Book: 'The Great Cholesterol Con'

Statin side effects and damage

Jackie — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:48:13 +0000

George - thanks for taking the time to post these links to the interview by Dr. Mercola with Dr. Graveline. I finally set aside time to listen to the full interview and read the transcripts.

Very important information for anyone taking a statin or considering taking a statin. The tragic outcome for Dr. Graveline is something that needs to be known. Since we are working so hard these days to avoid dementia and Alzheimer's, it just becomes critical to fully understand the function of cholesterol in our body...especially the brain ....and the consequences when Coenzyme Q10 is either low from natural aging or becomes low from taking statin drugs.

Unfortunately, I certainly know first-hand how damaging statins can be to muscle health. The older I become, the more I am aware of the mitochondrial dysfunction/damage I suffered as a result of taking low-dose statins for a relatively short period of time. I am thankful it wasn't worse but it's severe enough to be a concern and a limitation.

Jackie

Re: Book: 'The Great Cholesterol Con'

Jackie — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 07:03:35 +0000

Ken - I can appreciate your dilemma and your line of reasoning. I don't construe your comments as looking for an argument. We all are looking for responsible, scientifically-sound answers. Finding them can be a challenge. Id think you would find consulting with a Functional Medicine MD would be very helpful for some of the specialized testing to identify deficiencies that promote atherosclerotic plaque buildup.

Did you take statins prior to your stenting and the buildup occurred in spite of the statins?

With your situation now, the obvious is that you will have to decide what you are willing to live with as far as drugs and side effects go... and certainly, you should attempt to determine from study references that your doctor can provide as to what the stats show regarding restenosis in stents with and without statins. (I'd want to read those complete studies.) If they are about equal, then the decision would be.... is the downside to statin intake worth the risk or not? Based on my own statin damage outcome, I'd look for other options but I'm not walking in your shoes.

There are many contributing factors to assess. Its It's observed that:
(quote) The biggest source of abnormal cholesterol is not fat at all its sugar. The sugar you consume converts to fat in your body. And the worst culprit of all is high fructose corn syrup.

Consumption of high fructose corn syrup, which is present in sodas, many juices, and most processed foods, is the primary nutritional cause of most of the cholesterol issues we doctors see in our patients.

So the real concern isnt the amount of cholesterol you have, but the type of fats and sugar and refined carbohydrates in your diet that lead to abnormal cholesterol production.(end quote)
[drhyman.com]

To manage cholesterol and heart disease, in another post some time ago, I wrote about Caldwell B Esselstyn, MD, very well-known physician here at the Cleveland Clinic who, years ago, took patients who had severe blockages and who were not candidates for bypass surgery...(stenting was not available back then). He put them on strict diets and followed them for years - as described in his famous book, Preventing and Reversing Heart Disease.
[www.heartattackproof.com]

A groundbreaking program backed by the irrefutable results from Dr. Esselstyns 20-year study proving changes in diet and nutrition can actually cure heart disease.

The proof is in the results. The patients in Dr. Esselstyns initial study came to him with advanced coronary artery disease. Despite the aggressive treatment they received, among them bypasses and angioplasties, 5 of the original group were told by their cardiologists they had less than a year to live. Within months on Dr. Esselstyns program, their cholesterol levels, angina symptoms, and blood flow improved dramatically. Twelve years later 17 compliant patients had no further cardiac events. Adherent patients survived beyond twenty years free of symptoms.

I wish you well with your very important decisions.

Jackie

Re: Book: 'The Great Cholesterol Con'

Ken — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 09:49:49 +0000

I am back reviewing this and related threads on the statin issue. I have a visit scheduled with my cardiologist this Friday and I intend to "discuss" the statin currently on my schedule. I have previously posted cholesterol test numbers further back up this thread. To briefly summarize, I stopped the statin I was taking in Nov, 2010. By the end of Dec, all cholesterol numbers were elevated from where they had been. I restarted the vytorin in early January.

I will be proposing a test to the cardiologist in addition to continued researching. Since late Jan I have been religiously using Fitday to log food intakes (less for potassium monitoring) than for fats, carbs, protein. The focus has brought a pretty consistent intake of healthy fruits, veggies especially, fish and only chicken (broiled). The ongoing average grams of the nutrients seem healthy.

I just took another lipid test yesterday and will have a reading of two months back on the statin. I will stop the stain (again) next week and this time continue the careful monitoring of food intake. Exercise is unfortunately moderate but will increase. Then in mid to end March take another lipid test to see how far down the diet maintained the cholesterol numbers. At that point, a key decision will be made: get back on the statins (buttressed with large CoQ10 intake as well as other supplements), or stop the statins altogether.

I am hesitant to post my approach and be accused of "ignoring facts", but frankly, I am apprehensive that stopping the stains -- in spite of all of the anti inflammatory supplements I take, and in spite of healthy diet, and exercise -- the plaque builds back up. Not to a instant death (lots of the comments and stats I have so far read talk about mortality) but maybe more likely to a recurrence of angina, possibly a non-fatal heart attack.

It is easy to present and subscribe to the no-statin approach, but if you have coronary artery disease and seven previous angioplasties (last two with stents), then susceptibility to another blockage may be more than average, and practicing the "myth" of the benefits of statins may be a hard one to stop.

I am talking as much from my emotional sorting of the variables vis a vis my own personal situation as to the objective analysis and concluding of medical facts. A non-combative question is: How many of you that are firmly and unequivocally in the "take no statin" camp have actual CAD and have had angina and one or more angioplasties and stents in the past? If you have had, would you approach your endorsement the same way? I am just asking. I am not trying to start an argument but looking at how to sort this out. I want the lowest probability of a blocked coronary artery as possible. (I do not have a family history of elevated cholesterol but both parents had heart disease.)

Ken

Re: Book: 'The Great Cholesterol Con'

GeorgeN — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 13:30:35 +0000

Jackie & Erling,

I certainly agree. My point is you should look and see what is causing the inflammation, rather than treating the inflammation per se.

George

Re: Book: 'The Great Cholesterol Con'

Jackie — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 06:25:19 +0000

How could I have forgotten the biggie, vitamin C?

Re: Book: 'The Great Cholesterol Con'

Jackie — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 05:49:42 +0000

Erling - yes, indeed, very benign compared to the dangerous statins.

Natural anti-inflammatories such as generous amounts of Omega 3's, CoQ10, green tea, curcumin, boswellia, ginger, quercetin, rutin, rosemary, resveratrol and proteolytic enzymes. Zyflamend is a combination many of these. None have the detrimental effects of statins.

Jackie

Re: Book: 'The Great Cholesterol Con'

Erling — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 19:50:55 +0000

George,

Yes, but isn't it a fact that equal, maybe even better, anti-inflammatory effects are provided by much less problematic, even benign, substances? I echo Dr. Rosedale who said that these drugs have no place in medicine. Period.

Erling

Re: Book: 'The Great Cholesterol Con'

GeorgeN — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 19:31:17 +0000

Mercola's take is that elevated cholesterol is a marker of inflammation. This is a position I've had for a long time. Treating cholesterol is therefore "shooting the messenger." In my opinion, treatment should go much farther up the causal chain and start with lifestyle and elevated insulin levels. Reducing insulin will reduce inflammation.

To the extent statins are beneficial, it is because of their inflammation lowering properties. If these are needed, they can be obtained at much lower dosages (and risks) that are typically prescribed, as Graveline has previously pointed out.

My brother in law was prescribed a statin a couple of years ago. He is very active, immediately noticed muscle weakness and correlated it with the statin. He took himself off the statin very quickly and fortunately has no long term side effects (at least that are noticeable).

George

Re: Book: 'The Great Cholesterol Con'

Erling — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 10:23:01 +0000

Many thanks George -

Of great importance was Dr Graveline's accenting of statins' responsibility in mitochondrial DNA damage/accumulating mutations resulting from CoQ10 inhibition, also the loss of cognition by inhibition of cholesterol synthesis in the brain, also loss of 'dolichols' [en.wikipedia.org]. All of this is absolutely tragic for Dr. Graveline, and for everyone that has been, and will be, conned into using these horrendous drugs.

This caused me to review the thread from the beginning. I was again taken by this article by Dr.Julian Whitaker, MD [www.whitakerwellness.com].

Erling

Re: Book: 'The Great Cholesterol Con'

lisa s — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 07:58:23 +0000

George,

Very interesting interview. Thank you for making both the sound-feed and the transcript available. I was able to listen and read the transcript while they were talking. That works very well for me.

When posting interviews, maybe others will post both, when available.

lisa

Re: Book: 'The Great Cholesterol Con'

GeorgeN — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 20:15:20 +0000

Here is an interview of Dr. Graveline by Dr. Mercola
[articles.mercola.com]

and a transcript of the interview if you'd rather read it, or if Mercola makes you register to see the videos:
[mercola.fileburst.com]

George

Re: Book: 'The Great Cholesterol Con'

Erling — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 06:41:20 +0000

Ken,

What does this mean: "I supplement with 100mg per day and have been at 200 mg per day forever..."? You asked for information - please be clear.

Also, what form and brand of CoQ10 are you using?

Good that you're free of AF -- we can talk about the ectopics as that issue is definitely tied in with cellular energy generation/ cell voltage/ CoQ10 in ways that are well understood. The excellent Metametrix lab and website I linked to has much information -- tell me what you think?

240 total cholesterol is perfectly normal, including for me, 160 would scare me to death, but I have nothing at all to say for your special case, multiple stents etc. I have no clue about 'what the heck is ZLDL'. Seems the 'powers' are forever dividing 'cholesterol' into more fractions and ratios and adding letters, increasingly frustrating to figure out. I quit their con game a long time ago.

Erling

Re: Book: 'The Great Cholesterol Con'

Ken — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:43:10 +0000

Erling: many thanks. I supplement with 100mg per day and have been at 200 mg per day forever, so I was less concerned about the depletion. Since you mention not all CoQ10 sources are equally bioavailable, I will have to do some more research on that point. Any pointers you have to show me sources for such a question would be appreciated, but I am off to look.

Thanks again,
Ken

TTM was completely successful for afib banishment. PACs have raised their head and keep me challenged to keep them at bay.

Re: Book: 'The Great Cholesterol Con'

Erling — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 13:38:21 +0000

Metametrix is one source for CoQ10 serum testing:

Coenzyme Q10 Profile - Serum
Antioxidant Protection

[www.metametrix.com]

Re: Book: 'The Great Cholesterol Con'

Erling — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 12:51:01 +0000

Hi again, Ken -

First, I hope the TTM procedure has been completely successful for you, and a great lessening of concerns! Regarding your dilemma with current cholesterol test results, I have little to offer besides discussion. Concern about further arterial blockage obviously needs to be addressed, but how? Lisa's suggested way, demonstrably true for her and fully supported by science, would be my way for sure. As I see it, perhaps the only problem is going against the doctor's method. On that I do have something to say.

At this point in 'the great cholesterol con' it is solid scientific fact, not opinion by any stretch, that all statins rob the body of its ability to synthesize coenzyme Q10. This is literally equivalent to being choked, as oxygen and CoQ10 are equally imperative in generating the ATP fuel that all cells run on (the greatest amount is produced by the mitochondria, controlled by their own DNA). Without getting into a rant, lets just point to what all of these current statin threads point to: the vast majority of prescribing doctors are not concerned about statin side effects - probably don't even know about them - they just want the numbers down. That is the horror.

I'm not sure the 'spacedoc' site provides much in the way of controlling cholesterol without drugs - perhaps I've missed it - but it will provide a thorough grounding in the science, and facts about the con and what it is doing to us. For instance, Dr. Kilmer McCully's emphasis on circulating toxic homocyteine as the true villain in vascular disease (rock solid science), also the irrefutable facts regarding CoQ10, which really is the bottom line in all this.

What form of CoQ10 are you using? There is a huge difference in 'bioavailability', ranging from great to near zero. In 'the other room' it was recommended that the logical way to approach CoQ10 usage is a serum assay for CoQ10. The test is certainly available, and is much relied upon by enlightened 'metabolic' cardiologists such as Dr. Stephen Sinatra. That test should be the very first step if a decision to use a statin is to be made. This is the only real way to know if the mitochondrial DNA is being protected by the antioxidant potency of CoQ10, because if it isn't it's downhill all the way.

Wishing you well!

Erling

Re: Book: 'The Great Cholesterol Con'

lisa s — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 06:28:00 +0000

Ken,

Regarding methods to get your cholesterol numbers down without statins, when I have used this recipe consistantly in the past, it (without changing anything else) lowered my cholesterol over 50 pts.

Mix equal parts:

Flax meal
Oat bran
Wheat bran (not germ)

Add copious amounts of cinnamon. Store in fridge or freezer.

Mix 2/3 c. of mixture with 12 oz. skim milk or water. You can cook this on the stovetop or microwave like you would oatmeal, or if you use milk, you can drink it cold.

Putting the issue of cholesterol numbers aside, this mixture also helps with bowel tolerance.

lisa

Re: Book: 'The Great Cholesterol Con'

Ken — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 05:56:43 +0000

Erling and others:

Perhaps you can give me your reaction to these numbers and this brief summary:

CAD, with three series of angioplasties, most recent in 2005. Have been on statins at least since then and probably (memory and records poor [a statin side effect I believe]) even earlier.

02/23/2010 - Total = 160, HDL = 36, LDL = 93, Trig = 153
08/24/2010 - Total = 161, HDL = 35, LDL = 35, Trig = 249
Stopped taking Vytorin around 11/1/2010
12/23/2010 - Total = 241, HDL = 29, LDL = 136, Trig = 389 <<<<<<<<<<
ZLDL = 76 (want less than 40)
(what the heck is ZLDL?? in all my years messing with this, this is the first time I have heard or gotten a reading on ZLDL?)

Obvious reaction from Dr (and me): Need to get back on the Vytorin.
I am complying.

At this stage, I am reluctant to NOT take the statin because of my fear of recurring coronary artery blockage. I have not read the spacedoc site, yet I know I will hear that you can control cholesterol without the statins. The above says otherwise for me. (**) I am fearful that the comment "higher cholesterol will not cause artery blockage" will not play out for me.

(** I follow a "generally" good low cholesterol maintenance diet, but obviously not well enough, as the numbers above atest.)

As a side perspective, I have been taking copious fish oil and anti oxidents since my second angioplasty series in 1995, so I feel my homecystine (arterial inflammation) is somewhat well controlled.

Anyway, any comments for anyone on my situation. I know no one is giving medical advice, but I want your perspective and thoughts.

Thanks,
Ken

Re: Book: 'The Great Cholesterol Con'

Elizabeth H. — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:10:10 +0000

Erling:

I got CoQ 10 for my brother, he has been taking it for the last 5 weeks, he has never taken a satin drug. I don't know what his cholesterol is, he has had blood tests run and I take him back to the doctor next monday.

I firmly believe his diet of raw fruits and vegetables, hardly any meat is responsible for his condition---he is no doubt low in vit. B12 (I also got him a good B vit), you have to be aware of what nutrients you are consuming, what your diet may be lacking. I believe he has very low testosterone as well, the heart needs that hormone also.

I don't understand why people seem to know so little about their health, they can be very smart about most everything else.

Thank you for your reply.

Liz

Re: Book: 'The Great Cholesterol Con'

Erling — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 11:33:13 +0000

Liz,

Sorry, slow response again! Your comments and good questions regarding your brother's condition need good answers, which can be found in this forums parade of books and articles, here and earlier, by eminent scientists, including of course Dr. Kilmer McCully's great work. Here are some relevant facts that have emerged over many decades of research:

-- low blood pressure can be a symptomatic result of CHF (congestive heart failure), expressed as low cardiac volumetric output and force of contraction, resulting from energy deficit.

-- CHF is typically an expression of low energy (ATP) availability to the heart muscles, which results from low Co-enzyme Q10 (and other essential compounds). See 'The Sinatra Solution: Metabolic Cardiology', Stephen T. Sinatra, MD. For instance, "As a cardiologist, I believe that the discovery of coenzyme Q10 is one of the greatest medical advances of the twentieth century for the treatment of heart disease." (CHF in particular). There's a nice summary on the inside of the book's cover: "It's a fact: People with heart disease lack energy. The heart needs a large amount of oxygenated blood flow to continually meet its huge energy demands. That's where the triad of cardiac health comes in -- coenzyme Q10, L-carnitine, and D-ribose." And of course magnesium, completing his "awesome foursome".

-- low tissue CoQ10 is an inevitable consequence of aging. Nearly all is synthesized within the body, very little coming from diet. CoQ10 tissue concentrations typically peak in the teens and 20's (Mother Nature wants kids!), followed by a slow decline to ~half of that by age 80. See for example 'Energy and Defense', Gian Paolo Littarru, MD, PhD, p. 74 text and graphs.

-- low cholesterol is not necessarily a good thing at all, especially if it is low because of statin use. All statins unavoidably reduce CoQ10 bio-synthesis by interrupting the biochemical 'mevalonate pathway'. (google this for thousands of references.)

-- "People with high cholesterol live the longest". Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PhD. See the topic below: 'Outrageous 'statins' scam vs. benefits of high cholesterol'. This excellent, fully referenced paper should be studied in detail if one has any concern about cholesterol (and if one doesn't!). He ends with: "To the public and the scientific community I say, "Wake up!"

-- the #1 hazard for vascular disease is circulating homocysteine, a toxic naturally occurring amino acid from methionine metabolism. Dr. McCully was instrumental in discovering, proving, and publishing this, and determining it's correction by nutrients, largely vitamins B6, B12, and Folic acid. See Kilmer S. McCully, 'The Homocysteine Revolution' (1997), Craig Cooney, PhD, 'Methyl Magic' (1999), and much, much more elsewhere.

Re: Book: 'The Great Cholesterol Con'

Erling — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 17:42:56 +0000

Thanks Jackie -

Here is an insightful article on statins, CoQ10, and the 1990 Merck Co. patents on a statin/CoQ10 combination product*, a report on the ICQA 2002 Conference in London, UK.

Julian Whitaker MD,: Coenzyme Q10: Miracle Nutrient

[www.whitakerwellness.com]

*
US patent 4929437, May 29, 1990
US patent 4933165, June 12, 1990

For full texts use 'Patent Number Search' at <[www.uspto.gov];

Re: Book: 'The Great Cholesterol Con'

Erling — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 08:24:54 +0000

Mark -

It is unfortunate that you confuse insistence on truth and facts with arrogance - especially when furtherance of human well-being is the honest task. You say that "often the facts are contradictory", which is illogical and impossible by definition. Facts are facts, whereas opinions can be contradictory, can be anything, really. Your opinion is that there are too many closed minds on this bulletin board. An open mind can indeed be a wonderful thing -- if it honestly desires truth and facts. Otherwise facts will just blow on through, leaving only a confusion of contradictory opinions.

Erling

Mirriam-Webster:

FACT

1: a thing done
2: archaic: performance, doing
3: the quality of being actual: actuality
4:
a: something that has actual existence
b: an actual occurrence
5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality

A few lines (facts or opinions?) from Dr. Malcolm Kendrick's introduction to this heavy/witty book, The Great Cholesterol Con:

"In a world dominated by PR controlled spin, critics of the cholesterol theory get very little airtime. If they did, this world would change, and I hope this book starts the process of change. Because, despite my apparent joviality, I am deadly serious in my belief that the misguided war against cholesterol, using statins, represents something very close to a crime against humanity. So close that you may not be able to spot the difference."

Re: Book: 'The Great Cholesterol Con'

Jackie — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 15:06:52 +0000

Mark - on this particular subject, an alarming number of people are either very misinformed or are totally ignorant about the danger or downside of statin drugs and that's not just an opinion but a fact stated over and over by respected, credentialed and knowledgeable people, many of whom are physicians looking at the adverse effects in their patients that seem to be ignored by mainstream medicine, the FDA and Big Pharma.

That said, I hope you will spend time in the Statin link reading the supporting links offered there to gain insight.
<[www.afibbers.org]>.

If you havent yet read the paper by cardiologist, Peter Langsjoen, MD, FACC (Physician, Biochemist and Researcher) Statin-induced Cardiomyopathy include that in your reading as well along with the many articles by Duane Graveline, MD, USAF flight surgeon and research scientist at both the Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson AFB and the USAF School of Aerospace Medicine.
[www.spacedoc.net]

Here's more
[www.thincs.org]

Jackie

Re: Book: 'The Great Cholesterol Con'

MarkS — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 11:20:08 +0000

Erling,

It's a very arrogant approach to believe you are 100% right on a subject and every one else must be lacking in knowledge because they do not happen to agree with you.

A scientist will keep their mind open and study the facts, but often the facts are contradictory, as with cholesterol. In that case the only valid route is to keep an open mind.

I'm afraid their are too many closed minds on this bulletin board (and increasingly in the world) where people think they are right and refuse to consider their might just be an alternative view with some validity.

I hope you are not falling into this trap.

Mark

Re: Book: 'The Great Cholesterol Con'

Erling — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 09:31:06 +0000

Mark,

To be of two minds on a subject for which there is a plenitude of facts shows a lack of knowledge. In such a state you will remain lost in contradictory opinions, and will consider that the article you provided is a useful summary of both sides of the argument. The logical corrective is to seek out the facts, which will convince you that there is no argument - or more correctly, the only arguments are between differences of opinion - which opinion supports what you would like to believe? Or, would you prefer to believe that there are no facts?

Erling

Re: Book: 'The Great Cholesterol Con'

Jackie — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 09:04:06 +0000

Mark - good choice... if you read some of the many posts by Dr. Graveline, you'll note the references to mental degradation... especially memory loss which he identifies as transient global amnesia.

Jackie

Clips of interest:

November 30, 2010 The brain contains more cholesterol than any other organ in the body, has to produce its own cholesterol and won't function normally if it doesn't churn out enough. Defects in cholesterol metabolism have been linked with Alzheimer's disease and other neurodegenerative conditions. Now researchers at Joslin Diabetes Center have discovered that diabetes can affect how much cholesterol the brain can make.
[www.physorg.com]
====

It is the function of reducing the synthesis of cholesterol that Shin's study shows may also harm brain function.

"If you try to lower the cholesterol by taking medicine that is attacking the machinery of cholesterol synthesis in the liver, that medicine goes to the brain too. And then it reduces the synthesis of cholesterol which is necessary in the brain," said Shin.

In his experiments, Shin tested the activity of the neurotransmitter-release machinery from brain cells without cholesterol present and measured how well the machinery functioned. He then included cholesterol in the system and again measured the protein function. Cholesterol increased protein function by five times.

"Our study shows there is a direct link between cholesterol and the neurotransmitter release," said Shin. "And we know exactly the molecular mechanics of what happens in the cells. Cholesterol changes the shape of the protein to stimulate thinking and memory."

While reducing the cholesterol in the brain may make you have less memory and cognitive skills, more cholesterol in the blood does not make people smarter. Because cholesterol in the blood cannot get across the blood brain barrier, there is no connection to the amount of cholesterol a person eats and brain function.
[www.physorg.com]

Re: Book: 'The Great Cholesterol Con'

MarkS — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 00:51:19 +0000

There's a useful summary of both sides of the argument here:
[www.saga.co.uk]

I am still in 2 minds about it. I finally decided not to go with statins as my cardio said he thought there was a sub-clinical degradation on mental ability.

Mark

Re: Book: 'The Great Cholesterol Con'

Erling — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 21:45:57 +0000

Thanks Liz, this is important-

I followed with great interest Dr. McCully's career and discoveries, how his focus on homocysteine as a cause of arterio-/atherosclerosis created problems that ended his stay as researcher at Harvard. Elevated homocysteine, toxic to the lining of arteries, can be taken care of readily with inexpensive vitamins. Ultimately the 'cholesterol theory' prevailed, giving rise to the mega-billion dollar statin industry, which as we now know should never have happened. Here are articles I've saved that you might enjoy - I think it's a terrific story, and very relevant. I haven't looked at these in a long time, so this will be fun.

Thanks again! Erling

Resurrection of Kilmer McCully [www.lef.org]

The Fall and Rise Of Kilmer McCully [www.nytimes.com]

Re: Book: 'The Great Cholesterol Con'

Elizabeth H. — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 19:30:23 +0000

Well, fiddle, I need a different URL

[www.spacedoc.net]

this seems to work in the preview.

Liz

Re: Book: 'The Great Cholesterol Con'

Elizabeth H. — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 19:23:46 +0000

Erling:

Have you heard of Dr. Kilmer McCully? I have a couple of his tapes, he also is on the website that you posted.

[www.spacedoc.net]

Just because a persons cholesterol is low doesn't mean that person has a clean bill of health---my husband had great chol. numbers and I envied his blood pressure, much lower than mine, yet he eventually had CHF, he was a diabetic. I am wondering if one has CHF would their cholesterol and blood pressure be low, my brother as well has great blood pressure, yet he was given a diagnosis of CHF. strange.

Liz

Re: Book: 'The Great Cholesterol Con'

Erling — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 14:58:15 +0000

Lisa,

The significance of the graph is that there is no correlation between cholesterol levels and heart disease death rate - none - which is true anywhere/ everywhere.

The point of all this is to stop taking the doctor's brainwashed advice as truth, and quit the statin cold. And by the way, all honest medical scientists agree that so-called normal cholesterol is 240 mg/dL, even higher.

The more one looks at all this, the more repulsively maddening it is, and I've been looking at it for a very long time. Brainwashed or not, the statin purveyors are murderers -- ignorance, as the say, is no excuse.

Erling