Statins in the Drinking Water? - Packer

Statins in the Drinking Water?

by Milton Packer, MedPage Today

"Universal treatment for people at minimal risk means that a physician would need to treat more than 100 patients for 10 years to obtain an extra year of good health in one person. This marginal improvement does not meet most current standards for cost-effectiveness. The benefit is so small that it disappears if quality of life were even slightly diminished by the need to remember to take the drug daily."

.

.

.

.

"Treating every middle-aged person with a statin is the polar opposite of precision medicine.

Confused? You should not be. It is medicine that has gone insane."

Read the complete article here.

How do statin proponents deal with debate? They stifle it - Briffa

How do statin proponents deal with debate? They stifle it.

By Dr John Briffa on 4 July 2014 

 

Last month, one of my blog posts featured a letter written by a group of doctors, expressing their concerns about the mooted expansion of statin therapy. The letter detailed six major objections to the plan, including the mass-medicalization of millions of healthy individuals, the unreliability of the evidence regarding the adverse effects of statins, and the facts that almost all the evidence is industry-funded and that multiple conflicts of interest exist on the ‘expert committee’ that is adjudicating on the statin issue. The letter received widespread coverage in the press and other media, and I think it did much to stoke the flaming debate that some have described as the ‘statin wars’.

Those strongly supportive of the plans to widen statin prescriptions are hardly going to go away without a fight, though. And this week six professors convened a press briefing at the Science Media Centre to put forward their arguments. The briefing was reported in the British Medical Journal this week [1].

Two of the ‘usual suspects’ were Professor Sir Rory Collins (head of the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists collaboration) and Professor Peter Weissberg (medical director of the British Heart Foundation).

One of Professor Collins’ gripes was, apparently, that “misrepresenting the evidence” will have a negative impact on people who are at high risk of cardiac events. He is quoted as saying: “It’s perfectly reasonable to debate whether patients at lower risk should get statins or not, but it’s inappropriate to misrepresent the evidence.”

He redoubled his assertion that rates of ‘myopathy’ are much lower than some people state. However, he is referring to the incidence of muscle problems where the threshold of ‘abnormal’ is when levels of the enzyme used to assess muscle damage (creatinine kinase) is at least 10 times the upper limit of normal. Professor Sir Rory Collins is apparently disinterested unless muscles are in near-meltdown. We can, I suppose, just ignore those poor unfortunates with less biochemical aberrations even though their symptoms are real and often debilitating. I think it’s clearly business as usual for Rory Collins, who makes claims that some are misleading the public while I think he, ahem, continues to mislead the public.

Professor Weissberg tells us that the “…the critics are wrong. They’ve retracted, they’re wrong.” Except, that the only thing that has been retracted were the misleading representations of statin side-effects as reported in one piece of research. All the major objections detailed in the original letter stand until someone properly disputes them.

With regard to these, Professor Weissberg calms any concerns about industry involvement in the evidence base, because drug companies only paid people to do the studies, rather than the drug companies doing the studies themselves. So, nothing to concern ourselves with here.

He adds that: “The biggest threat to good medicine is prejudice and anecdote.” I have some sympathy for this view, but boy would I like to see Professor Weissberg stay away from prejudice and anecdote myself. It was not so long ago that he made claims to support statins using data that did not support the use of statins at all.

And perhaps the most telling thing of all are the comments that come from Fiona Fox, director of the Science Media Centre. Apparently, only pro-statin experts were invited to the briefing. In defence of this tactic, Ms Fox tells us that the “vast majority” of cardiac and statin experts believed that the evidence was overwhelming, and that it was not the centre’s job to provide a platform to a minority who did not and thereby project a false image that the debate was in equipoise (when it was not).
First of all, I wouldn’t be too sure that the evidence is overwhelming or that the pro-statin camp is in the great majority.  And even if there things were true, is that a reason to stifle debate and allow no right of reply?

Do these tactics suggest that Professors Collins and Weissberg and the rest of their merry band of men have true confidence in their position? I personally doubt it, and believe that their attempt to shut down debate suggests they may be desperate not to have the weakness of the data and their arguments revealed in front of their very own eyes.

References:
1. Hawkes N, et al. Six professors back NICE guidance on extending use of statins. BMJ 2014;349:g4380
===================================================================================================
Read the complete article here.

Cholesterol and Why Statin Drugs are Harmful

Cholesterol and Why Statin Drugs are Harmful

 

 

For decades, health experts have told us to watch our cholesterol levels, lower our intake of saturated fats, and consume low-fat diets.

An estimated 102 million Americans have cholesterol levels higher than 200. More than 20 million Americans are on statin drugs to lower cholesterol.

In theory, if we were following recommendations from doctors, dietitians, fitness experts, and dutifully taking our medications, we should be see a reduction in disease.

But the fact is…
We don’t.

So, it’s important to ask…

• Does eating high cholesterol foods correlate to rising cholesterol levels?

• Do high cholesterol levels necessarily mean you are at higher risk for cardiovascular disease or heart attack?

• Is the use of statin drugs safe and useful in reducing the levels of cholesterol in the body, thus lowering our disease risk?

A recent government study shows that raising levels of HDL “good” cholesterol using a drug did not diminish the chance of heart disease.
From the NY Times:

“Patients taking the medicine along with Zocor had higher levels of H.D.L. and lower levels of triglycerides, a fat in the blood. Despite these seeming improvements, the patients fared no better and may have done slightly worse than those taking Zocor alone. That is why the entire theory behind trying to increase H.D.L. levels in patients with heart disease may need rethinking.

In 2010 the British Medical Journal published a study revealing that the use of statin drugs was connected to liver, muscle, eye, and kidney problems. The results showed increased risk of moderate or serious liver dysfunction, acute renal failure, moderate or serious myopathy and cataracts.

Dietary cholesterol levels are not related to serum cholesterol levels

According to Nora Gedgaudas, of Primal Body – Primal Mind:

“No study to date has adequately shown any significant link between dietary and serum cholesterol levels…or any significant causative link between cholesterol and actual heart disease. Other than in uncommon cases of genetically based ‘familial hypercholesterolemia’ (where natural mechanisms which regulate cholesterol production fail and the body cannot stop overproduction-even here the proof of the problematic nature of cholesterol is dubious, at best), cholesterol is perhaps only potentially deleterious in and of itself in oxidized forms, occurring as a result of food processing methods (such as in “reduced fat” milks, powdered milk/eggs) and high heat cooking/frying. Inflammatory processes can also be oxidizing of cholesterol in the body. Other than this, ALL cholesterol in the body is the same. ‘HDL’ and ‘LDL’ only reflect transport mechanisms for healthy cholesterol and are meaningless measures of coronary heart disease risk (Enig, Ravnskov).

It is also important to realize that ‘HDL’ and ‘LDL’ are NOT actual cholesterol at all, but merely the protein transport mechanism for cholesterol. Again, All cholesterol is exactly the same. LDL takes cholesterol away from the liver to the extremities and other organs for various purposes and HDL merely returns the same cholesterol to the liver where it may be recycled.”

Gedgaudas believes it is more important to find out why your cholesterol levels are up. When we have stress, infections, clogged arteries, high carbohydrate diets which cause insulin resistance and diabetes, weight issues, free radical activity, and low thyroid function, these can cause the liver to produce more cholesterol in order to deal with excess inflammation. If cholesterol levels are rising, it’s always a sign of some underlying problem, but it doesn’t mean cholesterol is causing the problem.

Doctors are missing the problem

Prescriptions for high cholesterol go hand-in-hand with recommendations for low-fat diets. This type of diet is not only tasteless and unsatisfying, it is also grossly deficient in the most nutrient-dense and health supporting foods on the planet: foods with healthy fats and cholesterol.

In the last five years, doctors have started recommending that obese children take statin drugs. Of course, there is little to no thought given to the staples of the Standard American children’s diet: highly processed, increasingly lower and lower in fat ast time goes on, high-carb, sugary foods with little to no nutritional content.

It’s a wonder doctors don’t draw the obvious conclusion that these foods might possibly be the culprit to children’s health and obesity issues. But they don’t. What’s more, they fail to give good, sound nutritional advice. The result is that some children end up on drugs because apparently providing real, healthy foods that support growth and development is not what they believe will solve the problem.

Truths about cholesterol:

• Cholesterol is vital to health. Without it, we have hormonal, brain, heart, endocrine, and nervous system issues and damage. Lack of adequate cholesterol in the body leads to blood sugar imbalance, mineral deficiencies, chronic inflammation, infertility, allergies, and asthma.

• Cholesterol is beneficial to the gastrointestinal environment and lining because it improves cell-membrane integrity and can also help reduce excessive permeability of substances through the intestinal wall and into the bloodstream.

• Every cell in our bodies is made of cholesterol. Without it they would become leaky and porous, causing a flood of cholesterol taken from other parts of the body to repair damage.

• Cholesterol is the precursor to Vitamin D, which is now known to be a hormone rather than a vitamin, and is responsible for helping to digest fats, mineral metabolism, protecting bones, strengthening the immune system

• Cholesterol is a powerful anti-oxidant which protects the body from free-radical damage and aging

• The theory of cholesterol being unhealthy was originally created by food processing industries to villanize animal fats and products, which are direct competitors to vegetable oils, and also from the pharmaceutical industry to develop a market to sell cholesterol-lowering drugs. Lipitor and other Statin drugs are enormous profit-bringers for pharmaceutical companies.

Truths about statin drugs:

• Taking them only masks the problem going on in your body (for a little while) and doesn’t get to the cause of the problem, which is usually chronic inflammation due to poor dietary habits which cause nutritional deficiencies

• They deplete your body of vital nutrients, such as C0Q10, which is essential to heart health. Cardiologist Dr. Peter Langsjoen conducted a study involving 20 patients with completely normal heart function. Six months later, after being on 20 mg daily of Lipitor (a low dose), two-thirds of the patients were found to have abnormalities in the filling phase of the heart. Langsjoen’s conclusion was that this occurred due to the depletion of CoQ10. A lack of C0Q10 causes muscle pain and weakness, due to the prevention of energy being produced in the mitrochondria in the cell.

• These medications can also cause other types of muscle weakness and pain. In Denmark, researchers who studied 500,000 residents (approximately 9 percent of the population) discovered that those taking prescription medications to lower cholesterol were more likely to develop polyneuropathy, characterized as weakness and pain or tingling in the hands or feet and difficulty walking.

• They cause a marked decrease of cholesterol-production in the brain. According to Dr. Barry Sears, this leads to a loss of memory due to diminished production of new synaptic connections and loss of memory.

• They are costly in more ways than one: for your wallet and for your health. Eating healthy foods that naturally maintain normal cholesterol levels in the body costs less.

• They causes other side-effects, one of them being liver damage. Liver damage is dangerous and can lead to other health issues that are very unpleasant, expensive, and time-consuming to treat

Would the real enemies please stand up?

• Industrial fats – industrially-produced, polyunsaturated fats: canola, soybean, cottonseed, corn, peanut, safflower, and sunflower oils, shortening, butter substitutes and spreads, and other fake butter products. Some of these oils come from living things, but they are processed and chemically-altered which transforms them into trans-fats (even though the label may specifically read “no trans fats”), deodorized, and subjected to high- heat temperatures, rendering them nutritionally bankrupt and rancid.

• Sugar - which causes metabolic syndrome and blood sugar imbalance, leading to insulin resistance and diabetes, and heart attacks. In 2009, the United States was ranked 4th in sugar consumption levels in the world.

• Lack of nutrient-dense foods – modern diets are largely represented by nutritionally-deficient and heavily processed convenience foods which do not support the health of the human body. They cause build up in our arteries, liver damage, diabetes, premature aging, and cardiovascular disease.

• Stress - periods of stress deplete nutrients in the body causing inflammation, which triggers disease.

Watch this informative video by Dr. Mark Hyman about cholesterol:

How to keep inflammation and cholesterol levels normal in your body

Real, traditional fats from healthy animals and birds on pasture actually make us healthier because they are easy to digest and are some of the most nutrient-dense foods available. Looking back over the historical past, the human diet has always contained large amounts of fat and cholesterol.
Dr. Weston A. Price, author of Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, analyzed foods consumed by traditional, primitive peoples all over the world. In these populations, health was robust and disease nearly non-existent. He discovered that their diets allowed for at least four times the calcium and other minerals, and at least 10 times the fat-soluble vitamins and amino acids as the modern diet which were obtained from animal foods such as eggs, fish, shellfish, animal fats like butter, lard, and tallow, and organ meats. All these foods were high in cholesterol and fat.
If you want to maintain good health:

• Eat real, grass-fed butter

• Eat olive and coconut oil

• Eat grass-fed meats, poultry and pasture-raised eggs from reputable, local sources that raise their products sustainable

• Eat safe-sourced seafood

• Take cod liver oil

• Eat organic fruits and vegetables

• If you do eat grains, eat them sparingly and prepare them properly through soaking, sprouting, or fermenting. Eat grains with healthy fats such as milk, cream, butter, cheese, and other healthy foods containing fats such as olive oil, coconut oil, lard, tallow, bone marrow, and grass-fed meats and poultry.

• Avoid sugar – that means any refined carbohydrates – crackers, breads, rice cakes, cereals, pretzels, chips, bagels, pasta, desserts, sugary beverages (including juice and power “electrolyte” drinks).

• Avoid processed foods and drinks, and especially those with artificial sweeteners or high-fructose corn syrup

• Avoid unhealthy vegetable oils such as canola, soy, cottonseed, or safflower. These oils are too high in Omega 6s (which cause inflammation, cancer, and heart disease), are highly-processed at high temperatures making them rancid, and many of these oils are also likely to be genetically-modified as well, which has its own set of health risks.

• Lower stress levels with moderate and enjoyable exercise and relaxation strategies. Stress can severely deplete nutrients in the body, leading to heart disease.

For more information:
Importance of Dietary Fats
Cholesterol and Health – Chris Masterjohn
The Benefits of High Cholesterol – Weston A. Price Foundation
Dangers of Statin Drugs: What You Haven’t Been Told About Popular Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs – WAP Foundation
The Oiling of America – Sally Fallon and Dr. Mary G. Enig, PhD
I have high cholesterol, and I don’t care – The Healthy Skeptic
Medication Sense – Dr. Jay S. Cohen
Suggested reading:
Fat and Cholesterol are Good for You by Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PhD
The Cholesterol Delusion by Ernest N. Curtis, M.D.

This post is part of Sarah The Healthy Home Economist’s Monday Mania.

‘Patient Powered Health’ - Briffa

Patients are the new doctors

By Dr John Briffa on 23 April 2013

 

I regularly see patients who, rather sheepishly, tell me that they have ‘googled’ their symptoms to try and work out what might be wrong with them. They often add something like ‘I know shouldn’t have”. Finding useful health advice on the internet can be a bit of a lottery, but I personally have no issue with patients googling their symptoms and looking for information. My experience in practice tells me that they will very often find something that is of genuine use to them and their health practitioner (if open-minded enough).

The rise of the internet has seen medical and research information become much more available to individuals. And boy have people seized the opportunity to access this information in an effort to understand better how to overcome illness and enhance health. Not uncommonly I see patients who know far more about some health matter than I. I like to embrace this, personally, as it usually means that person is likely to progress faster down the path to health than if they hadn’t bothered to or been able to educate themselves. And I have generally have no issue at all (quite the reverse, actually) with a patient educating me about some health matter.

Another trend I’ve noticed is just how much people have been able to tap into the collective experiences and wisdom of others. I see this quite commonly in diabetics, for instance. I’ve seen quite a few diabetics who have found controlling their blood sugar levels difficult on the low-fat, high carbohydrate diet often recommended to diabetics (go figure!). Many of these diabetics go looking for or stumble across a forum like this one where individuals can swap stories and idea relating to low-carbohydrate eating.

Some will feel sufficiently convinced to give this type of eating a try and will usually see a significant improvement in their blood sugar control and a reduction in medication requirement as a result. Some will run the idea past their doctor or diabetologist first, but some will not. In effect, those in the latter group have made a self-directed decision about their diet and healthcare based on the experiences and advice of, not healthcare professionals, but ‘ordinary’ individuals with experiences and ideas to share.

I’ve heard many healthcare practitioners express horror that this sort of thing going on. For example, dieticians or dietician bodies very often warn about the supposed perils of taking ‘a whole food group’ (e.g. starchy carbs) out of the diet. The idea here is that somehow such a person is being reckless and risking a diet deficient in key nutrients. In my view, this person is unlikely to be exhibiting any recklessness at all, and there’s nothing found in these starchy carbs that cannot be found more healthily (in my opinion) elsewhere in the diet. And let’s not forget that this particular dietary change is often accompanied by an improvement in not just blood sugar control, but improvements in a range of disease markers.

I was motivated to write about this on reading a recent piece form the deputy editor of the British Medical Journal [1]. Entitled ‘Patient Powered Health’, this piece explores the notion that the internet can be a source of useful information from the lay public that can inform patients and help direct their care in ways that supersede conventional medical care.

The same edition of the journal contains an account from someone – Dave deBronkart – who was diagnosed with advanced kidney cancer, and who’s doctor suggested he take a look at acor.org, an online resource for individuals with various forms of cancer. deBronkart posted a message on the site, and within two hours he: “got facts and practical advice that to this day don’t exist in any journal article or establishment website,” including information about the best treatments and side effects from those who had already experienced them.

The editor’s piece goes on to say: “The internet and online communities are often rightly criticised as sources of misinformation and bad advice. But deBronkart’s story illustrates the contribution that informed and engaged patients can make to the complexities of medicine.” deBronkart is quoted as saying: “The value delivered by skilled clinicians is still there, but now we can see that it’s no longer the only source,” he writes. “Please, let patients help improve healthcare. Let patients help steer our decisions, strategic and practical. Let patients help define what value in medicine is.”
The BMJ has a long-running ‘Patient’s Journey’ series which is partly designed to achieve this end (letting patients help define value and quality in medicine is). The BMJ’s patient editor, Peter Lapsley, adds: “There is no privileged vantage point from which to decide who is right and who is wrong.”

That’s right, I think. We doctors no longer have a monopoly in health information and advice. Patients now have the potential to learn much from the experiences and wisdom of other patients. I don’t think we doctors should be threatened by this: I think we should embrace it, partly because it can benefit patients, and partly because our patient’s experiences and ideas can benefit we doctors too.

References:
1. Jackson T. Patient powered health. BMJ 2013;346:f2255
=================================================================================================
Read the complete article here.

Links: ACOR, Association of Cancer Online Resources - http://www.acor.org/
BMJ, British Medical Journal Patient's Journey - http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f1988?sid=92bca820-ea7c-400b-9a9e-1198c3987b0c
 

Cholesterol and Why Statin Drugs are Harmful

Cholesterol and Why Statin Drugs are Harmful

For decades, health experts have told us to watch our cholesterol levels, lower our intake of saturated fats, and consume low-fat diets.

An estimated 102 million Americans have cholesterol levels higher than 200. More than 20 million Americans are on statin drugs to lower cholesterol.

In theory, if we were following recommendations from doctors, dietitians, fitness experts, and dutifully taking our medications, we should be see a reduction in disease.

But the fact is…

We don’t.
So, it’s important to ask…

• Does eating high cholesterol foods correlate to rising cholesterol levels?

• Do high cholesterol levels necessarily mean you are at higher risk for cardiovascular disease or heart attack?

• Is the use of statin drugs safe and useful in reducing the levels of cholesterol in the body, thus lowering our disease risk?

A recent government study shows that raising levels of HDL “good” cholesterol using a drug did not diminish the chance of heart disease.
From the NY Times:

“Patients taking the medicine along with Zocor had higher levels of H.D.L. and lower levels of triglycerides, a fat in the blood. Despite these seeming improvements, the patients fared no better and may have done slightly worse than those taking Zocor alone. That is why the entire theory behind trying to increase H.D.L. levels in patients with heart disease may need rethinking.

In 2010 the British Medical Journal published a study revealing that the use of statin drugs was connected to liver, muscle, eye, and kidney problems. The results showed increased risk of moderate or serious liver dysfunction, acute renal failure, moderate or serious myopathy and cataracts.

Dietary cholesterol levels are not related to serum cholesterol levels

According to Nora Gedgaudas, of Primal Body – Primal Mind:

“No study to date has adequately shown any significant link between dietary and serum cholesterol levels…or any significant causative link between cholesterol and actual heart disease. Other than in uncommon cases of genetically based ‘familial hypercholesterolemia’ (where natural mechanisms which regulate cholesterol production fail and the body cannot stop overproduction-even here the proof of the problematic nature of cholesterol is dubious, at best), cholesterol is perhaps only potentially deleterious in and of itself in oxidized forms, occurring as a result of food processing methods (such as in “reduced fat” milks, powdered milk/eggs) and high heat cooking/frying. Inflammatory processes can also be oxidizing of cholesterol in the body. Other than this, ALL cholesterol in the body is the same. ‘HDL’ and ‘LDL’ only reflect transport mechanisms for healthy cholesterol and are meaningless measures of coronary heart disease risk (Enig, Ravnskov).

It is also important to realize that ‘HDL’ and ‘LDL’ are NOT actual cholesterol at all, but merely the protein transport mechanism for cholesterol. Again, All cholesterol is exactly the same. LDL takes cholesterol away from the liver to the extremities and other organs for various purposes and HDL merely returns the same cholesterol to the liver where it may be recycled.”

Gedgaudas believes it is more important to find out why your cholesterol levels are up. When we have stress, infections, clogged arteries, high carbohydrate diets which cause insulin resistance and diabetes, weight issues, free radical activity, and low thyroid function, these can cause the liver to produce more cholesterol in order to deal with excess inflammation. If cholesterol levels are rising, it’s always a sign of some underlying problem, but it doesn’t mean cholesterol is causing the problem.

Doctors are missing the problem

Prescriptions for high cholesterol go hand-in-hand with recommendations for low-fat diets. This type of diet is not only tasteless and unsatisfying, it is also grossly deficient in the most nutrient-dense and health supporting foods on the planet: foods with healthy fats and cholesterol.

In the last five years, doctors have started recommending that obese children take statin drugs. Of course, there is little to no thought given to the staples of the Standard American children’s diet: highly processed, increasingly lower and lower in fat ast time goes on, high-carb, sugary foods with little to no nutritional content.

It’s a wonder doctors don’t draw the obvious conclusion that these foods might possibly be the culprit to children’s health and obesity issues. But they don’t. What’s more, they fail to give good, sound nutritional advice. The result is that some children end up on drugs because apparently providing real, healthy foods that support growth and development is not what they believe will solve the problem.

Truths about cholesterol:

• Cholesterol is vital to health. Without it, we have hormonal, brain, heart, endocrine, and nervous system issues and damage. Lack of adequate cholesterol in the body leads to blood sugar imbalance, mineral deficiencies, chronic inflammation, infertility, allergies, and asthma.

• Cholesterol is beneficial to the gastrointestinal environment and lining because it improves cell-membrane integrity and can also help reduce excessive permeability of substances through the intestinal wall and into the bloodstream.

• Every cell in our bodies is made of cholesterol. Without it they would become leaky and porous, causing a flood of cholesterol taken from other parts of the body to repair damage.

• Cholesterol is the precursor to Vitamin D, which is now known to be a hormone rather than a vitamin, and is responsible for helping to digest fats, mineral metabolism, protecting bones, strengthening the immune system

• Cholesterol is a powerful anti-oxidant which protects the body from free-radical damage and aging

• The theory of cholesterol being unhealthy was originally created by food processing industries to villanize animal fats and products, which are direct competitors to vegetable oils, and also from the pharmaceutical industry to develop a market to sell cholesterol-lowering drugs. Lipitor and other Statin drugs are enormous profit-bringers for pharmaceutical companies.

Truths about statin drugs:

• Taking them only masks the problem going on in your body (for a little while) and doesn’t get to the cause of the problem, which is usually chronic inflammation due to poor dietary habits which cause nutritional deficiencies

• They deplete your body of vital nutrients, such as C0Q10, which is essential to heart health. Cardiologist Dr. Peter Langsjoen conducted a study involving 20 patients with completely normal heart function. Six months later, after being on 20 mg daily of Lipitor (a low dose), two-thirds of the patients were found to have abnormalities in the filling phase of the heart. Langsjoen’s conclusion was that this occurred due to the depletion of CoQ10. A lack of C0Q10 causes muscle pain and weakness, due to the prevention of energy being produced in the mitrochondria in the cell.

• These medications can also cause other types of muscle weakness and pain. In Denmark, researchers who studied 500,000 residents (approximately 9 percent of the population) discovered that those taking prescription medications to lower cholesterol were more likely to develop polyneuropathy, characterized as weakness and pain or tingling in the hands or feet and difficulty walking.

• They cause a marked decrease of cholesterol-production in the brain. According to Dr. Barry Sears, this leads to a loss of memory due to diminished production of new synaptic connections and loss of memory.

• They are costly in more ways than one: for your wallet and for your health. Eating healthy foods that naturally maintain normal cholesterol levels in the body costs less.

• They causes other side-effects, one of them being liver damage. Liver damage is dangerous and can lead to other health issues that are very unpleasant, expensive, and time-consuming to treat

Would the real enemies please stand up?

• Industrial fats – industrially-produced, polyunsaturated fats: canola, soybean, cottonseed, corn, peanut, safflower, and sunflower oils, shortening, butter substitutes and spreads, and other fake butter products. Some of these oils come from living things, but they are processed and chemically-altered which transforms them into trans-fats (even though the label may specifically read “no trans fats”), deodorized, and subjected to high- heat temperatures, rendering them nutritionally bankrupt and rancid.

• Sugar - which causes metabolic syndrome and blood sugar imbalance, leading to insulin resistance and diabetes, and heart attacks. In 2009, the United States was ranked 4th in sugar consumption levels in the world.

• Lack of nutrient-dense foods – modern diets are largely represented by nutritionally-deficient and heavily processed convenience foods which do not support the health of the human body. They cause build up in our arteries, liver damage, diabetes, premature aging, and cardiovascular disease.

• Stress - periods of stress deplete nutrients in the body causing inflammation, which triggers disease.

Watch this informative video by Dr. Mark Hyman about cholesterol:

How to keep inflammation and cholesterol levels normal in your body

Real, traditional fats from healthy animals and birds on pasture actually make us healthier because they are easy to digest and are some of the most nutrient-dense foods available. Looking back over the historical past, the human diet has always contained large amounts of fat and cholesterol.

Dr. Weston A. Price, author of Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, analyzed foods consumed by traditional, primitive peoples all over the world. In these populations, health was robust and disease nearly non-existent. He discovered that their diets allowed for at least four times the calcium and other minerals, and at least 10 times the fat-soluble vitamins and amino acids as the modern diet which were obtained from animal foods such as eggs, fish, shellfish, animal fats like butter, lard, and tallow, and organ meats. All these foods were high in cholesterol and fat.

If you want to maintain good health:

• Eat real, grass-fed butter

• Eat olive and coconut oil

• Eat grass-fed meats, poultry and pasture-raised eggs from reputable, local sources that raise their products sustainable

• Eat safe-sourced seafood

• Take cod liver oil

• Eat organic fruits and vegetables

• If you do eat grains, eat them sparingly and prepare them properly through soaking, sprouting, or fermenting. Eat grains with healthy fats such as milk, cream, butter, cheese, and other healthy foods containing fats such as olive oil, coconut oil, lard, tallow, bone marrow, and grass-fed meats and poultry.

• Avoid sugar – that means any refined carbohydrates – crackers, breads, rice cakes, cereals, pretzels, chips, bagels, pasta, desserts, sugary beverages (including juice and power “electrolyte” drinks).

• Avoid processed foods and drinks, and especially those with artificial sweeteners or high-fructose corn syrup

• Avoid unhealthy vegetable oils such as canola, soy, cottonseed, or safflower. These oils are too high in Omega 6s (which cause inflammation, cancer, and heart disease), are highly-processed at high temperatures making them rancid, and many of these oils are also likely to be genetically-modified as well, which has its own set of health risks.

• Lower stress levels with moderate and enjoyable exercise and relaxation strategies. Stress can severely deplete nutrients in the body, leading to heart disease.

For more information:
Importance of Dietary Fats
Cholesterol and Health – Chris Masterjohn
The Benefits of High Cholesterol – Weston A. Price Foundation
Dangers of Statin Drugs: What You Haven’t Been Told About Popular Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs – WAP Foundation
The Oiling of America – Sally Fallon and Dr. Mary G. Enig, PhD
I have high cholesterol, and I don’t care – The Healthy Skeptic
Medication Sense – Dr. Jay S. Cohen
Suggested reading:
Fat and Cholesterol are Good for You by Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PhD
The Cholesterol Delusion by Ernest N. Curtis, M.D.

This post is part of Sarah The Healthy Home Economist’s Monday Mania.
=====================================================================
Read the complete article here.

Evidence On The Dangers Of Lowering Cholesterol Dates Back 20 Years - Briffa

Evidence On The Dangers Of Lowering Cholesterol Dates Back 20 Years

by Dr John Briffa
The Cholesterol Truth

Is cholesterol reduction a good thing? Many doctors and health authorities would answer an unequivocal ‘yes’ to this question, but what does the evidence show. Previously on this site I have shared evidence which strongly suggests that cholesterol reduction, per se, is not necessarily good for our health, and may even be hazardous. Last week’s blog post reported on drugs that, although effective for cholesterol, have singularly failed to improve health and may even have hastened some people’s demise.

This information is not new. Evidence dating back more than 20 years revealed precisely the same thing. Take for instance this study that was published in the British Medical Journal. It assessed the impact of dietary and drug interventions to reduce cholesterol on the overall risk of death, as well as death from specific causes, in men. Average treatment time was about 5 years.

Here’s a summary of the results of this review:

Studies of dietary interventions for cholesterol reduction found:

• No reduction in overall risk of death

• No reduction in the risk of death from heart disease

• A 62 per cent increased risk of death from cancer

Studies of drug interventions for cholesterol reduction found:

• No reduction in overall risk of death

• No reduction in the risk of death from heart disease

• A 75 per cent increased risk of death due to ‘non-illness’ causes such as accidents and suicide

When the results of all studies were pooled together, the evidence showed:

• No reduction in overall risk of death

• No reduction in the risk of death from heart disease

• A 43 per cent increased risk of death from cancer

• A 76 per cent increased risk of death due to ‘non-illness’ causes such as accidents and suicide

How ever we try and spin these results, they’re pretty dire, I think. Of particular note is the link between cholesterol reduction and non-disease-related death. Why is it that cholesterol reduction seems to make people more prone to death due to accidents, suicide and violence? Well, cholesterol is a natural and important brain constituent, and depleting cholesterol in the body may affect brain functioning and behaviour. It may make people more depressed, for instance, or more aggressive and impulsive.

The authors of the review conclude like this: “The association between reduction of cholesterol concentrations and deaths not related to illness warrants further investigation. Additionally, the failure of cholesterol lowering to affect overall survival justifies a more cautious appraisal of the probable benefits of reducing cholesterol concentrations in the general population.”

I think it would serve us well to take heed of this advice. I wouldn’t rely, though, on the medical and scientific community to take an objective stance on cholesterol reduction. However, as information becomes more widely disseminated, I won’t be surprised to see increasing numbers of people reject the cholesterol hypothesis and the notion that they must drive their cholesterol levels down.

Read the Full Article and make comments here: http://www.thecholesteroltruth.com/evidence-on-the-dangers-of-lowering-cholester

BMJ Admits Competing Commercial Interests in Wakefield Attacks Warranted Disclosure

This post is not about the primary focus normally evident here but rather the related mis-steps of  scientific journals in their presentation of believable science. Tainted is the word that comes to mind. Thank you Health Impact News Daily (http://healthimpactnews.com) for this news item.
=======================================================

BMJ Admits Competing Commercial Interests in Wakefield Attacks Warranted Disclosure

BMJ editor admits that they should have disclosed competing commercial interests in Wakefield attack

By John Stone Age of Autism

British Medical Journal’s editor has been forced into an embarrassing admission that the journal should have disclosed connections with MMR manufacturers Merck and GSK when publishing attacks on the integrity of Andrew Wakefield in January  (HERE). Godlee’s admission came eight days after my letter to the journal was submitted, and three days after the publication of my article on Age of Autism (HERE). My letter was occasioned by an article in Age of Autism by Martin J Walker (HERE ) subsequently also published in  Vera Sharav’s AHRP newsletter (HERE).  I had been responding to an article highlighting the issue of free access journals and advertising: BMJ apparently did not think this applied to them.

Godlee’s admission, “We did not declare these competing interests because it did not occur to us to do so”, underlines the complacence, and even arrogance, of large journals that think they are above having interests. Nor will her defence carry much water amid the hotly disputed claims of Brian Deer’s articles that the issue was fraud so who manufactured the products did not matter. BMJ in a breach of the basic traditions of peer review journals have been unwilling to allow their and  Deer’s  allegations to be discussed directly in its columns, many letters to the journal have been blocked, Deer has never been required to respond to criticisms, and the defence of their position has been crudely legalistic (HERE ).

Godlee was also reduced to make a technical defence of the journal decision to publish the Deer articles in Age of Autism (HERE) and BMJ Rapid Responses (HERE).

However, Godlee’s admission represents a major blow against scientific journals, however large, not declaring their commercial interests: the excuse “it did not occur to us” will scarcely wash again.

This is the latest episode in a long running series of battles between Age of Autism and the journal. In February 2010 BMJ were forced to admit that Prof Trisha Greenhalgh had not only contributed to Brian Deer’s website, but had also received £1.4m in Department of Health research grants since 2003 (HERE, HERE ). In March 2010 Age of Autism highlighted the removal by BMJ of a series of letters questioning how Brian Deer obtained confidential material about Royal Free patients and MMR litigants, while in May 2010 the journal refused to acknowledge that Brian Deer was the undisclosed complainant to the GMC against Wakefield and colleagues (HERE), which has been covered by tortuous language in the latest publications, though never acknowledged in the Sunday Times. Age of Autism has also focussed on the role of Harvey Marcovitch who doubles as a BMJ associate editor, co-authoring editorials against Wakefield, and chairman of panels at the GMC (HERE ).

Read the Full Article Here: http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/03/bmj-admits-competing-commercial-interests-in-wakefield-attacks-warranted-disclosure.html

==============================================================
http://healthimpactnews.com

MMR vaccines and symptoms of autism

Oh Horrors! The BMJ couldn't/wouldn't do a thing like that - would they?

Not my usual topic on this blog but my humble opinion deems it quite interesting in spite of the lack of mentioning the 'C' word or 'S' word.

===================================

Dr Wakefield demands retraction from BMJ after documents prove innocence from allegations of vaccine autism data fraud


by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) In light of new evidence that has emerged clearing Dr Wakefield of the allegations that he fabricated study data involving MMR vaccines and symptoms of autism, Dr Wakefield is now publicly demanding a retraction from the British Medical Journal and author Brian Deer. Documents just made public reveal that another medical research team which included a senior pathologist independently documented evidence of a possible MMR vaccine - autism link 14 months before Dr Wakefield's paper first appears in The Lancet -- based on several of the same children appearing in Dr Wakefield's study. (http://www.naturalnews.com/031116_D...)

These documents include detailed clinical notes describing the pathology in seven children following MMR vaccination. These notes include references to "autism" and chronic gastrointestinal inflammation, among others.

This evidence, which was just made public, refutes the accusations of fraud leveled against Dr Andrew Wakefield by the British Medical Journal and reporter Brian Deer. This evidence was made available to the BMJ before the publication of their accusations, but they chose to ignore it. Dr Wakefield, in essence, has been falsely accused by the BMJ in what is now being widely recognized as a political witch hunt against the most visible researcher questioning the safety of MMR vaccines.

BMJ caught in highly politicized scientific fraud

The BMJ, in essence, has been caught pulling off what may be the largest scientific fraud ever perpetrated by any medical journal in the history of the world. It grossly misrepresented the facts in falsely accusing Dr Wakefield of fabricating the clinical trial data that led to his landmark study being published in The Lancet in 1998. The innocence of Dr Wakefield has now been established by these newly-released documents.

The British Medical Journal also failed to disclose that its own finances are largely funded by vaccine manufacturers who fill the journal with paid advertising, and that such financial ties may have influenced the journal's decision to attempt to destroy the reputation of a researcher whose findings threatened the profits of its top sponsors. If you follow the money in this story, in other words, it leads right to the editors of BMJ, whose salaries are effectively financed by vaccine manufacturers. This all-important conflict of interest is almost never discussed in the mainstream media, by the way.

In light of the evidence that has now been made public, clearing Dr Andrew Wakefield of any wrongdoing, Dr Wakefield is publicly demanding that the BMJ issue a full retraction of its Brian Deer article accusing Dr Wakefield of fabricating the data. His statement is entitled, "Uncovered Documents Prove There Was No Fraud in Lancet Case Series" and is included here in its entirety:

STATEMENT BY DR. ANDREW WAKEFIELD

Uncovered Documents Prove There Was No Fraud in Lancet Case Series

British Medical Journal and Sunday Times author Brian Deer misrepresent facts in latest articles wrongly accusing Dr. Wakefield of altering clinical histories of autistic children

In a series of articles published in the UK Sunday Times and the British Medical Journal (BMJ), written by freelance journalist Brian Deer and BMJ editor Dr. Fiona Godlee (1), I am accused of altering the clinical histories and test results in autistic children in order to manufacture a novel disease – a disease described in The Lancet in 1998 that Brian Deer claims does not exist. I have documents that confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt that I did not falsify this data; that the finding of bowel disease in these children is real; and that these findings were accurately reported in The Lancet in 1998.

The first document (2) describes 7 of The Lancet children and was written by Professor John Walker-Smith in December 1996, 14 months before The Lancet paper was published. Professor Walker-Smith prepared this document in an exercise that, in his words, “was totally unrelated to Andy Wakefield” (3). The document was a report prepared for a scientific meeting, and was based upon Professor Walker-Smith’s own independent assessment of the children’s condition.

He was assisted by a senior pathologist and an expert in bowel disease, Dr. Dhillon, who reported on the microscopic findings in the children’s intestinal tissues. This independent analysis was conducted to a high level of scientific rigor, and are the precise findings reported in The Lancet.

These documents, including Professor Walker-Smith’s report; the transcript of his sworn testimony before the UK medical regulator (2), the General Medical Council (GMC), and the relevant sections of the statement of Dr. Dhillon to the GMC3; were available to Deer and the editors of the BMJ well in advance of their recent publication. (4) They knew, or should have known, that their allegations against me were false. It is clear that the BMJ acted recklessly by failing to check these facts adequately before making their false allegations.

On the basis of this evidence, the British Medical Journal must retract these articles, or face the consequences.

(1) Author of BMJ articles only
(2) http://www.vaccinesafetyfirst.com/p...
(3) http://www.vaccinesafetyfirst.com/p...
(4) Callous Disregard: Autism and Vaccines - The Truth Behind a Tragedy, published by Skyhorse Publishing in May 2010 and Wakefield’s complaint about Brian Deer to the UK’s Press Complaints Commission at www.cryshame.org
Read Callous Disregard to learn more truth

Dr Andrew Wakefield is the author of Callous Disregard, the book that documents the truth behind conventional medicine's political witch hunt to destroy anyone who questions the safety of vaccines. The book is sold everywhere, including Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Callous-Disre...
Sources for this story include:

http://www.vaccinesafetyfirst.com/p...
http://www.vaccinesafetyfirst.com/p...
 
==================================================
Read the article here.