The Biggest Lie in Medicine: The Cholesterol Conspiracy

reply to post by FissionSurplus


Yes, your reasoning is logical.
Cholesterol is good.
Sugar is bad.

And that's how I have lived.
And I am practically never sick..
I get the common cold some times, for a day or two, that's all. Else, no sickness in 10+ years

Originally posted by Jomina
cool to come across this thread now, in my life.

Just a couple of days ago, I was told I had high cholesterol levels, at 280, and they prescribed statins.

I will not take them, though, because a dear friend of mine, who is a doctor, herself, and works exclusively with older patients, has said many times in the past that statins are about the worst thing that you can do to your body and to take them only if you feel like dying.

I believe her when she speaks, for sure.

Then the info in this thread comes along

Interesting info and thank you very much!

I've tried so many cholesterol meds I've lost count. They have caused me so much EXCRUCIATING pain. And, every doctor I explain the pain to say, cholesterol meds aren't supposed to do that. What the hell, do they think I'm lying???

Finally, one doctor told me that cholesterol meds can have an adverse affect on overused muscles. My pain was right behind my right shoulder blade. It was so bad that all I could do for a solid week was sit very still. Any movement made me feel like I was being run through the chest with a hot sword. All of the muscles in my arms, shoulders and chest are way overused from sheetrocking for 20 years. Now I'm a die cutter and that's even worse.

Originally posted by tomten
reply to post by FissionSurplus

 

Yes, your reasoning is logical.
Cholesterol is good.
Sugar is bad.

And that's how I have lived.
And I am practically never sick..

But that is NOT the point I'm denying. and it's NOT the conclusion the OP is drawing. What you say is true...his conclusions drawn from it are bad. The underlined parts are what I'm saying that differs.

Cholesterol is good for you, to a certain extent. Too much LDL is bad for you. Lots of HDL is good for you.

Sugar is bad for you, but it is also absolutely necessary for life. It is our primary source of energy.
There is no evidence for a conspiracy, the government has said many times that too much sugar is bad for you.

"Yes, your reasoning is logical."

His reasoning is what's wrong. he takes a few truths, and a few half truths, and comes up with a crazy theory that isn't supported by any evidence.

This is good news. I never watch what I eat. Guess I've been doing it right all along.

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle

Originally posted by NavyDoc
reply to post by marg6043

 

I haven't seen any of that money where do I sign up?

you have to go on tour Doc, lot's of speaking appearances can net 10k on up for an hour of your time. also i hope you never miss out on the pharma rep's free lunches.

Any doctor who uses a drug based on a rep delivering a bucket of KFC at lunch needs to set his standards a wee bit higher.

The "good old days" of pharma vacations and rolex watches are long gone--gone before I made the scene. The sort of stuff that was common in the 1970's will get you jailtime today. The medical industry is one of the highest regulated industries in the nation. All a pharma lunch does is get you to slow down and listen to his spiel. I can't imagine an M.D. who earns six figures compromising himself for a sammich.

I don't like to talk to reps, pharmacutical or device. If they have some new data they want me to look at, I'll ask for some sources and then look up the data myself. One of hte first things I ask, is "what is the downside--what are the risks." If it the answer is "no down side" then they get shown the door because EVERYTHING has a downside and to say otherwise is disingenuous.

Another thing I do not like are the companies that employ hot, female reps. I think it very insulting that somone might think that all it takes to sell me is a nice set of breasts. One thing I have learned from watching horror movies is, if a hot chick like that is coming on to a guy like me, I'd better put my hand on my wallet and my back against the wall because she is up to no good.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Jomina
cool to come across this thread now, in my life.

Just a couple of days ago, I was told I had high cholesterol levels, at 280, and they prescribed statins.

I will not take them, though, because a dear friend of mine, who is a doctor, herself, and works exclusively with older patients, has said many times in the past that statins are about the worst thing that you can do to your body and to take them only if you feel like dying.

I believe her when she speaks, for sure.

Then the info in this thread comes along

Interesting info and thank you very much!

I've tried so many cholesterol meds I've lost count. They have caused me so much EXCRUCIATING pain. And, every doctor I explain the pain to say, cholesterol meds aren't supposed to do that. What the hell, do they think I'm lying???

Finally, one doctor told me that cholesterol meds can have an adverse affect on overused muscles. My pain was right behind my right shoulder blade. It was so bad that all I could do for a solid week was sit very still. Any movement made me feel like I was being run through the chest with a hot sword. All of the muscles in my arms, shoulders and chest are way overused from sheetrocking for 20 years. Now I'm a die cutter and that's even worse.

That's not right. Myalgias are one of the most common side effects of statins. I just took a patient off statins toay because she was complaining of thigh pain without any known etiology. I saw she was on zocor. I asked her when she started it. I asked her when her pains started. I told her to stop using it.

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by TheMythLives

 

I'm sorry, but that's very poor reasoning you provide.

Dr Russell Blaylock was a neurosurgeon for 28+ years, and was fully accredited. He trumps your education by a wide margin.

He shouldn't be trusted because he has claims which go against the mainstream, and he offers solutions which he sees fit to make money off of? How about you try reading some of the literature he publishes, and reading the many studies he often cites and references before coming to a conclusion based on a "skeptic" site.

I've yet to see a neurosurgeon managing CAD and cholesterol.

Originally posted by tgidkp
thank you for your reply, which was sufficient.

I really do not understand (nor do i care) the basis of the ongoing thread dispute. I speak with a reasonable amount of authority that there is no internal inconsistency in the ops argument. and I do agree that we have every reason to believe that our health practitioners often do not place our health as their first priority.

with this in mind, please do not clutter the thread with petty bickering.


thanks for the info, op. I'll take 'er from here.

You're welcome. I myself am baffled by this intense dispute and rudeness that certain members have displayed towards me, and this thread. The vast majority have been very polite, even if they disagree, and I respect that. It only takes a few rotten apples to get the whole barrel messed up.

Truly, if they think I'm full of it, why the continuous arguing, character assassination, and pettiness?

I see this happen a lot on some threads, and I find it sad. It makes many people not want to start threads, for fear of this exact same thing happening. Newbies, in particular, will find this sort of abuse too much to take.

The last time this happened to me, I had to take a long break from ATS. I came back with a thicker skin, though. If you have something to say that goes against the mainstream, expect some attacks.

I know this thread has run a long time, but whatever people want to offer that illuminates this discussion further, I look forward to reading it.

reply to post by unityemissions

I'm sorry, but that's very poor reasoning you provide.

No, the reasoning is simply common sense. Assume that we were religious fundamentalist... Why should we discredit their stance that prayer can cure cancer, seizures, and gun shots? Because it goes against all rules of logic and I am ok with that, because fundamentalist do not have power that they once had to indoctrinate thousands into believing something that is just not true.

Dr Russell Blaylock was a neurosurgeon for 28+ years, and was fully accredited. He trumps your education by a wide margin.

Does not matter how much experience he has. If he wanted to help people then he should take his products through trials and have evidence to back him up. It clearly is not about helping people, it is about money. I do not care how much education someone has, if it sounds like bull, reads like bull, looks like bull, then it is probably bull.

He shouldn't be trusted because he has claims which go against the mainstream, and he offers solutions which he sees fit to make money off of? How about you try reading some of the literature he publishes, and reading the many studies he often cites and references before coming to a conclusion based on a "skeptic" site.

No, he shouldn't be trusted, because he uses the same methods that charlatans use. He uses his authority has a pedestal. I do not read material that will destroy my brain cells and hence make me stupid enough to buy into his bull. It is like reading creationist books, Scientology books, anti-vaccine books, climate change deniers books; it is just nonsense to entertain those ideas.

I'm not laughing at the "thousands of doctors". I feel sorry for them. They don't know the truth. They only know what the pretty drug reps in short skirts tell them. And yeah, that's how it's done. My sis in law, who's dad was the Chief of Surgery at a large hospital (I won't say which one), was a Merck drug rep.

Remember everyone, the origianal study that "proved" that cholesterol causes heart attacks. was a farce. Ancel Keys tossed out the data that didn't match his hypothesis. Also don't forget that big pharma gives LOTS of money to med schools. They also supply lots of physicians continuing education hours too.

And most importantly... who paid for those studies? When reading any study... FOLLOW THE MONEY.

Here's another tidbit: One of the first cholesterol studies was done with rabbits. They fed them cholesterol and then studied their arteries. Sure 'nuff, clogged as could be. Proof right? Wrong. Rabbits are herbavores. They cannot metabolize cholesterol. We can.

The truith is this: dietary cholesterol has very little, if anything to do with serum cholesterol.

And remember, back in the 40's and before 4 out of 5 doctors recommended Camel cigarrettes. Tobacco makers werea mong the biggest advertisers in the Medical Journals. Now its' big pharma.

One other thing... most docs don't know squat about diet.

For those that buy the "studies" and still believe the cholestrol myth, that's fine with me. As an RN who works for a cardiology specialty practice, I appreciate the job security.

Not so much a lie as it is... misinformation. This crap started back, what, in the 60s? There has never been any conclusive evidence of a low-fat diet being good for you, and since the 80s more and more people have been realizing sugar is the problem, in actuality.

Endocrinology is an important field of study, and I'd rather base my diet of anatomy and physiology as opposed to what random half-educated people say (nutritionists/dieticians don't even need education in anatomy, physiology or anything beyond basic biology). Insulin is important for a process called ketosis, the natural fat burning state of your body. Insulin triggers it, but if you're resistant to insulin (thanks to a high-sugar/carb diet causing massive spikes of it) your body doesn't enter ketosis. Pretty straight-forward stuff from where I'm sitting. High intake of protein and fiber can offset a higher sugar intake to a degree as it helps to prevent insulin spikes, and creates a smoother insulin release thus reducing insulin-resistance.

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by TheMythLives

 

I'm sorry, but that's very poor reasoning you provide.

Dr Russell Blaylock was a neurosurgeon for 28+ years, and was fully accredited. He trumps your education by a wide margin.

He shouldn't be trusted because he has claims which go against the mainstream, and he offers solutions which he sees fit to make money off of? How about you try reading some of the literature he publishes, and reading the many studies he often cites and references before coming to a conclusion based on a "skeptic" site.

You know, I went through nursing school, and I have a degree in biological psychology. I'm no doctor, but my point is, sometimes higher education leaves a lot to be desired, and what they teach is DOGMA, not necessarily absolute truth. I think back to my education and I realize there was a lot of things I was taught that I now think are way off the mark.

I think, just like in the case of doctors, our greatest education comes after we graduate.

People shouldn't take my word for it, nor anybody who claims they are well-educated in certain subjects, they should do the research, due diligence, and come to their own conclusions. That is what true education is all about. One thing I did learn in research design was, how the study is designed can definitely influence the outcome. Therefore, any study that comes out, I view with a suspicious eye.

Published studies only go so far. Peer review is only as valuable as the peers who are doing the reviewing. Many researchers tread a thin line, afraid to cross it for fear of having their research grants cut.

I am more likely to believe a doctor who has been practicing for many years, than a slew of published studies. Oh, I'll read the studies, but I want to see how the studies were done, instead of just reading the summary and then accepting it at face value. Often, if you understand how studies can be skewed, most of these published studies can be dismissed as "possibly interesting, need more research with better parameters".

Originally posted by NavyDoc

That's not right. Myalgias are one of the most common side effects of statins. I just took a patient off statins toay because she was complaining of thigh pain without any known etiology. I saw she was on zocor. I asked her when she started it. I asked her when her pains started. I told her to stop using it.

The last one I tried was Crestor and after three weeks I woke up feeling like I was speared through the chest. I've totally given up on meds, and doctors.

I've had a torn rotator cuff for two decades because the doctor told me if I had it fixed that I would probably lose up to 30% mobility in my left arm, and I would most likely just tear it again. Then I watched Roger Clemens (Red Sox pitcher) tear his rotator cuff, have surgery, and he was back throwing the ball the very next season. That royally P'd me off!

I give up on the medical profession.

Originally posted by TheMythLives
reply to post by unityemissions

 

Does not matter how much experience he has. If he wanted to help people then he should take his products through trials and have evidence to back him up. It clearly is not about helping people, it is about money. I do not care how much education someone has, if it sounds like bull, reads like bull, looks like bull, then it is probably bull.

Do you have any clue how much money it takes to do a proper trial? Where does this funding come from? Are you going to be paying for it?

No, he shouldn't be trusted, because he uses the same methods that charlatans use. He uses his authority has a pedestal. I do not read material that will destroy my brain cells and hence make me stupid enough to buy into his bull. It is like reading creationist books, Scientology books, anti-vaccine books, climate change deniers books; it is just nonsense to entertain those ideas.

You offer nonsensical claims, ridiculous analogies, and a closed mind.

Thanks for letting us all know where you stand.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by NavyDoc

That's not right. Myalgias are one of the most common side effects of statins. I just took a patient off statins toay because she was complaining of thigh pain without any known etiology. I saw she was on zocor. I asked her when she started it. I asked her when her pains started. I told her to stop using it.

The last one I tried was Crestor and after three weeks I woke up feeling like I was speared through the chest. I've totally given up on meds, and doctors.

I've had a torn rotator cuff for two decades because the doctor told me if I had it fixed that I would probably lose up to 30% mobility in my left arm, and I would most likely just tear it again. Then I watched Roger Clemens (Red Sox pitcher) tear his rotator cuff, have surgery, and he was back throwing the ball the very next season. That royally P'd me off!

I give up on the medical profession.

I have pretty much given up on it too. If you have chronic problems, eventually you'll get tired of their B.S. and lack of ability to help. Oh, they'll still see you and take your money, but they offer nothing but panaceas in the way of a bunch of drugs, then argue with you when you say "these drugs have side effects"!

I don't see a rhematologist for my rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia. I take no meds for it. If I went to a rheumy, I'd be on immunosuppressants which give me the risk of cancers and brain-eating fungal infections. Screw that. Nature has some pretty awesome things in its pharmacy, and you don't need to pay to see a guy who doesn't have enough time to care or figure out how to help you to get them.

reply to post by unityemissions


If he is as grandiose of a doctor as he makes himself out to be then he should have funding and aid. Grants are the main source of any study. I do not see any grant proposals from him for research. That is who would and could fund them. And with what he wants to focus on it should be relatively easy, since he is a doctor and has a product already developed. I am not the closed minded one. The analogies are much more accurate then you can imagine. I am sorry that they seem dry and straightforward, but that is how it is. The research is their, the evidence is their; it is all there. It is up to you to look at studies that do not correlate with your opinion; I assure you I have delved into the stances of many others (look at my old threads). Most of that was me trying to make it work, but realizing that at the end of the day I was just perpetuating the lie to others and solidifying stances that had no real foundations...

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."~ Christopher Hitchens

The above quote also applies to evidence that is lacking in foundation and sustainability. Please consider for one second that what say is being looked at by others and that they may believe what you write as completely true. I do the same everyday and I do my best to make sure that what I say is grounded on very strong foundations. I have researched, I go to school (About to graduate with two degrees), I own my own business, I am active in public policy, I do everything I can to insure that others around me know that they can trust in what I say; because I have looked it researched and researched and researched some more. Not just on one side, but on both sides of the arguments, including other alternative views. I work hard and I play harder, but this is something that I cannot ignore. I will not and cannot ignore the well being of others on the internet and I will fight hard to present my argument as factually as possible... So call be closed minded, a skeptic, an a hole or anything really. I do not care, I have a duty to the well being of people... to ,my brothers and sisters. Including you and everyone that does not agree with me.

Originally posted by TheMythLives
reply to post by unityemissions

 

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."~ Christopher Hitchens

What about that which is willingly ignored, and judged without proper research? ...so as to claim a lack of evidence?

Sorry buddy, I can't take you reasonably on this topic.

reply to post by unityemissions


That is fine, but my evidence stands strong. I have sourced everything from American to foreign studies in regards to the OP. I have discussed reasonably with you about Dr. Russel. My evidence stands.

Originally posted by unityemissions

Originally posted by TheMythLives
reply to post by unityemissions

 

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."~ Christopher Hitchens

What about that which is willingly ignored, and judged without proper research? ...so as to claim a lack of evidence?

Sorry buddy, I can't take you reasonably on this topic.

edit on 4-12-2012 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)

HAHAHAHA, you call me an idiot in a PM, yet you're using Alex Jones as a source.
Look in the mirror before you call anyone an idiot.

I have a duty to the well being of people... to ,my brothers and sisters. Including you and everyone that does not agree with me.

reply to post by TheMythLives


You are the second person to claim that they only care about the health and "well being" of others on this thread. Fair enough. What I want to ask you is, how is asking people to avoid inflammation-causing foods and eat more naturally a dangerous thing? How is requesting that a prescribing physician give a prescription for niacin and fish oil, as opposed to the heavy guns (statins) so hazardous, that saviors need to crawl out of the woodwork and protect everybody? What is so scary about people questioning the status quo?

I'm rather surprised that this thread is considered a "threat" to the health of people the world over. It is my theory that cholesterol suppression is a form of soft kill. It is my opinion that cholesterol has become the one thing that people focus on, when by itself it is not the cause of coronary artery disease. It is my opinion that statins are way over-used and have very nasty, dangerous side effects.

I had no idea that my simple little ideas are so very dangerous!

It should be obvious to anybody who reads this thread, that there are way too many people out there, including our friends here on ATS, that have been prescribed statins and have suffered terribly for it. My words wouldn't have any weight, and this thread wouldn't have gotten much attention, if I were so off-the-mark and so "full of it".

I appreciate you posting your links about research. You are doing what one should do if they disagree with a subject and want to lay out their case in a concise and succinct manner.

However, when somebody comes off with "I have a duty to refute this for everybody's health and safety", I have to wonder just how much of a nerve I hit!