I would like to see studies instead showing a clear link between high cholesterol and heart disease
Open a textbook
they came up with good (HDL) and bad (LDL) cholesterol
? you speak as if they are theoretical lol
suggesting "good" bad cholesterol and "bad" bad cholesterol. WTF?
WTF is right because you have no idea what these lipoproteins do
Cholesterol is not a cause of disease but a response to disease state
What disease state are you refering to, quote a pathogenicity showing that cholesterol increases AFTER the disease has been noted.
Despite this around half of heart attacks are in people with low or normal cholesterol so it's even a bad indicator of disease.
No one claims it to be an indicator of disease. Its called a risk factor. Its not like an ELISA test lol.
OK lets look at your studies. Which arent review papers or peer reviewed but ok lets look at it (firstly you reading abstracts so let me get the full articles instead of their adverts):
First one is the JAMA article:
Published 1994 so its 20 years out of date. Lets see if its valid. Its only been cited 290 times according to web of knowledge.
acute myocardial infarction and unstable angina
So they dont look into CCF ? ok they selecting 2 parameters instead of cardiovascular disease as a whole. Also note that there is no mention of artiosclerosis within this article. Also no mention of co-morbidities. This article is already trash.
Elevated total serum cholesterol level, low HDL-C, and high total serum cholesterol to HDL-C ratio were not associated with a significantly higher rate of all-cause mortality
wasnt significantly higher but it WAS higher.
Our findings do not support the hypothesis that hypercholesterolemia or low HDL-C are important risk factors for all-cause mortality, coronary heart disease mortality, or hospitalization for myocardial infarction or unstable angina in this cohort of persons older than 70 years
Ok, considering at the time the average person lived how long? in 1994 the average life span for US male was 58. Doing a study on 70 year olds doesnt really mean much. This is how you can bluff your reader if they have no idea how to assess an article.
As i thought. This article later as a updated response from the university of new south wales published in 2001 November titled:
Cholesterol and other lipids predict coronary heart disease and ischaemic stroke in the elderly, but only in those below 70 years by Leon A. Simonsa, Judith Simonsa, Yechiel Friedlanderb, John McCallumc
We have confirmed that total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, serum apo-B, total cholesterol/HDL and apo-B/apo-A1 are significant predictors of CHD and ischaemic stroke in older persons
For now I will spare you from a detailed response by showing the decrease in death with CVD with use of statins and fibrates.
So this article, is not statistically significant, its out dated and it speculates for an extremely specific population. So its nonsense to be blunt.
K next one:
oh gosh the book was discontinued. Its not even a proper textbook or accepted text for medical information. Its like deepak chopra's nonsense that relies on the aurthor's qualification .... wont even bother with this BUT it does say:
The mentioned overviews included mostly diet and/or the older cholesterol-lowering drugs. But a new type of drugs, the socalled statins (for instance Zocord®, Mevacor®, Lescol®, Lipitor® and Pravachol®) have been succesful. However, their effect isn´t exerted through cholesterol-lowering, they have other and more useful properties Unfortunately they also stimulate cancer growth
Errr they block formation of LDLs ?
every single pharmacology textbook/review/journal ever printed says otherwise
(
http://journals.prous.com/journals/dnp/20051804/html/dn180229/images/lefer_f2.jpg)
Statins are synthetic HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors that are potent suppressors of cholesterol biosynthesis in humans
Cancer ? eerrrr no how about cytotoxic :
statins exhibit pro-apoptotic or growth suppressive effects, and/or enhance the cytotoxicity of chemotherapeutic agents. In addition, some key cellular mechanisms by which statins elicit antitumor effects in vitro and in vivo have been elucidated. Such new information has led to the development of clinical therapeutic and epidemiological trials, aimed to precisely define the potential utility of statins in clinical oncology.
Third source. Again a single aurthor vs the world. All you have to do is look at the benefit and again of artheriosclerotic based CVD in any statin to disprove this nonsense. Take your pick simvastatin, piperstatin, atorvastatin, rosuvastatin and its proven wrong.
fourth article shot itself as it has no link to the actual paper. So I will be fair and assume its reported truthfully, since im also not providing links (you cant get it anyways they will block the articles unless you registered). BUT:
But, he pointed out, many studies have shown that dietary saturated fat can raise people's cholesterol, and the new analysis is not going to change recommendations
Recent clinical trial data suggest that aggressive low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol reduction with statins lowers CVD risk to a greater extent than do moderate approaches in patients with stable coronary disease and acute coronary syndromes. These findings have led to a revised statement from the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) that advocates even lower LDL-cholesterol goal options in the highest-risk and moderate-risk patients
you can get that from the NCEP.
sigh next are you going to quote me scientific studies proving the consumption of radium infused water? or the studies that indicated diacetylmorphine (heroin) as a cure for opium addiction ? these studies you claim as evidence are 20 to 40 years old. Then you got single "maverick" professionals that require the testimonials to help them prove a point but their work is not cited at all in the scientific search engines... I wonder if google scholar will even pick it up LOL.
as i said dont read rubbish and preach it as truth.
even your own references disagree with you:
High-density lipoprotein, or HDL: This is the "good" cholesterol that helps to keep cholesterol away from your arteries and remove any excess from arterial plaque, which may help to prevent heart disease.
Low-density lipoprotein, or LDL: This "bad" cholesterol circulates in your blood and, according to conventional thinking, may build up in your arteries, forming plaque that makes your arteries narrow and less flexible (a condition called atherosclerosis).
as for your so called " Ron Rosedale, MD" he knows f all chemistry to say cholesterol is cholesterol is like saying a bmw is a merc because they are both cars with 4 wheels
yeah WTF with HDL and LDL indeed. Once again you have no idea what you are talking about ....
oh yeah although some merit to Vit D, its no match to the statins and in frequent artificial ingestion of vitD it becomes extremely toxic since its FAT SOLUBLE ... remember ADEK from school ?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163782711000208
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163782711000208
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123819789101027
yeah you can get disease if you deficient, as the articles states you cant treat dislipidemia with it, it has no effect on serum lipids. END. You take 50 000 iU vitD MONTHLY, if your bones are crumbling lol. Also oestoarthritic therapy has noted cardiovascular toxicity with vitD dosing and its analogues like one-alpha (alpha-calcidiol),
:wtf: ... and your detailed explaination is writen for a child its a joke as there is nothing detailed about it.
Sign up with Google
