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.
I really don't see the reason for this argument. Basically no one on these forums not desparate is going to follow anyone here's advise but rely on actual trained specialist.From every specailist I have ever heard they certainly agree with blueevilz.
One need only google "Cholesterol Con" or "Cholesterol Scam" or "Dangers of Statin Drugs" and you'll get thousands of hits with all the information you need.
I believe that high cholesterol is a symptom of heart disease. It does not cause it. From what I have read, cholesterol is the circulatory systems "band aid". When the body feels the need to protect the heart, veins and arteries from damage, additional cholesterol is created to provide a protective layer. As damage continues, the protective layer is built up thicker and thicker until, ultimately it interferes with blood flow.
I remember the comparison of it being like a scab on the skin, but in the vessel, which obviously isn't good. I don't know if it's actually cholesterol doing the job. I thought it was platelets. Either way, when I think of high blood sugar it makes sense why folk with diabetes are at risk for heart disease.
The inner lining of blood vessels are made of of mostly collagen. It is well documented that homocystein breaks down collagen. When the collagen in the inner lining of the blood vessel is compromised it leaves a surface much like steel wool (arteriosclerosis). This rough surface will collect lipids in the blood stream leading to small and smaller diameter arterial walls.
The inner lining of blood vessels are made of of mostly collagen. It is well documented that homocystein breaks down collagen. When the collagen in the inner lining of the blood vessel is compromised it leaves a surface much like steel wool (arteriosclerosis). This rough surface will collect lipids in the blood stream leading to small and smaller diameter arterial walls.
This is a good point and it really should be included in testing when determining risk for CV disease. I also believe that a nutrition blood panel should be included in general yearly/biyearly check ups. I'd guess the costs wouldn't be too bad, maybe $300-500 at most. Every two years is doable. I wonder if this is covered by insurance companies. My co offers all kinds of discounts for preventive measures (health club memberships, check-ups on the job, etc). If anything, it would save them money in the long run.
Reading comprehension not your strong suit is it??
Thats NOT what the "study" (actually article) states....
It states that the current target guidelines for treatment need to be LOWERED....NOT that having a high LDL isn't a risk factor for CAD
LOL......maybe you should stick to making ridiculous claims WITHOUT trying to back them up.....since you tend to contradict your "claims" with your "proof"
Wow .. indeed miracles are possible .. in this one instance, I agree with you ... that does seem to be what the article is driving at ... the "need" to lower the guidelines for statin intervention .... though the most likely motive of this effort is to increase the number of patients being prescribed statins as opposed to any real concern about improving health.
What I think is being overlooked here is the key information. The statement:
Quote:
"Almost 75 percent of heart attack patients fell within recommended targets for LDL cholesterol, demonstrating that the current guidelines may not be low enough to cut heart attack risk in most who could benefit," said Dr. Gregg C. Fonarow, Eliot Corday Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine and Science at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and the study's principal investigator.
One could easily fall on either side of the argument here in that Dr. Fonarow is actually admitting that the science which was used to set the guidelines in the first place is faulty, and that lowering LDL levels through statins has not produced the promised successful results ... because that is what the Professor is saying. Now, the overall conclusion drawn from this admission could fall on either side of the argument by either agreeing with the Dr. that the current intervention practices haven't gone far enough, or that the overall science that produced the ineffective guidelines is also faulty. Of course, Dr. Fonarow's conclusion is purely objective, and we have no reason to question his unbiased conclusions that stronger action is the answer, right? hahahah NOT SO FAST, BUBBA:
Quote:
The national cholesterol guidelines are set by the National Cholesterol Education Program, part of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health.
The study was sponsored by the Get with the Guidelines program, which is supported by the American Heart Association in part through an unrestricted education grant from the Merck Schering Plough Partnership.
Fonarow has conducted research for GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer and serves a consultant and has received honorarium from Abbott, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pfizer and Schering Plough companies. He is also chair of the Get with the Guidelines steering committee.
Now, for those who's critical analysis skills are not their strong suit ... this is a DIRECT ADMISSION that Dr./Pof Fonarow is being BATHED in money from just about every pharmaceutical company on earth that profits from statin drug sales ... Oh My!!! What a freaking surprise . .. but of course nothing untoward is going on here ... oh no, no ,no ... the good professor wouldn't allow himself or his conclusions to be swayed by self interests, would he?
Look .... there are three things that this posted article says CLEARLY ... (for those with good reading comprehension skills, and a modicum of common sense) ....
1) The big cholesterol lowering through statin drugs program have not produced the promised success in increasing heart health ... bringing into question the overall foundation of the science itself ... (supporting the claims of opponents that it's a total fraud)
2) All of the studies and those directing them are so deep in the pockets of Big Pharma that there is no reason to believe there is an ounce of objectivity or integrity in these "studies" or their conclusions ... (providing the motive for the fraud)
3) As has been the opinion of so many claiming a "cholesterol fraud" is taking place ... the article pretty much says ... yep, they're right ... the lowering of cholesterol through the statin drug interventions appears to have been a huge failure ... but it's ONLY because we just haven't prescribed ENOUGH of the drugs to ENOUGH people.
Imagine that. In my best "Gomer Pile" voice ... SUE-PRIZE ... SUE-PRIZE ... SUE-PRIZE.
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 06-20-2010 at 11:25 AM..
One need only google "Cholesterol Con" or "Cholesterol Scam" or "Dangers of Statin Drugs" and you'll get thousands of hits with all the information you need.
And it won't remotely agree with the "devil".
One need only go to PubMed for scholarly articles on the role of cholesterol in CAD....you'll get thousands of hits with actual scholarly articles written by folks with more than an 8th grade education...
OR you can go to the University of Google and see what the latest ramblings written by high school dropouts reporting from their mother's basements have to say on the subject...
You are correct....the rantings from uneducated fringe won't agree with the "devil"
One need only go to PubMed for scholarly articles on the role of cholesterol in CAD....you'll get thousands of hits with actual scholarly articles written by folks with more than an 8th grade education...
OR you can go to the University of Google and see what the latest ramblings written by high school dropouts reporting from their mother's basements have to say on the subject...
You are correct....the rantings from uneducated fringe won't agree with the "devil"
Yes indeedy ... those same uneducated fringe that were screaming "Hoax" regarding the H1N1 vaccine that you were promoting a few months back as if you were selling it yourself!
Of course, back then, your claims were the same .. and I was simply WRONG about that too ... dozens of pages and rebuttals from you citing the CDC as the all knowing expert source?
Shall we just say that "the devil is in the details"? Those details are now out, and Big Pharma, the CDC and WHO were working together all along to promote THAT FRAUD for the express purpose of selling billions of doses of useless, as well as dangerous vaccines that are now being dumped by the truckload.
No-sir-ree, the gangsters on Wall Street have NOTHING on mainstream medicine when it comes to fraud and misconduct, and mainstream medicine's credibility is sinking like a stone ... and rightfully so.
Guy, a part of me make me want to believe you and your theories. It does look rather strange when drug companies fund/back studies of their own medicines.
My father believed as you do and of the "Cholesterol Myth" . He wrote articles about it and was college educated although with no medical training..He dropped dead at 64 of a heart attack. He did not like visiting doctors which may or may have extended his life some.
So, you tell me who should we believe.?
I love this thread! The exchanging of ideas and beliefs, the conversation that is going on here. This is what we need more of.
Word is getting out and people are doing just THIS! It only helps people to seek out their own answers and take control of their own health, deciding for themselves rather than taking the words of someone else. (Namely, those who profit)
Guy, a part of me make me want to believe you and your theories. It does look rather strange when drug companies fund/back studies of their own medicines.
My father believed as you do and of the "Cholesterol Myth" . He wrote articles about it and was college educated although with no medical training..He dropped dead at 64 of a heart attack. He did not like visiting doctors which may or may have extended his life some.
So, you tell me who should we believe.?
Sorry to hear that. But, no one is claiming (certainly not me) that heart disease doesn't exist ... my father died at the age of 38 due to heart damage caused by rheumatic fever as a child ... two of his brothers died of heart attacks before the age of 45. So I'm no stranger to the subject.
The argument I present here is that cholesterol "intervention" is an act of treating a symptom, which not only fails to address the underlying malady (artery damage), but has deleterious side effects that may also include heart damage itself.
The buildup of plague within the arteries is the body's natural mechanism of repairing artery damage ... a natural bandaid for which reducing cholesterol is akin to removing the bandaids from your first aide box, expecting that act to prevent a cut finger.
The issue SHOULD BE to identify and address the cause of the artery damage, not circumvent natural body processes by short circuiting the body's ability to produce cholesterol which is needed for healthy brain activity as one of the unintended consequences.
Now, I am often viewed as totally anti-medicine, which is simply not the case at all. In fact, I just returned form taking my mother to the Baylor Medical College for which she just received a Keratoprosthesis, restoring vision in an eye that's been virtually blind for several years. And it really is an example of miraculous medical intervention, and the doctors and surgeons involved in such activities are highly skilled, tremendous examples of the great good medicine is capable of providing.
My views are formed based on specific details, and case by case processes which far to frequently rely on faulty foundations in the pharmacological intervention in curing disease.
The fundamental reality is that more often than not, pharmaceuticals do not cure disease, but simply mask symptoms, while creating new problems in the process. Worse yet, this fact is well understood, and is nothing more than profiteering on disease by pharmaceutical corporations who routinely and purposely withhold knowledge of the ill affects and lack of efficacy of their drugs purely for the sake of increasing revenues.
Such is the case with statins, among many others.
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.
... that does seem to be what the article is driving at ... the "need" to lower the guidelines for statin intervention .... though the most likely motive of this effort is to increase the number of patients being prescribed statins as opposed to any real concern about improving health.
