IS CHOLESTEROL THE REAL ENEMY?

[rbrwn310]

I have found out that cholesterol is really not the enemy. The real enemy is hydrogenated oils and high fructose corn syrup.The drug industry advertises cholesterol lowering drugs on TV all the time with a disclaimer that the drug will not cure or prevent heart disease. Obviously the drug industry is aware that cholesterol is really not the culprit but continues to market useless drugs and to scare the public into thinking they should target cholesterol. The drugs also affect liver function which is where the source of cholesterol  regulation takes place in the body further overburdening the already overworked liver with more toxic chemicals from the drugs. Why does the medical industry zero in on cholesterol when other culprits are the problem. Why is heart disease still the biggest killer after all these years and all this research.? Why does the medical industry still harp on cholesterol as the cause of heart disease?


This discussion is related to High Choleserol/low triglycerides.

[Myown]

Getting tested for homocystein level is best to do, but most docs just check cholesterol and don't think to test homocystein, so most times you have to ask.

[erijon]

Please show us the data that supports these statements;

"Statins are not the magic bullet and can cause serious and even deadly side effects.  They are huge moneymakers for the drug industry and profitable for the doctors who prescribe them"

"All those quoted studies were funded by the drug industry and run by the doctors who are too closely involved with their use."

Looking forward to your back up on these issues. If you can't, then please just state these as your opinion, not facts. Easy to make these kinds of statements, hard to back them up.

[erijon]

Agreed, this is a great test to add when you are having your lipids checked, I always ask for it as it commonly know that high levels of homocysteine can injure the lining of your blood vessels and increase your risk of developing CAD.

Jon

[erijon]

I don't understand your thinking on percentages. In your comments about the CPPT studies you wrote;

"It was expected that the trial results would show a huge drop in CAD related instances but it did not. However, statin producers still took the small percentage and claimed it as revolutionary"

The actual results quoted from the study were;

"The cholestyramine group experienced a 19% reduction in risk (p less than .05) of the primary end point--definite CHD death and/or definite nonfatal myocardial infarction--reflecting a 24% reduction in definite CHD death and a 19% reduction in nonfatal myocardial infarction."

Those are some pretty impressive results, must have missed that when you read the study. If not, why would you think  a 24% reduction in CHD death is "a small reduction that the claimed to be revolutionary" yet when you talk about a POSSIBLE 2% defective rate (worse case scenario) on pacemakers, this is very alarming to you. Hard to follow.............

[ed34]

Have statins been around for as long as pacemakers? Do we have data reflecting the real long term effects of statins yet? With no data, we are quite happily popping these pills along with many millions of others.
erijon, walk into any heart hospital during visiting time and ASK the patients what their cholesterol levels are like. I really believe you will be shocked at the answers.
Let me ask you something. If I take 100 people and feed statins to half of them and the other half a placebo, how will I know if it has made any real difference? How do I know if 50 statin swallowers were never going to develop heart problems over 10 years? I could probably get the same results by giving all the test subjects water to drink.
I was put on statins and also ezetimibe on top. You wouldnt believe how low my cholesterol is. It's being blocked at the point of absorption in the gut and also in the Liver.
However, my disease continued to grow for another 2 years, even though I was told that statins will probably clean up some of the disease. This same fairy tale was told to many patients I spoke to, all of whom were having further stenting or bypasses. Talk to the actual patients and you will conclude the same as me. All those patients are wondering why this wonder drug isn't helping them and they still require surgery year after year. I managed to stop my disease growing in the end by avoiding stress. Everytime a stressful situation arises, I take deep breaths, relax and then put everything into perspective and ask if it's worth my life. I know you think honesty goes all the way to the top but I'm afraid in the real world this is not the truth. Bribary goes all the way to the top and I bet if health officials in the FDA were put on lie detectors we would be shocked.
It is not cholesterol that causes atherosclerosis, it is simply a 'stage' in the development of the disease. It is a fact and well known that it is not the primary cause. I have asked many questions in this thread of which you have addressed none. So, let me ask you a different way so through your expertise in blood chemistry you can explain where I am going wrong.
If cholesterol is a natural sticky substance which forms atherosclerosis, then why dont we all have heart attacks by the age of 3? It should be clogging the arteries by that age.
Cholesterol lipids are not sticky (fact) and they are made by the body to transport fat around the blood stream. This is necessary because blood is made up mostly from water and fat will not dissolve in water. Lipids are safe and do not cause harm unless they become trapped. So what causes them to become trapped in coronary arteries?
Why would less cholesterol make any difference? surely fewer lipids means the same results but MAYBE over a slightly longer period of time. So, if lower lipid levels makes no difference, why take statins?

[erijon]

We're not going to agree, that's all there is to it and that's fine There will always be more than one train of thought on most every subject. I'm not saying people don't lie, I'm basing my belief on the actual data, not my personal beliefs and perceptions.

Again, CPPT results;


"The cholestyramine group experienced a 19% reduction in risk (p less than .05) of the primary end point--definite CHD death and/or definite nonfatal myocardial infarction--reflecting a 24% reduction in definite CHD death and a 19% reduction in nonfatal myocardial infarction."


I'll take that rate reduction any day of the week. However, as you say, there will be people having heart attacks with low cholesterol numbers, I wish I could read a study that explained why but none exist so I'll go with what I can quantify.