Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Documentary on Cholesterol Scam

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 19 2013 @ 07:57 PM
link   
There have been threads on cholesterol, but I didn't find any with a documentary attached.

As soon as you can you need to watch this video. Great Cholesterol Cover Up

Lowering cholesterol is not only a BAD thing (even the part we call bad cholesterol) but studies have shown time and time again that those with lower cholesterol rates die younger than those with higher cholesterol.

When we think of hardening of the arteries we are taught to believe that bad cholesterol sticks to the inside of the veins and slowly clogs them up. This is NOT NOT NOT TRUE! Hardening of the arteries comes from small tears in the artery walls, and just like when you cut a finger, a scab forms, and THAT'S what causes heart disease.

Not only is lowering cholesterol a bad thing, but we need BOTH cholesterol types. It is essential for life, and higher cholesterol is associated with longevity.

And to think I've been put on statins several times and suffered so much because of them. It's all a huge scam!




posted on May, 19 2013 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 

Honestly, wouldn't it be nice if we had a magic wand that we could wave across our media sources and it would tell us "lie" or "truth"

Sheesh... Maybe I shouldn't have said that one out loud. Next you know someone will be advertising that they have invented just such a thing, and go about making a profit off of this new lie detector magic wand thing-a-ma-gig.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Because of various reasons I'll not go into at the moment I put forward the idea that we should leave the infant attached to the placenta for a certain length of time after giving birth. I later found that some New Agers indeed did that but beyond the realms of medicine and into the esoteric. However a certain length of time allows the oxygen rich blood in the placenta to continue to feed the infant as the lungs come up to working order.

A second part of my hypothesis was that certain chemical reactions take place within the placenta that help to close the ductus arteriosus without scarring. This ductus connects the aorta to the right descending ventricle and I claimed that it leaves scarring if the cord is cut immediately. One can suspect that the placenta will have fibrin in or creates fibrin at partum.

They told me that in leaving the placenta attached that cases of aneamia were also less pronounced but I've heard nothing of any change to procedures for the general populous.

So as to the scarring in your OP, yes I do believe that it is a major cause and preventable with better ob/gyn practices. As to the statins, I once thought that after my hypothesis and the appearance of what was described to me as umbilical blood doctors that that is the area of work they came from. They have for a while though been working on stem cell research using the placenta and if they are still not looking at the job those stem cells are doing viz a viz the functioning of the infants lungs and heart at that vital moment I think we get the results you have pointed out.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 08:38 PM
link   
I always tend to be wary of quacks doctors, who are standing up, rallying against the industry pushing their own ideas, but do so while naming their stuff, "Cholesterol Con", and in their meta-data you will find, "the current cholesterol beliefs debunked."

Why does that bother me? Because all the search terms related are designed to obfuscate information related to their works.

Malcom has sloppy editing, people complain of very basic errors in his books, and he sources nothing. That doesn't bode well on his credibility. Or if what he is saying is the truth, more relevant, if it could even be backed up by having the same materials and coming to the same conclusion by rereading and resourcing all his materials. I mean, this becomes impossible if he is not sourcing any of his work.

Don't get me wrong, I would be genuinely happy if a drug company was found to be pushing something solely for profit. And for the general public to become educated on health matters so they aren't just dropping wads of cash for crap 'medicine', but if this happens, I'd like for it to be legit.



Last time I was sick, I bought a cartful of Western medical "solutions." Mostly OTC drugs and wahtnot. Not one of them worked. I went to my traditional place of buying health goods, got a few of my Asian teas I normally have, and was better in a matter of hours.

I ran out of my natural sourced meds, so I tried the Western kind. All bunk. What a waste of money. It had been years since I've used em, and I remember why.

In any case, I have to look more into Kendrick, what I find on the surface doesn't look promising.
edit on 19-5-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by goldentorch
 





if they are still not looking at the job those stem cells are doing viz a viz the functioning of the infants lungs and heart at that vital moment I think we get the results you have pointed out.


I really can't do the video justice. Hopefully, people taking cholesterol meds will watch it. For me, what I get out of it is that not only is lowering cholesterol a bad thing, it will KILL you!

Those statins that lower cholesterol also block out something called COQ10.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj


Lowering cholesterol is not only a BAD thing (even the part we call bad cholesterol) but studies have shown time and time again that those with lower cholesterol rates die younger than those with higher cholesterol.

 


If Kendrick has these stats he should be able to source them no problem.

EDIT: I've been searching around. In on article it says he sources from WHO data, in another it says he sources legitimate studies but cherry picks. I haven't found anything so far that's easy to fact check. There is one paragraph of his own words, listing a bunch of places to look, but might take a bit of time to do so...
edit on 19-5-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 08:55 PM
link   
I'm not familiar with Kendrick, as I already pointed out, but to his credit, or in favour of his argument, these sources and his words should be double checked:


“Thank you for your comment. It may interest you to know that I was invited to write a paper on this topic for the BMJ – which I did, outlining why women should not take statins (you can look it up on the internet). I am also a peer-reviewer for the BMJ. I also helped set up the original website for NICE, and spent three years developing the on-line educational website for the European Society of Cardiology.

I have also been invited to give lectures on this topic to the BMA, the Medical Research Trials Unit, the Society of Chemical Industry and more recently the International Society of Cardiology. I do not say this for self-aggrandizement, mainly to point out that my views, whilst controversial, are taken seriously by mainstream researchers and doctors around the world. Also – although I use humour, do not doubt that I am a serious man, with an extremely serious agenda.


I would also be more than happy if the GMC (General Medical Council) picked up on my practice, for then I would have the opportunity to explain why my views are, indeed, evidence based. However, it is unlikely to happen, I speak regularly to many doctors who are in positions of authority within the GMC, as I meet them through my work with the BMA for the General Practitioners Committee which, as you may know, is the body that negotiates with the Government on the GP contract.

In short, please do not threaten me with the GMC – they still allow people to hold different views. Equally, please refrain from accusing me of ‘shortening the life expectancy of thousands of people.’ If you disagree with what I say, then I am happy to engage in a scientific debate with you. Accusing people of killing patients is an old and wearisome game, designed to shut people up.”


Source



Also in his favour, to get an idea of what he is against if his position is true:


n other words, the recommendations increase the number of people and conditions that need statin-driven cholesterol-lowering therapy. As you go through this executive summary it becomes clear that the authorities believe that cholesterol-lowering is extremely important in both the primary and secondary prevention of CHD and that statins are the way to lower cholesterol.

Who wrote this executive summary? A long list of esteemed experts in the field of cholesterol study. Do they have any conflicts of interest? Let’s take a look. Here is the list of members on the panel that produced the summary:

Scott M. Grundy, MD, PhD (Chair of the panel), Diane Becker, RN, MPH, ScD, Luther T. Clark, MD, Richard S. Cooper, MD, Margo A. Denke, MD, Wm. James Howard, MD, Donald B. Hunninghake, MD, D. Roger Illingworth, MD, PhD, Russell V. Luepker, MD, MS, Patrick McBride, MD, MPH, James M. McKenney, PharmD, Richard C. Pasternak, MD, Neil J. Stone, MD, Linda Van Horn, PhD, RD

Here is the financial disclosure:

Dr Grundy has received honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Sankyo, Bayer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr Hunninghake has current grants from Merck, Pfizer, Kos Pharmaceuticals, Schering Plough, Wyeth Ayerst, Sankyo, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and G. D. Searle; he has also received consulting honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Kos Pharmaceuticals, Sankyo, AstraZeneca, and Bayer. Dr McBride has received grants and/or research support from Pfizer, Merck, Parke-Davis, and AstraZeneca; has served as a consultant for Kos Pharmaceuticals, Abbott, and Merck; and has received honoraria from Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck, Kos Pharmaceuticals, Parke-Davis, Pfizer, and DuPont. Dr Pasternak has served as a consultant for and received honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, and Kos Pharmaceuticals, and has received grants from Merck and Pfizer. Dr Stone has served as a consultant and/or received honoraria for lectures from Abbott, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Kos Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novartis, Parke-Davis/Pfizer, and Sankyo. Dr Schwartz has served as a consultant for and/or conducted research funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Merck, Johnson & Johnson-Merck, and Pfizer. [My bold type]



www.proteinpower.com...




I will say, I'm not suggesting neither here nor there. Personally, I wouldn't take the meds he is going on about though. And I'm not fond of many prescribed medicines, unless it was a very serious condition. Some say this is, but, I think I would explore diet and habits before having to resort to these kinds of meds. Surely.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


I think it is becoming increasing clear that inflamation is the cause not cholesterol.


The Cambridge Heart Antioxidant Study showed individuals with advanced coronary artery disease who consumed at least 400 I.U. of vitamin E had 77% fewer nonfatal heart attacks over those who took a placebo.



Heart disease, stroke, and peripheral vascular disease are diseases of inflammation of the arteries and NOT a disease of too much cholesterol in the blood. In fact, over half of the patients who suffer a heart attack actually have normal cholesterol levels.


www.raystrand.com...



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Heart disease, stroke, and peripheral vascular disease are diseases of inflammation of the arteries


When i had my heart attack my C-reactive protein (CRP)levels were sky high because i had active Sarcoidosis.

High C-reactive protein (CRP)levels indicate severe inflammation going on in the body.

Did it have anything to do with the heart attack you bet.

I also had high Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme levels
High ACE levels cause the arteries to tighten up and reduces blood flow to the heart.
High levels are common in people with active sarcoidosis

I was and had been on Cholesterol meds for many years and they did not stop my heart attack.

Will i quit taking the Cholesterol meds NO



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


as you may know, i have commented many times on cholesterol forums here regarding statins.

one day i believe this will come out as one of the biggest controversies of our generation.

i cant believe i lived with the aches and pains for 12 months without knowing these were side effects of statins.

im not religious, but i do believe someone was sending me a message that day i was lying in a hot bath trying to ease the aches and pains and i heard a doctor on the radio say it.

how many people out there are over 40, been put on statins and dont realise that its not AGE related that they ache all over and take longer to get out of chairs etc.

i would implore ANYONE on statins if they dont feel like they did BEFORE they started taking them to READ UP on what the side effects are.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by bellagirl
 


People need to ask WHO and HOW "they" came up with "cholesterol levels"?

Statins are poison - they affect your liver.

If your body is low in "cholesterol" your liver makes cholesterol for your body.

Depopulation. and very expensive drugs they want everybody to take.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   
The small tears are thought to happen when arteries expand and contract such as during times of stress. When in fight or flight mode arteries expand to allow more blood flow. Frequent or prolonged expansion and contraction is one of the culprits. This makes the findings of vietmam soldiers who were found to have excessive problems with cholesterol plaques feasible (they did autopsies). I want to know how to repair these tears, scarring, and remove the plaque that has settled in these tears.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by bellagirl
 


People need to ask WHO and HOW "they" came up with "cholesterol levels"?

Statins are poison - they affect your liver.

If your body is low in "cholesterol" your liver makes cholesterol for your body.

Depopulation. and very expensive drugs they want everybody to take.


It's not depopulation because lifespans are and have been improving over generations. I think it boils simply down to money. I made another post in this thread I believe they quoted the statin market worth around 50 billion dollars. That's a lot of luxury goods to be bought by getting people on daily regimens of expensive drugs...



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   
The whole cholesterol thing was blown out of proportion by the medical industry which saw a way to boost it's bottom line. The original research came from another science organization which noticed a similarity in high cholesterol and problems in the circulatory system. They told the medical industry they should investigate this correlation and the medical industry jumped on it and started to capitalize on it. Last year the (I think)ACA wrote an article that said they didn't like what the medical industry did with their information and that they do not back the screwed up way that the medical industry twisted their research. The Government appears to have gotten a copy of this also.

High cholesterol is a symptom of something else. Cholesterol makes muscle tissue, it makes the brain. It is used by the nerve cells of the body also. It is a very important part of our system. If you want to lower your cholesterol, make sure you have all the nutrients in the body to complete the process of building and repairing. If you are low on a mineral or vitamin it will cause a buildup. Body builders have high cholesterol because as they damage muscle it is hauled around and recycled into new muscle. I think that there may be a possible electrolyte imbalance or possibly an overload in one of the bad ions that attach to the cells and deliver power to the mitochondria. Maybe too many bromides or possibly too many isotheocyanates or similar goiterogens. They do not just effect the thyroid, they effect power delivery to all cells. Unblocking these cells is difficult and there are things that also damage the mitochondria.

This cholesterol should not be floating around all the time, it should be being applied to patch things. One of the B-Carbolines helps to repair the blood vessels, I can't remember what it is but know it is found in coffee.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 05:06 AM
link   
This thread grabbed my interest because my dad died of a sudden heart attack about two years after deciding that he wanted to get healthier. He read up on what to do and was pretty good about following the recommendations. He quit eating eggs and bacon breakfasts and significantly changed his overall diet away from the southern cuisine he was accustomed to. He lost quite a bit of weight, and was proud of his progress. Then he keeled over and died of heart failure.

His is a single circumstantial case so it doesn't carry any scientific weight, but I have always wondered if those piles of eggs and bacon were really so bad for him, or if his change in diet could have even shortened his life instead of prolonged it. I especially question when at a truck stop watching old-timers eat the same thing but add in cigarettes and still be living 20-40 years longer than he did.

As for why the health industry would push a lie about it there is the profit of course, and someone suggested population control which is possible, but this statement really jumped out at me:

rickymouse said:

Cholesterol makes muscle tissue, it makes the brain.

Could cholesterol be discouraged because a lack of it makes people dumber?



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 06:02 AM
link   
I spoke to a doctor about this recently (not my GP, a friend).

He's very well-informed on CHD (coronary heart disease) and believes the cholesterol hypothesis to be basically sound.

He's read many peer-reviewed studies and his conclusion is that there is a rock-solid link between high LDL levels and CHD.

I asked him what he thought about recent scepticism on the subject.

He replied that there have always been people who believe the earth is flat, and nowadays there are maverick scientists who debunk anthropogenic global warming.

He advised me it's always wisest to adhere to the majority voice of science.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by CJCrawley
 


Imagine, just as a mental exercise, that there was another man standing in the room when you asked him the question. Before answering he turns to this well-dressed man and whispers something in his ear. The other man looks concerned at what he has heard and somewhat frantically whispers something back. They go back and forth a few times like this. Eventually the other man smiles and hand the doctor a stack of $100 bills, neatly folded. The doctor then turns to you and confidently says, "It's always wisest to adhere to the majority voice of science." while counting the money wad and giving a fist pound to the third party. You look closely and notice that the well-dressed man is wearing a nametag that says "Health Care Industry".

Would you believe the doctor? Would you question the money? If he assured you that the pay-off that you just witness had no effect on his treatment of you would have some doubts?

This is a bit of a theatrical demonstration of how it works, but the reality is not so far off.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by CJCrawley
I spoke to a doctor about this recently (not my GP, a friend).

He's very well-informed on CHD (coronary heart disease) and believes the cholesterol hypothesis to be basically sound.

He's read many peer-reviewed studies and his conclusion is that there is a rock-solid link between high LDL levels and CHD.

I asked him what he thought about recent scepticism on the subject.

He replied that there have always been people who believe the earth is flat, and nowadays there are maverick scientists who debunk anthropogenic global warming.

He advised me it's always wisest to adhere to the majority voice of science.




i hear what your saying.

my beef is not with the whole idea of high cholesterol and CHD. i think after 6 months of myself doing research the jury is still out for me.

my beef is the drug pushed to fix the problem. if you are told to take this little pill and you wont have a heart attack "thats how it is marketed", you would do it. the side effects happen over a period of time and you really dont link the two.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by bellagirl
 


After a month of taking Crestor it felt like I had been run through the right side of the chest, back to front, with a fiery sword. All I could do was sit very still for a week. Any movement and it felt like the hot sword squirmed around. I found out that statins will attack overused muscles. As a sheetrocker for 20 years, and now a die cutter, those chest muscles are way overused.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by bellagirl
 


After a month of taking Crestor it felt like I had been run through the right side of the chest, back to front, with a fiery sword. All I could do was sit very still for a week. Any movement and it felt like the hot sword squirmed around. I found out that statins will attack overused muscles. As a sheetrocker for 20 years, and now a die cutter, those chest muscles are way overused.




i suffered for over 12 months. i had no idea what so ever. i also have a physical job and in my early 40's. there were days i cried no knowing how i could keep working. i thought it was just wear and tear and starting to get old...lol. little did i know. it pains me to wonder how many others are out there on this drug suffering and have no idea that if they just stopped taking it they may recover and enjoy life again.





new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join