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.
Dietary studies which lowered cholesterol HAVE ALSO BEEN FAILURES.
No they haven't, even the drugs have been shown to improve health outcomes. All you're doing is selectively looking at the research and then claiming anybody how says something you don't like is "wrong". That isn't science, its just ranting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickSantos
Also ESSLSTYN USED STATINS.
BOTH ORNISH AND ESSELSTYN USED MULTI-INTERVENTIONS. ESSELSTYN DID USE A LOW DOSE STATIN.
Esselstin did not use statins in all his patients, only in some cases. The results for both groups, those on a low dose of a statin and those that weren't on any, were the same: their heart disease improved.
You're obviously not familiar with these doctors work, they relied on numerous measures to show that their patients had improved health outcomes. The suggestion that because they didn't use such and such test that their results are unimportant is ridiculous, their patients had vastly improved health outcomes compared to those that didn't go through their programs. That is the most important result of them all, the additional testing just gives us an idea about why their health outcomes were improved!
And no, Steven Nissen has never suggested that Esselstyn is wrong or what he says is "nonsense". You see, real researchers don't talk like this...only internet ranters. He is what he says:
"Dr. Steven Nissen, chairman of cardiovascular medicine at the Clinic, said Esselstyn's premise is unproven because nobody has conducted a rigorous study to show whether diet alone can reverse coronary disease."
He thinks that Esselstyn hypothesis has yet to be proven and mentions the trouble of funding such large studies (who is going to fund it when billions and billions are made on cholesterol drugs, heart surgeries, etc). That is all.....
no they haven't, even the drugs have been shown to improve health outcomes. All you're doing is selectively looking at the research and then claiming anybody how says something you don't like is "wrong". That isn't science, its just ranting.
Esselstin did not use statins in all his patients, only in some cases. The results for both groups, those on a low dose of a statin and those that weren't on any, were the same: Their heart disease improved.
You're obviously not familiar with these doctors work, they relied on numerous measures to show that their patients had improved health outcomes. The suggestion that because they didn't use such and such test that their results are unimportant is ridiculous, their patients had vastly improved health outcomes compared to those that didn't go through their programs. That is the most important result of them all, the additional testing just gives us an idea about why their health outcomes were improved!
wrong. Atherosclerosis was not reversed. Until he puts them through an ivus he will never know.
Many patients had great results from coronary angiography and sent home as healthy. They were not. They had diffusely diseased arteries AS THE IVUS REVEALED
GOOGLE "DR. NISSEN IVUS ' He has a YouTube lecture DEMONSTRATING THIS STEP BY STEP.
Have esslstyn use ivus and prove it., then- and only then will i listen
AS DR. STEVEN NISSEN SAID ON TV"PATIENTS PUT ALL THEIR FAITH IN THESE VEGAN DIETS. THERE IS NO QUALITY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT ANY DIET CAN REVRSE CORONARY DISEASE."
wrong. Atherosclerosis was not reversed. Until he puts them through an ivus he will never know.
To say it once again, his patients had greatly improved health outcomes....that is the most important result of them all. The tests just give us an idea about why their health outcomes improved and from the testing that was done, it looks like their atherosclerosis improved. Suggesting that the testing that was done was useless and can't be used as evidence is, of course, ridiculous...
Also, as for Esselstyn diet, its important to note that it just isn't a "vegan diet", its a very particular vegan diet. And though far more evidence is needed to know truly what is going on here, but here is numerous pieces of evidence that whole food plant-based diets greatly reduce one's risk for heart disease. Your suggestion that because a single test was not utilized that this evidence doesn't matter is, well, utterly unscientific. That isn't how science works.......that is just internet ranting logic.
And no, that isn't what Steven Niessen said, that is just your twisted interpretation. Instead he believes that more evidence, in particular from large trials, is needed before me can make any reasonable conclusions. That is wildly different than thinking there is no evidence or that Esselstyn is wrong. He didn't say those things.
To say it once again, his patients had greatly improved health outcomes....that is the most important result of them all. The tests just give us an idea about why their health outcomes improved and from the testing that was done, it looks like their atherosclerosis improved. Suggesting that the testing that was done was useless and can't be used as evidence is, of course, ridiculous...
Also, as for Esselstyn diet, its important to note that it just isn't a "vegan diet", its a very particular vegan diet. And though far more evidence is needed to know truly what is going on here, but here is numerous pieces of evidence that whole food plant-based diets greatly reduce one's risk for heart disease. Your suggestion that because a single test was not utilized that this evidence doesn't matter is, well, utterly unscientific. That isn't how science works.......that is just internet ranting logic.
And no, that isn't what Steven Niessen said, that is just your twisted interpretation. Instead he believes that more evidence, in particular from large trials, is needed before me can make any reasonable conclusions. That is wildly different than thinking there is no evidence or that Esselstyn is wrong. He didn't say those things.
HE DID SAY IT. I HAVE IT ON VIDEO.
SPECIFICALLY THOSE WORDS.
FURTHERMORE, "FEELING GOOD" IS NOT AT ALL A MEASURE OF IF YOU HVE HEART DISEASE. THERE ARE NO SYMTOMS USUALLY UNTIL YOU DROP DEAD. MANY PEOPLE HAVE HERAT DISEASE AND DO NOT EVEN KNOW IT. THIS SHOWS HOW UNFAMILAIR YOU ARE.
And no , it is NOT "ridiculous" to say that coronary angiography is OUTDATED TECHNOLOGY WHICH MISSES MASSIVE PLAQUES.
UNTIL ESSELSTYN USES IVUS, HE CANNOT CLAIM HE REVERSED ATHEROSCLEROSIS.
Kiddo....I just quoted him and provided the source of the quote. He, like any real researcher, doesn't speak in your pseudo-scientific terms. He, unlike yourself, is open to the idea but claims that there is insufficient evidence at this time.
I wonder if there is a correlation between ranting on the internet in caps and bold text and heart disease? A bet there is....but won't know until we use an ivus.
Edit: I didn't say anything about "feeling good", please respond to what is actually stated.
kiddo....i just quoted him and provided the source of the quote. He, like any real researcher, doesn't speak in your pseudo-scientific terms. He, unlike yourself, is open to the idea but claims that there is insufficient evidence at this time.
I wonder if there is a correlation between ranting on the internet in caps and bold text and heart disease? A bet there is....but won't know until we use an ivus.
Edit: I didn't say anything about "feeling good", please respond to what is actually stated.
i have the video. He is on cleveland tv with the other doctor promoting heart 411
kiddo....i just quoted him and provided the source of the quote. He, like any real researcher, doesn't speak in your pseudo-scientific terms. He, unlike yourself, is open to the idea but claims that there is insufficient evidence at this time.
I wonder if there is a correlation between ranting on the internet in caps and bold text and heart disease? A bet there is....but won't know until we use an ivus.
Edit: I didn't say anything about "feeling good", please respond to what is actually stated.
REAL science:
DISREGARD THE RESULTS OF FAULTY OUTDATED INNACURATE TECHNOLOGY.
Put your patients through ivus- DEMONSTRATE WITH EXTREMELY ACCURATE TOOLS that you have arrested or reversed the disease.
Only IVUS will show this.
Esselstyn has NOT done this.
Last edited by RickSantos; 12-30-2012 at 02:07 PM..
There is no diet currently that can reverse ehart disease. He has said it on tv and on articles from reporters
Like I said researchers don't speak like this, its unscientific. He thinks that there is insufficient evidence for Esselstyn's hypothesis that is all, he doesn't think he is "wrong" nor does he think "there is no diet that can reverse heart disease".
I don't think you understand something about science, but if some hypothesis X lacks evidence or is missing some pieces of evidence (e.g., some particular test, a large trial) that doesn't mean hypothesis X is wrong. Instead it means that hypothesis X is not conclusive, further research needs to be done. Claiming that hypothesis X is wrong, in this case that "no diet can reverse heart disease", requires the same sort of evidence as "there is a diet that can reverse heart disease". That is why Steven Nissen, being familiar with science, would never say the things you pretend he has. Instead, as I quoted him, he says that there is insufficient evidence.....for the hypothesis at this time. That is his opinion on the matter....obviously Esselstyn has a different opinion. The fact that you think the opinion of one doctor supersedes the opinion of another is, well, strange. That isn't how science works....you don't just pick the doctor or researcher you like and quote him and pretend what he says supersedes what everyone else says. You have to look at the entire body of research.....when you do that you see clear evidence that diet effects heart disease. Now, can it reverse heart disease like Esselstyn says? That has yet to be shown conclusively, but there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the answer is yes.
Real science doesn't disregard past studies because there are updated testing methods. That is selective pseudo-science.
Kiddo....I just quoted him and provided the source of the quote. He, like any real researcher, doesn't speak in your pseudo-scientific terms. He, unlike yourself, is open to the idea but claims that there is insufficient evidence at this time.
I wonder if there is a correlation between ranting on the internet in caps and bold text and heart disease? A bet there is....but won't know until we use an ivus.
Edit: I didn't say anything about "feeling good", please respond to what is actually stated.
You repeatedly sound like someone who went off his meds.....
If you want people to listen, please adjust your method of communication.
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.
