low, they don’t give you statins no matter what your cholesterol level or LDL level is.
Anyway, cholesterol is linked to testosterone levels. Testosterone levels are related to heart attack rates when age is factored out, and in fact it is probably the strongest factor correlating to heart disease.
My wife also mentioned that the big thing at cardiology conferences IS the inflammatory hypothesis, not how to reduce cholesterol. It’s not like doctors are ignoring the data. I think they are dealing with it as fast as the system allows.
Quote:
The Framingham Heart Study established that high blood cholesterol is a risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD). Results of the Framingham study showed that the higher the cholesterol level, the greater the CHD risk. On the other end of the spectrum, CHD is uncommon at total cholesterol levels below 150 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL). A direct link between high blood cholesterol and CHD has been confirmed by the Lipid Research Clinics-Coronary Primary Prevention Trial (1984) which showed that lowering total and LDL (“bad”) cholesterol levels significantly reduces CHD.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
ZEB wrote:
MODOK wrote:
Its a fact that reductions in LDL reduce proportionally cardiovascular adverse events in men, women, african-americans, and the elderly. THere are a multitude of well documented, well funded studies which lead us to these conclusions, including the ALLHAT study, and the Framingham HEART study.The evidence clearly shows a link between reductions in LDL and a decrease in cardiovasular mortality.
Yes, but there are ZERO studies, performed by independent organizations which determine that overall high cholesterol is bad for you!
And statin drugs are poison to your system! They can and do cause liver damage and muscle spasms.
True, the correlation between total cholesterol and cardiovascular disease really isn’t there. My thinking on the blood lipid/ cardio disease link is that its a modern- societal dietary and lifestyle induced trait much more than it is familial genetics. Society has a wide range of total cholesterol numbers naturally, but what we have done as a society with our garbage food is shift our blood lipid ratios to a very pro-inflammatory and artery-clogging LDL/HDL ratio.
If people ate a primitive diet of food common even 60 years ago, before mass commerialization and manufactured fats, the reduction in cardio events would probably be staggering. You are correct about statins, they are highly dangerous drugs! People definitely underestimate them. I’ve seen many cases of liver damage directly attributable to statins. What is very unfortunate is the misprescribing that goes on. Statins are not nor have they ever been designed to be first line agents to treat borderline hypercholesterolemia. But if you go to the MD nowadays, you get a lollipop and a an Rx for Lipitor.
Imagine my horror last year when the FDA was pushing STRONGLY to make statins over-the-counter drugs! Its still in the pipeline, but the APhA is fighting hard to keep that from happening, and I am too. Can you imagine the harm that would potentially do?
The National Heart Lung and Blood HAS LIED ABOUT THE FRAMINGHAM RESERACH Any government PROPAGNDA SITE will continue to lie.
Here is DOCUMENTED PROOF
www.ravnskov.nu/myth8.htm
P.S. Modak
ATHEROSCLEROTIC LESIONS IN HUMANS ARE FIBEROUS SCAR TISSUE MAINLY AND CALCIUM DEPOSISTS AND SMOOTH MUSCLE CELLS. FACT!!! IT USED TO BE CALLED CALCIFICATION OF THE ARTERIES, FOOL.
YOU HAVE BEEN DUPED BY ONE OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL MEDIA PROPAGANDA MACHINES EVER
THESE CHOLESTEROL COMMERCIAL ARE NONSENSE AND NOT NOT NOT HOW IT HAPPENS.
NONE OF THE 26 LONG TERM PROSPECTIVE TRIALS SINCE 1963 (All that have been done to date) EXAMINING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SATURATED FAT AND CVD NONE SUPPORT THE CHOLESTEROL THEORY , NONE.
ONCE AGAIN MOST IMPORTANTLY , CLINCIAL TRIALS ARE FAR MORE RELIABLE THAN PROSPECTIVE AND GUESS WHAT ABOUT THE 18 TIGHTLY CONTROLLED LONG TERM CLINCIAL TRIALS ???
NO, NO RANDOMIZED TIGHTLY CONTROLLED CLINCIAL TRIAL, (THE GOLD STANDARD IN SCIENTIFIC RESERACH ) HAS EVER , EVER SHOWN ANY REDUCTION AT ALL IN CVD MORTALITY FROM SATURATED FAT RESTRICTION OR CHOLESTEROL LOWERING. NONE OF THESE 18 CLINCIAL TRIALS TO DATE SUPPORT THE CHOLESTEROL THEORY… NONE ZERO NONE. DID I MENTION NONE? \