Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is simply not true. If your anecdotal experience has been such, you can't say that this means all physicians approach patient care this way. My anecdotal and work experience has been the opposite. I am fortunate to live in an area with so many health care provider options and providers who want to get to the root of their patient's issues. Maybe there is limited healthcare options where you live?
No I live in So. Cal. we have an abundance of alternative/holistic practioners. I take a couple meds and have friends who take a lot of allopathic meds and all see conventional MD's. Myself and two other friends seek out alternatives as a general rule. I know 3 women right now on cancer drugs. Hoping my antioxidants keep "C" from this body.
What does FH have to do with the millions who have high cholesterol because of their behavior (overweight/obese, couch sitters, crappy diet, etc.). These people can lower their cholesterol simply by changing their behavior. People with FH cannot.
Can anyone else out there interpret what rubygreta is trying to state here? I think it's called a non sequitur?
FH has everything to do with what I originally posted, which you conveniently took out of context and just straight up made up your own line of thought in order to, I don't know, disprove my point?
So let's repeat this to make this very clear. Jaminhealth, who is known for promoting a low carb/keto style diet and lifestyle on this forum without providing any solid evidence to back up claims, is inferring that cholesterol is not harmful to the human body at all, that medical science has got it all wrong about cholesterol (and saturated fats).
And my response was simple, if people like jaminhealth advocate that cholesterol is not harmful in general, then how is it that people with genetic disorders like FH, characterized by abnormally high levels of blood cholesterol, develop atheriosclerosis from infancy? If cholesterol itself wasn't harmful, then people with abnormal levels of it like those with FH shouldn't develop clogged arteries and heart disease. But they do, and they do because of, you guessed it, high levels of cholesterol in the blood.
Where in my post did I make a comparison to FH and those who have high cholesterol due to behavior? Or whatever it is you were trying to state? Because I still don't know what you're responding to, because it sure wasn't whatever I wrote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubygreta
"In order to evaluate the theory of atherogenesis from cholesterol, Clarkson and Newburgh (1926) fed rabbits a normal diet, with increasing doses of cholesterol of 25, 113, 253 or 507 mg/day, administered in capsules. Moderate atherosclerosis was found in 71% of the rabbits fed 507 mg/day of cholesterol for 47-87 days. Meeker & Kesten (1940, 1941) dissolved 60 or 250 mg of cholesterol in vegetable oil and added it to the diet of rabbits for three months. The animals developed typical atherosclerotic lesions similar to those seen in humans, thus corroborating the theory that cholesterol was the precursor for the development of atherosclerotic vascular disease3."
That's just a brilliant study. Feed vegan rabbits tons of cholesterol to prove a point. The study is WORTHLESS.
As is typical, people like you conveniently brush aside clinical studies that conflict with your beliefs with pure emotion. Worthless? How is it 'worthless?' What does vegan rabbits have to do with anything?
Care to show me any clinical studies that prove your viewpoints?
Oh, don't bother. People like you always use emotion and name calling to shout out those that oppose your viewpoints, without posting any meaningful studies or evidence to back up your claims.
Mark my words, rubygreta will not respond, as the "cholesterol/saturated fats is not bad" crowd on here have a long history of trying to call out those who they disagree with, and then conveniently ignoring the response as it suits them. Some of you people need to do a better job of backing up your claims without engaging in pseudoscience if you want others to take your baseless claims and beliefs seriously.
Can anyone else out there interpret what rubygreta is trying to state here? I think it's called a non sequitur?
FH has everything to do with what I originally posted, which you conveniently took out of context and just straight up made up your own line of thought in order to, I don't know, disprove my point?
So let's repeat this to make this very clear. Jaminhealth, who is known for promoting a low carb/keto style diet and lifestyle on this forum without providing any solid evidence to back up claims, is inferring that cholesterol is not harmful to the human body at all, that medical science has got it all wrong about cholesterol (and saturated fats).
And my response was simple, if people like jaminhealth advocate that cholesterol is not harmful in general, then how is it that people with genetic disorders like FH, characterized by abnormally high levels of blood cholesterol, develop atheriosclerosis from infancy? If cholesterol itself wasn't harmful, then people with abnormal levels of it like those with FH shouldn't develop clogged arteries and heart disease. But they do, and they do because of, you guessed it, high levels of cholesterol in the blood.
Where in my post did I make a comparison to FH and those who have high cholesterol due to behavior? Or whatever it is you were trying to state? Because I still don't know what you're responding to, because it sure wasn't whatever I wrote.
As is typical, people like you conveniently brush aside clinical studies that conflict with your beliefs with pure emotion. Worthless? How is it 'worthless?' What does vegan rabbits have to do with anything?
Care to show me any clinical studies that prove your viewpoints?
Oh, don't bother. People like you always use emotion and name calling to shout out those that oppose your viewpoints, without posting any meaningful studies or evidence to back up your claims.
Mark my words, rubygreta will not respond, as the "cholesterol/saturated fats is not bad" crowd on here have a long history of trying to call out those who they disagree with, and then conveniently ignoring the response as it suits them. Some of you people need to do a better job of backing up your claims without engaging in pseudoscience if you want others to take your baseless claims and beliefs seriously.
Read what YOUR stupid study says that you published here. THEY STUFFED RABBITS WITH CHOLESTEROL. Rabbits are 100% vegan. So the rabbits got sick and died from the cholesterol. SHOCKING!
Read what YOUR stupid study says that you published here. THEY STUFFED RABBITS WITH CHOLESTEROL. Rabbits are 100% vegan. So the rabbits got sick and died from the cholesterol. SHOCKING!
Rabbits, like humans, make their own cholesterol. Feeding them cholesterol would not make them get sick. It did increase atherosclerosis.
Selling a book is bad. But selling $100 billion of Lipitor mostly to people who don't need it is just fine.
I am not going to watch an hour long video. Do you have a transcript or can you provide a synopsis?
By the way, you provided this link in a thread that was closed as evidence of overtreatment with statins. The point of the article apparently flew right over your head. Dr. Hall was making the point that we do indeed treat some people with statins who might not have had an adverse cardiovascular event even if they had not been treated. The problem is that we cannot tell who will have a bad outcome if not treated from those who will not.
"Most patients do not benefit from most drugs. Doctors know this, but that doesn’t stop them from prescribing. Some patients do benefit from most drugs; after all, pharmaceuticals have to demonstrate benefit before the FDA will approve them for marketing. Doctors tend not to think in terms of NNT. They think in terms of who will benefit, not in terms of who won’t. They have to act without having all the information. There is no way of knowing which patients will benefit, so we are stuck treating the many to benefit the few. Brooks compares it to entering a lottery, but I prefer to compare it to deciding whether to buy insurance. Most of us pay for fire insurance for our homes, but not many houses burn down. We willingly pay premiums that may never benefit us because the cost of an uninsured disaster is so great."
Brooks compares it to entering a lottery, but I prefer to compare it to deciding whether to buy insurance. Most of us pay for fire insurance for our homes, but not many houses burn down. We willingly pay premiums that may never benefit us because the cost of an uninsured disaster is so great."
I've had fire/property insurance for 25 years. Never filed a claim. The difference between property insurance and statins, is that I have suffered no side effects, either short term or long term.
The other reason i had it is because my mortgage company forced me to get it. Now no doctor can force you to take statins. But they certainly can convince you using the most flimsy of evidence (the AHA risk calculator). The uneducated patient will defer to the all-knowing doctor.
I've had fire/property insurance for 25 years. Never filed a claim. The difference between property insurance and statins, is that I have suffered no side effects, either short term or long term.
The other reason i had it is because my mortgage company forced me to get it. Now no doctor can force you to take statins. But they certainly can convince you using the most flimsy of evidence (the AHA risk calculator). The uneducated patient will defer to the all-knowing doctor.
The overwhelming majority of patients on statins will never experience side effects short term or long term either, they may live longer and avoid CHD or CVA though...
The "evidence for statins" is hardly flimsy...overwhelming would be the better word choice...
The "evidence against statins" is certainly flimsy...so flimsy in fact I haven't seen a shred of it FROM YOU...and no youtube videos don't count
As for the "uneducated patient"....looking up and believing nonsense on Google doesn't make you "educated"
It certainly doesn't equal 4 years of medical school, 4-7 years of residency, 1-2 years of fellowship and however many years of clinical practice....no one said doctors are "all knowing" but they certainly know more about anatomy, physiology and pathophysiology than YOU and your Google degree ever will
I've had fire/property insurance for 25 years. Never filed a claim. The difference between property insurance and statins, is that I have suffered no side effects, either short term or long term.
The other reason i had it is because my mortgage company forced me to get it. Now no doctor can force you to take statins. But they certainly can convince you using the most flimsy of evidence (the AHA risk calculator). The uneducated patient will defer to the all-knowing doctor.
I've had fire/property insurance for 25 years. Never filed a claim. The difference between property insurance and statins, is that I have suffered no side effects, either short term or long term.
The other reason i had it is because my mortgage company forced me to get it. Now no doctor can force you to take statins. But they certainly can convince you using the most flimsy of evidence (the AHA risk calculator). The uneducated patient will defer to the all-knowing doctor.
I take statins ( 20 mg/ day of simvastatin), have for a long time, and am not aware of any side effects. I guess that makes me like the homeowner who buys homeowner's insurance but never has to use it. We're not forced to take that insurance as we have no mortgage on our property, but believe that the consequences of needing that insurance in a catastrophe outweigh the expense of paying for the insurance. SusyQ's analogy is a good one.
Following one's doctor's recommendation does not make one an "uneducated patient", any more than believing everything one reads on "Dr. Google" makes one an educated patient.
It certainly doesn't equal 4 years of medical school, 4-7 years of residency, 1-2 years of fellowship and however many years of clinical practice....no one said doctors are "all knowing" but they certainly know more about anatomy, physiology and pathophysiology than YOU and your Google degree ever will
And don't forget, they also get 0 years, 0 months, 0 days and 0 hours of nutrition education. But hey, nutrition is not important when it comes to health. It's pills, pills and more pills. How many pills does the average nursing home patient take, while eating a disgusting no-salt, low-fat diet?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
