Why warning of the heart risks associated with high cholesterol doesn’t tell the full story
Posted on 17 September 2008
The idea that high levels of cholesterol in the bloodstream puts us in mortal danger is perhaps one of the most firmly entrenched medical
Published September 17, 2008 . Filed under: Cholesterol and Statins, Food and Medical Politics
Researchers:
Boo hoo, we can’t just let the cholesterol theory meme go. Where would we get our research grants? Who would pay for our luxury junkets? Where would we obtain our prestige and smug ideas that we are saving lives? How would we pay off the Mercedes? How would our self esteem handle not being wanted?
Repeat over and over: The Cholesterol Theory Lives, The Cholesterol Theory Lives…
DIEticians:
Boo hoo. How are we gonna seem like brainy bonces if we can’t bandy around big words like hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors? Are we going to be expected to apologise for making generations of people eat rabbit food and replacing any gustatory enjoyment with fear that any minute now that mouthful of cheese is going to despatch you to the grim reaper? The Cholesterol Theory Lives, The Cholesterol Theory Lives…
September 20, 2008 @ 1:46 am
[...] Dr. Briffa sorts through various studies and reports on the relationship between cholesterol and heart risk. [...]
September 21, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
Bad Science and Confirmation Bias…
Good honest science is first approached by collecting observational data, analyzing for certain relationships, and finally forming hypotheses around the data. But that’s just the beginning. The good scientist then does his level best to disprove the h…
September 21, 2008 @ 10:15 pm
I still find no publication of the many basic jobs of cholesterol in the human body, nor of the fact that our bodies produce cholesterol if the necessary amounts are not consumed… Don
September 22, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
Having high cholesterol may be associated with heart disease but may not cause it. The arteries get damaged from all sorts of things including viruses and free radicals and the cholesterolis apparently there to help repair the damage. It is oxidised cholesterol which is the problem so more antioxidants needed.
September 22, 2008 @ 10:47 pm
Did you see the webcast debate that Dr B participated in recently at http://media.smartcom.no/ satfatnav/liveplayer.html
It just says it all. Dr B explains that the ‘science’ blaming sat fat doesn’t hold up. Then the Food Standards Agency person unbelievably virtually ignores this point, saying ‘We go with the science. And the bulk of the science says sat fat is the baddie’. Later, Dr B says ‘I thought this debate was supposed to be about whether sat fat causes heart disease or not and I’m shocked that we seem to have taken that as read’ and he’s simply told ‘the science has been around for years and is quite clear’. All credit to Dr B for not banging his head against the nearest wall at this point – I certainly was!
Jackie
September 28, 2008 @ 9:53 pm
I would like to point out that these statistical (mathematical) correlations are not proof of causality. For example, over 50 years ago I showed that there was a very Highly significant correlation between the output of the Tororo Uganda cement factory and the the increase in population in the tsetse population in Busoga 30 miles away. Causal? Don’t be daft.
Also I have looked at the data of fat intake and Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) was based on data taken from the European Cardiovascular Statistics for1998-1999 (http://www.ehnheart.org/files/statistics 2005). When ranked by % Fat Intake (saturated and total) for each country the CHD rate is INVERSELY (significantly) related fat intake. Quite the reverse of Ancel keys selected findings.
For misinformation the HPS study is an important contribution to the use of these drugs. However, there are some interesting questions to be answered.
I have searched the much vaunted HPS report for details of the those 781 dying under therapy (five times more than
October 4, 2008 @ 11:28 am
Thank you, Dr. Biffa for publicly standing up to those nonsense anti- saturated fat commentator propagandists.
How did it feel and what was going through your mind when you told them the facts? Did you expect a negative reaction?
Take Care,
Razwell
January 1, 2009 @ 3:02 am