FAQ about Cholesterol & Heart Disease
Many are confused about the contradictory stance (to the mainstream) taken on this and other sites regarding the relationship between cholesterol and heart disease. Shane Ellision has cut through the propaganda and provided a cogent response.
This response should more than adequately deflate the skeptics and those who contumely wine that if this was true then the almighty experts would have long figured this out by now camp.
Next time an arm chair critic gets on her/his high horse regarding the prevalent dogma just hand her/him this post to chew on...
What's a little cholesterol amongst friends?
Question: Shane Ellison [author of Health Myths Exposed] wrote that there was a JAMA report which stated that the Framingham study showed that there was an INCREASED death rate for LOWER blood cholesterol in older men [over 50 years old]. This is contrary to the prevailing medical thinking of the day.
How can I obtain a copy or an abstract of the report so I can read it for myself? I am 75 years old and my doctor has put me on Pravachol, and if what Shane quoted is true, this drug could have put me in a higher risk of death than without it.
I have found that there are some authors that misquote research papers, or take statements out of context in order to make their information more sensational and increase the sales numbers of their book. I hope Shane is not one of these.
I have read a number of JAMA Framingham abstracts, and I can only find data that says that statins are very effective in preventing heat attacks.
Answer: The Framingham NEVER studied the effects of "statins. It was a statistical study looking at cholesterol levels, cardiovascular disease and longevity.
And yes, of course the assertion that statin drugs are ineffective is contrary to prevailing medical thinking...common sense always is. Make a special note that this assertion IS NOT contrary to prevailing medical science. There is a sharp contrast between prevailing medical thinking and prevailing medical science. Ponder that for a minute. I'm not sure why medical doctors fail to recognize this contrast. Perhaps it is the estimated $21,000 that each doctor receives from drug companies every year in "consulting fees that has crippled their common sense.
Remember, prevailing medical thinking also dictated that those who suffer from joint pain should be on VIOXX not glucosamine sulfate. Prevailing medical thinking also dictates that children should be on antidepressants and methamphetamines instead of being parented. Prevailing medical thinking also dictates that vaccines are safe and effective more so than hygiene and proper eating. Prevailing medical thinking also dictates that nutritional supplements are ineffective pretending that ephedra and the like will kill us all. Prevailing medical thinking also dictated to women that they should be on hormone replacement therapy derived from horse piss...Shall I go on?
Despite this BLATANT disregard for our health by "prevailing medical thinking", few are willing to question "prevailing medical thinking." I'm awe-struck at this ignorance and lack of responsibility among consumers. I doubt I could find another time in human history when people were so hypnotized and stupid.
Here is the abstract (note the sentence that begins with "After the age 50..."):
Cholesterol and mortality. 30 years of follow-up from the Framingham study.
Anderson KM, Castelli WP, Levy D.
From 1951 to 1955 serum cholesterol levels were measured in 1959 men and 2415 women aged between 31 and 65 years who were free of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer. Under age 50 years, cholesterol levels are directly related with 30-year overall and CVD mortality; overall death increases 5% and CVD death 9% for each 10 mg/dL. After age 50 years there is no increased overall mortality with either high or low serum cholesterol levels. There is a direct association between falling cholesterol levels over the first 14 years and mortality over the following 18 years (11% overall and 14% CVD death rate increase per 1 mg/dL per year drop in cholesterol levels). Under age 50 years these data suggest that having a very low cholesterol level improves longevity. After age 50 years the association of mortality with cholesterol values is confounded by people whose cholesterol levels are falling--perhaps due to
diseases predisposing to death.
Drug worshipping doctors are misquoting the Framingham study.
Still though, you CANT make a decision on whether or not to lower cholesterol on this ONE study! This is a STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION, not a CAUSAL. Know the difference. You might infer that high cholesterol increases life span for those aged 50 and older. But you still must decipher WHY! To do this you have to learn about the factors that cause heart disease, the inflammation process that leads to plaque and the role of cholesterol in the body.
At this point, most are saying "Do I have to? Of course you do if you want to be healthy. One cannot be lazy minded and healthy at the same time.
Get your brain cells turned on.
posted by Chris Gupta on Wednesday August 17 2005
updated on Saturday March 18 2006
URL of this article:
Artificial Water Fluoridation: Off To A Poor Start / Fluoride Injures The Newborn
Please watch this short 5 minute video: Little Things Matter: The Impact of Toxins on the Developing Brain Toxins such as Arsenic, Lead, Mercury, Aluminum and other known and unknown chemicals, that are often above the legal limits, are deliberately added to our water to manage the disposal of toxic industrial waste chemicals under the pretense of "safe and effective" for water fluoridation mantra.Knowing and acting on the above should... [read more]
December 30, 2014 - Chris Gupta
Drinking Water Fluoridation is Genotoxic & Teratogenic
This paper by Prof. Joe Cummins is a very important 5 minute delegation made to London Ontario Canada "Civic Works Committee" public participation meeting on January 25, 2012 on fluoride*. While a bit technical it is short and easy to grasp. A must read as it goes to the heart of the matter regarding the well established toxicity of fluoride which is well in all scientific circles even before water... [read more]
February 06, 2012 - Chris Gupta
Democracy At Work? - PPM On Fluoride
Here is a commentary on the recent (Jan, 25th, 2011) Public Participation Meeting (PPM) on Fluoride in the City of London, Ontario. The meeting started with a strong pro fluoride stance form the City engineer. His lack of knowledge on chemistry of the toxic wastes used to fluoridate water could embarrass even a high school student never mind his own profession. He blatantly violated his "duty to public welfare" as... [read more]
January 29, 2012 - Chris Gupta