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.
The question is, "Why do people who are dying drop their cholesterol levels?" Are they unable to eat? Are their livers unable to make cholesterol? See here: Low Serum Cholesterol : Hazardous to Health? -- Meilahn 92 (9): 2365 -- Circulation . Again, associations do not prove cause and effect. The low cholesterol may be a symptom of ill health, not the cause of it.
And yes, you mentioned Dr. Krumholz first. He is "your" expert. He just didn't say what you wanted us to think he said.
At the risk of being Snarky .... can you freaking read?
He said exactly what I posted he said ... that people with higher cholesterol levels live longer PERIOD. There was no surprise ... and no ooops moment on my part. That the counter response including his advocating statin drugs was anticipated and COUNTED ON. It's called a "set up" as opposed to flying by the seat of your pants, and making things up on the fly which you are more familiar with. Stay away from chess, and stick with checkers.
And again ... your suggestion that those low cholesterol levels of those twice as likely to die based on the clinical studies monitoring such statistics are being caused by the illness ... well .... it's another example of your being way over your head, making silly comments.
Had it ever occurred to you that these people and their cholesterol levels being monitored by such studies are being monitored while both groups are relatively healthy, symptom free and based on a history rather than the moment of death? Jesus ! It wouldn't be much of a study to compare Cholesterol levels of an NFL line backer comparing them to a person on death's doorstep, in the final stages of congestive heart failure, now would it?
These figures, to be of any use whatsoever, would OBVIOUSLY come from patients medical records, and would no doubt exclude those with dramatic drops in cholesterol due to freaking liver failure.
One thing is clear ... it takes a mighty big shovel to keep up with you.
At the risk of being Snarky .... can you freaking read?
He said exactly what I posted he said ... that people with higher cholesterol levels live longer PERIOD. There was no surprise ... and no ooops moment on my part. That the counter response including his advocating statin drugs was anticipated and COUNTED ON. It's called a "set up" as opposed to flying by the seat of your pants, and making things up on the fly which you are more familiar with. Stay away from chess, and stick with checkers.
And again ... your suggestion that those low cholesterol levels of those twice as likely to die based on the clinical studies monitoring such statistics are being caused by the illness ... well .... it's another example of your being way over your head, making silly comments.
Had it ever occurred to you that these people and their cholesterol levels being monitored by such studies are being monitored while both groups are relatively healthy, symptom free and based on a history rather than the moment of death? Jesus ! It wouldn't be much of a study to compare Cholesterol levels of an NFL line backer comparing them to a person on death's doorstep, in the final stages of congestive heart failure, now would it?
These figures, to be of any use whatsoever, would OBVIOUSLY come from patients medical records, and would no doubt exclude those with dramatic drops in cholesterol due to freaking liver failure.
One thing is clear ... it takes a mighty big shovel to keep up with you.
No he didn't....
Can't YOU freakin read???
He said OLD people with higher cholesterol live longer than OLD people with lower cholesterol....in a study from 1994!!!!
Get a clue dude.....you have NO argument.....you have NO facts to back your position...
Keep insulting people when you can't counter their point though...always a sign of higher IQ
If you want to know why I might get a little "snarky", it's because of posts like this ... acting as though you are informed, when you are not AT ALL INFORMED.
Here, for your education: Chemicals that ABSORB UV
Humans are made of plastic? I do not see the plastic "irradiating" anything after exposure to UV.
Are you aware of the fact that Melanoma is responsible for 75% of the deaths caused by ALL skin cancers ... yet sun screens don't even bother to account for UVA ?
Secondly, your statement that "As yet, theories about a purported mechanism for sunscreens to cause cancer have not been confirmed" is FLAT OUT WRONG.
Well, no I am not. There are no human studies. only MICE studies.
There are in fact MULTIPLE and synergistic mechanisms at play with sunscreens .... blocking of vitamin D ... DNA damage ... Estrogenic activity ... Free Radical generation ..... all of which are clinically proven "mechanisms" of cancer promotion, and has been well established by mainstream cancer research. (They use some of the chemicals found in sunscreens to grow cancer cells in the cancer research laboratories!!)
The issue is that mainstream medicine and the chemical industry refuses to acknowledge or consider these mechanisms in spite of the evidence rather than lack of evidence, and there are no FDA prohibitions on the use of these chemicals, so nothing is being done by anyone except independent researchers who's warnings are falling on deaf ears and receives no mainstream news support ... because mainstream news is controlled.
Again, Melanoma is the most deadly form of skin cancer, comprising 75% of the mortality rate of skin cancers. And the carcinogenic affects of the various chemical compounds used in sunscreens most certainly paint a different picture ... compounded by the blocking of vitamin D production and vitamin D's anti-cancer protection is also well documented NOW.
You are either making this up as you go ... or someone is feeding you an entire diet of BS (minus the vitamin D). And again, this is why it is impossible to not get snarky when I have someone trying to convince me that they absolutely know Santa Claus is real.
The reality is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what you just said. Diet is an extremely POOR source of vitamin D, and impossible to achieve effective levels of it. The Government's recommended daily requirement of vitamin D are 200 IU's, 400 IUs for those over 50? (useless amounts), where real requirements for good immune system health is a MINIMUM of 2000 IUs, recommended maintenance levels of 5,000 IUs, all the way to therapeutic levels of 10,000-20,000 IUs. You might be able ... MIGHT ... get 200 IUs of vitamin D through diet, but you'd better be eating a LOT of fish .... but the SAD diet .... 2 Eggs (40 IU) .... serving of beef (15 IUs) cheese (12 IU's) etc barely comes close to the 200-400 IU level, and WILL NEVER HIT 2000 IUs.
From the above link: What is the health risk of too much vitamin D?
There is a high health risk associated with consuming too much vitamin D.[SIZE=1]33[/SIZE] Vitamin D toxicity can cause nausea, vomiting, poor appetite, constipation, weakness, and weight loss.[SIZE=1]34[/SIZE] It can also raise blood levels of calcium , causing mental status changes such as confusion. High blood levels of calcium also can cause heart rhythm abnormalities. Calcinosis, the deposition of calcium and phosphate in soft tissues like the kidney can be caused by vitamin D toxicity.[SIZE=1]4[/SIZE] Consuming too much vitamin D through diet alone is not likely unless you routinely consume large amounts of cod liver oil. It is much more likely to occur from high intakes of vitamin D in supplements. The Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine considers an intake of 25 mcg (1,000 IU) for infants up to 12 months of age and 50 mcg (2,000 IU) for children, adults, pregnant, and lactating women to be the tolerable upper intake level (UL). A daily intake above the UL increases the risk of adverse health effects and is not advised.
But, (depending on geography and season) between 10-30 minutes of mid-day sun exposure can produce 10,000 IU's or more .... which exceeds the amount provided in a month's worth of the Standard American Diet.
There is no way to measure the number of IU's from sun exposure. In some parts of the country, you can get "enough" exposure in 10 to 15 minutes. In others, especially dark skin and winter, you may not. As I said before, this is a non-issue in regards to sunscreen. If you are concerned, you can get a blood level for vitamin D or just take a supplement.
So again ... you couldn't be MORE WRONG ... if that were your goal.
Wasn't this thread about cholesterol and heart disease? Why even bring up sunscreen in the first place?
And item #6 about Dr. Sims. There was no routine use of general anesthesia in the time interval of his work. No, the slaves he worked on were not able to give consent, but the lack of anesthesia was not due to deliberately withholding it.
At the risk of being Snarky .... can you freaking read?
He said exactly what I posted he said ... that people with higher cholesterol levels live longer PERIOD. There was no surprise ... and no ooops moment on my part. That the counter response including his advocating statin drugs was anticipated and COUNTED ON. It's called a "set up" as opposed to flying by the seat of your pants, and making things up on the fly which you are more familiar with. Stay away from chess, and stick with checkers.
And again ... your suggestion that those low cholesterol levels of those twice as likely to die based on the clinical studies monitoring such statistics are being caused by the illness ... well .... it's another example of your being way over your head, making silly comments.
Had it ever occurred to you that these people and their cholesterol levels being monitored by such studies are being monitored while both groups are relatively healthy, symptom free and based on a history rather than the moment of death? Jesus ! It wouldn't be much of a study to compare Cholesterol levels of an NFL line backer comparing them to a person on death's doorstep, in the final stages of congestive heart failure, now would it?
These figures, to be of any use whatsoever, would OBVIOUSLY come from patients medical records, and would no doubt exclude those with dramatic drops in cholesterol due to freaking liver failure.
One thing is clear ... it takes a mighty big shovel to keep up with you.
The last study was of almost 6000 men over a time interval of 16 years. The information came from records generated for the purpose of the study. You have just demonstrated that you do not have the foggiest notion of how medical studies are conducted.
Edited to add: you cannot just "exclude" patients from a study because they develop a new medical condition. You can try to control for it, but you cannot just arbitrarily toss the case out.
Well most authorites know it rasies the risk of both heart disease and stroke from clincal studies. As a group they recommend that it not be allowed to be too high.I wouold rely on a opinion by one person and of course we know how to lower it and that thsoe people often have more incidents of both.
He said OLD people with higher cholesterol live longer than OLD people with lower cholesterol....in a study from 1994!!!!
Get a clue dude.....you have NO argument.....you have NO facts to back your position...
Keep insulting people when you can't counter their point though...always a sign of higher IQ
I know you like to confuse people who may be following the dialog, but I'M NOT GOING TO LET YOU!!!
You're a fraud, and you expose yourself as a cold, calculating sort ... "He said OLD PEOPLE!!!" And who gives a $ht about them ... right? Hell, they're going to die any way so who cares ... certainly not you, apparently.
But aside your cloaked dismissal of OLD PEOPLE as not very important, there is an important little detail that you choose to ignore .... that is, of ALL DEATHS from heart disease each year .... 95% of them are OLD PEOPLE!!!
The facts are ... OLD PEOPLE make up the vast majority of those who die of heart disease ... and here are the figures by age group:
National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) 2003 (Deaths by age group for heart disease)
2.6 adults aged 15-24 per 100,000
7.4 adults aged 25-34 per 100,000
29.2 adults aged 35-44 per 100,000
94.2 adults aged 45-54 per 100,000
261.2 adults aged 55-64 per 100,000
665.6 adults aged 65-74 per 100,000
1,780.3 adults aged 75-84 per 100,000
5,926 adults aged over 85 per 100,000
Of the 8,766.5 heart disease deaths per 100,000 in the United Sates for all age groups, 8,371.9 were aged 65 and older .... that is 95% of the total.
So you can play word games if you like, but I'm here to tell you that it is transparently obvious to anyone with half a brain that this is exactly what you are doing.
These figures show that the statement "Old people with high cholesterol live longer than those with low cholesterol" is true for the group studied (Old People) which make up 95% of the death rate. 95% constitutes a statistically significant number don't you think? And there is NO REASON to expect that result to be any different in younger groups, for which the study cited apparently didn't account for.
Now, for those layman out there not formally schooled in the complex world of professional statistical analysis ... one might gather from these "raw figures" that the major factor in death from heart disease seems to be AGE RELATED. Imagine that!! Wow ... what a revelation ... old people are more likely to die than young people ??? Who knew? Well, apparently those life insurance companies out there broke the code that the medical community is still struggling with. But if you listen to the AMA ... they'll have tractor trailer loads of data and bus loads of experts to explain to you why such fundamental assessments are totally misleading .. and that the real cause of heart disease in the world is a "stain drug deficiency". And you'd better believe it, else you may not even make it to the parking lot after your doctor's appointment without keeling over holding your chest.
Unfortunately, what you WILL NOT BE TOLD by your caring doctor are the facts ... especially the one about living longer with higher cholesterol levels. Because if you knew that little tidbit of information .. you might actually ask him why you would want to lower it with Lipitor, and we can't have that, now can we?
Now, back to the good Doctor Krumholz ... he did in fact make this "controversial" statement in 1994 ... 16 years ago ... but apparently he is ignoring this fact and continues to claim that MORE Statin drugs are needed today? And this is from the man that champions "Evidence Based Medicine" ? What a total disgrace.
Moreover, there have been many more studies and analyses since 1994 ... independent (read: not paid for by the Statin drug manufacturers) research that show the same results, such as (Old) people with low cholesterol levels are TWICE as likely to die of heart attacks as those with high cholesterol .... have dramatically increased hospital admissions for infectious diseases .... increased muscular maladies .... increased risks of Alzheimer's and dementia, etc.
The overall conclusion of that independent research is that prescribing cholesterol lowering medications is extremely harmful to health in all but the most extraordinary situations.
And the scientific hypothesis is pretty clear as to why this is indeed the case ... cholesterol is needed by the body for cell repair ... needed by the brain for proper functioning ... and the statin intervention also disrupts enzymatic activities of the body causing depletion of other necessary elements such as COQ10. Furthermore, there is no ideal cholesterol level that can be applied across the board to everyone, as their particular cholesterol needs are specific to them according to their current state of health relative to all other health issues, genetics, and so forth.
And not in a million years will I ever believe that medical doctors somehow do not understand the basic process of cholesterol production and regulation in the body by the liver. By putting their patients on restricted diets as a first step to lowering cholesterol levels, they are either engaging in a blatant fraud, or they were taking a nap during the part of human physiology that teach what the liver does, such as "regulating" cholesterol levels ... increasing production of cholesterol when dietary intake decreases .. and decreases production when dietary levels increase.
The plain simple truth is that you can not throw a rock blindfolded without striking a fraud here ... as your chances of lowering cholesterol by any significant factor through dietary change is virtually nil. This explains why even vegetarians can have the alleged "High Cholesterol" disease. So the good doctors out there will test your cholesterol ... and your chances of it being too high are almost guaranteed given the dramatically low threshold which continues to be lowered (ostensibly for that very reason). So the good Doc says ... need to cut down on those red meats ... need to cut out those fats ... come back and see me in a couple of months and we'll check you again. So you starve yourself of fats (your liver responds by supplementing the reduction of dietary cholesterol in response) and you go back and get tested again. Hmmm ... still too high .... here, let me write you a prescription!!
And the poor patient is only too happy to take a pill for lowering that cholesterol because they really love hamburgers and french fries, and that low fat diet was murder. This is what is happening EVERY DAY, in doctors offices across the country, and big Pharma is singing .. "Cha Ching" $$$$ It's pure psychological manipulation for profit, with the ill health affects of it not even a remote consideration.
And I'm sure some of this is innocent ignorance ... but much of it consciously contrived. I took my Mom for a doctor visit ...they had tested her cholesterol ... and the NP came in with the results ... I mean this woman looked to be on the edge of tears ... deeply concerned ... Mr's X ... your cholesterol is dangerously too high, and we need to get a handle on this immediately. And that entailed a prescription for simvastatin. I mean, this NP did everything but bring in a priest for last rights, and hug my mom goodbye ... and I still don't know if she was just that brainwashed herself, or had just completed an academy award performance. In any event, Mom was distressed at the news until we got out of there and I explained to her just what was happening, and how the current studies show that she's likely to live longer than someone with lower cholesterol ... which includes all cause mortality. And that taking the statin have no positive affect, according to the studies involving women, and especially elderly women.
I find it disgusting and abhorrent to be frightening these elderly people unnecessarily in order to pump them with equally unnecessary drugs that may in fact harm them. And none of these caring professionals seem to care that they are actually putting them on the path to increased risk of heart disease ... muscular degeneration ... dementia and cancer. All they really care about are their own self interests from that fear and ignorance.
The fraud is very deep ... and it requires complicity by many, and ignorance from everyone else in order to continue it.
Now, some of your "tag team" partners here may indeed just be clueless ... but you ... No ... based on past dialogs, I believe quite strongly that you know exactly what you're doing ... know exactly what the truth is, and you bend over backwards to twist and confuse issues to perpetuate the various medical myths and frauds you promote. And I have a particular lack of fondness for that.
Let me reiterate what I said earlier ... this is not about brilliance ... this is about deception and ignorance.
When people are armed with the facts .... they are far less susceptible to these types of blatant deceptions. And that is my only goal here ... it is not to "win" a debate with you .... that part is made easy by the fact that your deceptions are pretty elementary.
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 09-25-2010 at 11:41 AM..
The last study was of almost 6000 men over a time interval of 16 years. The information came from records generated for the purpose of the study. You have just demonstrated that you do not have the foggiest notion of how medical studies are conducted.
Edited to add: you cannot just "exclude" patients from a study because they develop a new medical condition. You can try to control for it, but you cannot just arbitrarily toss the case out.
Please feel free to slap your self in the forehead a couple of extra times for me .... maybe ... given enough pounding, some sense might shake loose from wherever it is currently trapped.
What part of "the American Heart Association is obviously BIASED" do you not understand?
What part of "most major drug studies are funded by the drug manufacturer who makes the drug" do you fail to grasp the significance?
What part of "Drug manufacturer's have been caught repeatedly filtering out unfavorable data, skewing results to produce a positive findings in efficacy and safety testing " are you having trouble coming to terms with?
Citing what the American Heart Association has to say carries about as much weight as what suzy_q says .... which is far closer to zero than any other number.
The Benefits of High Cholesterol
By Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PhD
People with high cholesterol live the longest. This statement seems so incredible that it takes a long time to clear one's brainwashed mind to fully understand its importance. Yet the fact that people with high cholesterol live the longest emerges clearly from many scientific papers. Consider the finding of Dr. Harlan Krumholz of the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine at Yale University, who reported in 1994 that old people with low cholesterol died twice as often from a heart attack as did old people with a high cholesterol. Supporters of the cholesterol campaign consistently ignore his observation, or consider it as a rare exception, produced by chance among a huge number of studies finding the opposite.
But it is not an exception; there are now a large number of findings that contradict the lipid hypothesis. To be more specific, most studies of old people have shown that high cholesterol is not a risk factor for coronary heart disease. This was the result of my search in the Medline database for studies addressing that question. Eleven studies of old people came up with that result, and a further seven studies found that high cholesterol did not predict all-cause mortality either.
Now consider that more than 90 % of all cardiovascular disease is seen in people above age 60 also and that almost all studies have found that high cholesterol is not a risk factor for women.2 This means that high cholesterol is only a risk factor for less than 5 % of those who die from a heart attack.
But there is more comfort for those who have high cholesterol; six of the studies found that total mortality was inversely associated with either total or LDL-cholesterol, or both. This means that it is actually much better to have high than to have low cholesterol if you want to live to be very old.
High Cholesterol Protects Against Infection
Many studies have found that low cholesterol is in certain respects worse than high cholesterol. For instance, in 19 large studies of more than 68,000 deaths, reviewed by Professor David R. Jacobs and his co-workers from the Division of Epidemiology at the University of Minnesota, low cholesterol predicted an increased risk of dying from gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases.
Most gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases have an infectious origin. Therefore, a relevant question is whether it is the infection that lowers cholesterol or the low cholesterol that predisposes to infection? To answer this question. Professor Jacobs and his group, together with Dr. Carlos Iribarren, followed more than 100,000 healthy individuals in the San Francisco area for fifteen years. At the end of the study those who had low cholesterol at the start of the study had more often been admitted to the hospital because of an infectious disease. This finding cannot be explained away with the argument that the infection had caused cholesterol to go down, because how could low cholesterol, recorded when these people were without any evidence of infection, be caused by a disease they had not yet encountered? Isn't it more likely that low cholesterol in some way made them more vulnerable to infection, or that high cholesterol protected those who did not become infected? Much evidence exists to support that interpretation.
Read the entire article, and educate yourself.
Not only do those with lowered cholesterol suffer two fold increased mortality risk from heart disease ... but lower cholesterol levels are markers for many other diseases as well.
So, not only are the Statin drugs dangerous themselves ... there is no reaon to take them in the first place.
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 09-25-2010 at 12:13 PM..
I wonder about 3rd world countries and/or more rural areas of the globe. Do they have more/less heart disease, without the drugs that we commonly use to combat cholesterol? They have lower mortality rates due to poor sanitatiation, infectious disease,etc, but for those that do live longer? And, in other westernized countries, other than the US--what are there heart disease statistics like?
Last edited by Nanny Goat; 09-25-2010 at 06:02 PM..
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.
