Heart attack ‘vaccine’ available in 6 years to knock statins off the shelves

originally posted by: seasonal


Cholesterol causes heart attacks....That fact is now being hotly debated.

So far I only know of one literature review that is questioning the link, the one done by the University of South Florida. Unless you have more studies backing it up, please share.

People have heart attacks that have normal and low cholesterol.

Heart attacks can have many causes, but coronary heart disease is the biggest - the main cause of CHD is atherosclerosis - and the main causes of atherosclerosis are smoking and high cholesterol.

But please, post evidence to back up your statement.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: seasonal


For the first time in US history, more WOMEN are having heart attacks than MEN. Anybody know why?

Heart disease and strokes are on the rise in women and a combination of many factors could be blamed: lifestyle changes from their grandmothers (women now smoke and drink as much as men), obesity, insulin resistance, high stress jobs,sedentary lives, etc.

But still, the majority of heart attacks in women happen after the age of 65.

a reply to: Flesh699

Best post on the thread.

I think sugar will be on the hot seat just like tobacco. Only because the major companies know what sugar us doing, and are hiding it.

They will be sued and have to put warnings on packaging. I know it sounds crazy, and the right wing will have a stroke. I would not be surprised to see lawsuits.

a reply to: Agartha

The Heart Attack Culprit: Cholesterol Isn't to Blame
(a look at the studies that were donw)

50 percent of the people who are hospitalized with heart attacks have normal cholesterol levels, and 25 percent of people who develop premature heart disease have no traditional risk factors at all. Maybe elevated cholesterol isn’t the real cause of heart disease in the first place.

The best predictors of a future heart attack come from prospective studies that follow healthy people for a number of years to determine which ones go on to develop heart disease, and then to figure out why. Because these are expensive trials, very few of them are done. But those that exist have indicated that cholesterol levels are, in fact, a very poor predictor of future heart attacks. In fact, the likelihood of future heart attacks has everything to do with excess levels of “bad” eicosanoids – exactly the hormones that can be modified by my dietary recommendations.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Agartha

The Heart Attack Culprit: Cholesterol Isn't to Blame
(a look at the studies that were donw)

50 percent of the people who are hospitalized with heart attacks have normal cholesterol levels, and 25 percent of people who develop premature heart disease have no traditional risk factors at all. Maybe elevated cholesterol isn’t the real cause of heart disease in the first place.

The best predictors of a future heart attack come from prospective studies that follow healthy people for a number of years to determine which ones go on to develop heart disease, and then to figure out why. Because these are expensive trials, very few of them are done. But those that exist have indicated that cholesterol levels are, in fact, a very poor predictor of future heart attacks. In fact, the likelihood of future heart attacks has everything to do with excess levels of “bad” eicosanoids – exactly the hormones that can be modified by my dietary recommendations.

Citation please. I only found this one, and it's just one doctor selling his diet, no evidence to back up the numbers in your quote - LINK - .

a reply to: Agartha

www.express.co.uk...


High cholesterol 'does not cause heart disease' new research finds, so treating with statins a 'waste of time'
www.telegraph.co.uk...

I agree that most studies do say cholesterol is the reason for heart attacks. But there are people with low-mid and high cholesterol that have them.
This would point to a different conclusion. There is hard science that points to the insulin spike being very dangerous. Wheat belly-is a good book to start with. And nothing spikes insulin like the American diet.

a reply to: seasonal

I don't take statins I got my cholesterol down with portion control and eating smart.

This shot seems dangerous, big pharma that the motto that one size fit all and every human being is different.

But they get to navigate around those that do not do well with their temporary fixes

Cholesterol is made by the liver, The liver is a very important organ just like the hart.

You mess with the liver and you will have a live full of problems.

We have problems with hour own body ability to regulate itself because we no longer made sure to chose what is the best for us when it comes to life styles.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Agartha

www.express.co.uk...

The first one is about not giving up butter for coconut oil, which I agree. Coconut oil is a fad, and like all fads not good.

High cholesterol 'does not cause heart disease' new research finds, so treating with statins a 'waste of time'
www.telegraph.co.uk...

This study I agree with, but you need to bear in mind is only for elderly people, not for those under 60.

I agree that most studies do say cholesterol is the reason for heart attacks. But there are people with low-mid and high cholesterol that have them.
This would point to a different conclusion. There is hard science that points to the insulin spike being very dangerous. Wheat belly-is a good book to start with. And nothing spikes insulin like the American diet.

I agree, a good diet and some exercise is so important. If you look at the people that live the longer, they all eat a (sort of) Mediterranean diet, plenty of fruits, vegetables and fish. They also walk a lot.

There are people with no cholesterol that have had heart attacks, true, but don't forget many factors could cause that, a blood clot for example. Your original quote of 50% of people who have been hospitalized had low cholesterol is simply not true, hence there isn't any evidence to back it up.

I don't know in the US, but in the UK doctors will always recommend a change in lifestyle first. When people don't change, then medication is the next best thing, so we should not demonize drugs that are the only thing trying to keep people from an early grave.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: carewemust

Keep at it. Eating is such an obvious way we can try to keep healthy.

Don't forget to allow a bowl of ice cream or what ever your favorite is one in a while.

And I lost both my parents to lung cancer-both smoked for 40+ years. Keep getting away from that too, you can do it.

Was it Socrates, or Plato, who said, approximately: "let your food your medicine"?

Is Agartha employed with a pharmaceutical company?

originally posted by: DClark
Is Agartha employed with a pharmaceutical company?

LOL No, but I usually get accused of being a Big Pharma Shill by people who have no good intellectual/scientific argument.

I just don't like pseudoscience, in general, and you can see that if you read my posts, you'll see I am against statements that have no evidence to back them up, whether we are talking about medicine, Incas alien mummies, Paraca skulls, flat Earth, Mandela Effect etc etc.

And instead of concentrating on me, perhaps you should try to debunk my posts, with good evidence.

originally posted by: DClark
Is Agartha employed with a pharmaceutical company?

No, the corn and soybean association apparently. That type of propaganda is one of the reasons these types of health problems really skyrocketed in the late 70's and continue to.

And of course high cholesterol is fine, as long as your arteries are fine. We all know what damaged arteries try repairing themselves with.

When crap oils, fluoridated water, and processed milks are pushed on a dumbed down complacent society, heart disease and bad arteries are among the big common problems. These along with smoking and toxic refined sugars are great factors, often coupled with a sedentary lifestyle. Most of us put ourselves at risk in multiple ways.

Time to start educating the younger generations with some hard truths, that is how to break this cycle.

originally posted by: Illumimasontruth

No, the corn and soybean association apparently.

And here we go again, why people never remember to go after the ball, not the player?

Why don't you debunk my posts with good evidence, instead of blabbing about my alleged employers?

Like I said, typical of people with no good intellectual or scientific argument.

a reply to: Agartha

I was not arguing with anyone and if you do actual research, you have the debunking to do. Not I. Science, statistics, and a persons own eyes backs up what I stated just fine.

a reply to: seasonal

Would you like to know what happen to fructose when it is metabolized by the liver?

Yes.

Turn to fat?

As usual with biochemical reaction in the body, it have dependance on the context. In the situation we're interested, your answer is probably correct.

Even Wikipedia article on fructolysis is open to interpretation and leave the impression fructose is mostly converted into glucose in the liver, but direct from one of the source cited [2]:

A small percentage of ingested fructose appears to be directly converted to plasma TG. However, hyperlipidemic effects of larger amounts of fructose consumption are observed in studies using infused labeled acetate to quantify longer term de novo lipogenesis.

Here the problem, the quantity. While fructose is probably benign in small quantity, the large amount consumed from our modern high carbs diet overload the liver.

It is time to finally put to rest the myth that cholesterol cause atherosclerosis, I strongly encourage the medical "experts" to educate themselve and use correct wordings instead of playing the rethoric game of study waving on everybody.

What is ONE of the cause of atherosclerosis is Oxidized LDL. LDL is Low-density lipoprotein and NOT cholesterol. It is very bad habit to call lipoprotein cholesterol, they are in fact transporter of lipids (cholesterol, phospholipids, and triglycerides principally). A sad thing is that medical community often use confusing terminology, it is tempting to interpret this as an effort to keep the profane from understanding and then arguing (like using latin wording).

Low-density lipoprotein

LDL particles (though far different from cholesterol per se) are sometimes referred to as bad cholesterol because they can transport their content of lipid molecules into artery walls, attract macrophages, and thus drive atherosclerosis. In contrast, HDL particles are often called good cholesterol or healthy cholesterol because they can remove lipid molecules from macrophages in the wall of arteries.

Badly worded citation, but somewhat correct on mechanism:
What Is Oxidized LDL Cholesterol?

The oxidation of LDL is thought to occur when the LDL cholesterol particles in your body react with free radicals. The oxidized LDL itself then becomes more reactive with the surrounding tissues, which can produce tissue damage. Some of the things that appear to increase levels of oxidized LDL include: ...

It is not because we find cholesterol (among other things) inside plaques or see a correlation with cholesterol level that cholesterol is the CAUSE. Here is a somewhat stupid example but still a good one of the situation:

Imagine a race of benevolent extraterestrial being finally visiting Earth and offering to help us getting rid of our problems, on the problem of criminality, they abduct somes very active and mischievious criminals, and study them, of coarse after a torough probing, then they make an important finding, they discover that if we stop feeding the criminals, eventually their criminal activities goes to a complete stop. Here the solution, stoping giving food also (eventually) stop the criminal activity, but the obvious problem is it stop ALL activity of the person.

Eliminating cholesterol to get rid of atherosclerosis is somewhat similar as the stupid example above. Seem to work but completely off target.

a reply to: Cofactor

1. I'm not going to stop smoking
2. I deep fry everything
3. Fruits and vegetables make me gag
4. Doc said 10 years ago I was pre diabetic but here I am strong as a horse

but now I know that LDL is not a cholesterol but a lipoprotein so I should make it to 100 easily.

Honestly, what difference does it make what they call it if people are still going to consume it?

a reply to: daskakik

1. I'm not going to stop smoking

That's your choice. Personally I smoked and loved it but now happy I quit long time ago.

2. I deep fry everything

Not necessarily bad if you use a thermally stable saturated oil. If you use an unsaturated oil for deep fry, then you have been warned.

3. Fruits and vegetables make me gag

Nowhere I talked about fruit and vegetable. My belief is that human are carnivorous creature, so welcome to the club.

4. Doc said 10 years ago I was pre diabetic but here I am strong as a horse

And I say all the time docs are often clueless and lying to hide it.

but now I know that LDL is not a cholesterol but a lipoprotein so I should make it to 100 easily.

Listen, if you're not interested in what I'm saying, no need to be facetious.

Honestly, what difference does it make what they call it if people are still going to consume it?

There is a difference between internal body regulation mechanism, what we eat and what it produce internally, you know, the difference between exogenous and endogenous source.

a reply to: Cofactor
There is a difference between internal body regulation mechanism, what we eat and what it produce internally, you know, the difference between exogenous and endogenous source.

I was playing devils advocate.

Only the last sentence was the point I was actually trying to make.

Doesn't matter if it is internal or external, if LDL is actually a cholesterol or not. We have al been told to eat better and get some exercise. It isn't lack of info.

a reply to: daskakik

Doesn't matter if it is internal or external, if LDL is actually a cholesterol or not. We have al been told to eat better and get some exercise. It isn't lack of info.

My problem is I don't know if you are trolling me or you don't understand what I am trying to explain.

If it's the later, consider that the devil is in the details. If you're not interested or simply can't grasp the technicalities, then the bad news is there is a limits to scientific vulgarization.

Knowledge is power, but knowledge require effort...

originally posted by: Cofactor
My problem is I don't know if you are trolling me or you don't understand what I am trying to explain.

I know exactly what you are trying to explain. Playing devils advocate means that I am arguing a position for the sake of the position and not because I actually believe it.

FYI, the list I replied to was in one of the links you posted.

I'm trying to point out that people don't really care and technicalities like LDL actually being a lipoprotein and not a cholesterol isn't going to make them care any more.

If people are still eating carbs and meats and margarine to the tune of 3500 calories a day then changing from margarine to butter isn't going to make a difference.