Re: The other side of high cholesterol
I also agree with what Hubble said earlier. I think that mainstream medicine, which is greatly influenced by the drug companies, is on the wrong track. They continue to aggressively attack the messenger (cholesterol) without ever getting at the root cause of atherosclerosis. Plausible theories, such as the one Linus Pauling presented, have been blatantly and suspiciously ignored for well over a decade.
In any case, I think that people should take it upon themselves to learn as much as they can about Pauling's theory, and decide for themselves whether it sounds plausible. As far as I'm concerned, it does make sense. Unlike those in mainstream medicine, Pauling made an effort to explain why and how atherosclerosis develops. From all that I have read about his theory, I got the impression that he was never pointing an accusing finger at cholesterol. Regardless of your cholesterol level, atherosclerosis can develop providing that the right conditions exist. The process usually begins with a lesion in the artery, probably the result of weakened and damaged arteries caused by sub-optimal ascorbate intake.
Anyway, in addition to the recommendations made by Linus Pauling, I honestly believe that people can do a great amount of good for themselves by adopting safer, more natural approaches in dealing with this epidemic problem. The effects may be much greater than those which can be obtained with the use of statins. In fact, fish oil alone may be more beneficial than statins. The amino acid L-arginine can raise nitric oxide levels, resulting in improved blood flow. Other valuable additions include vitamin E, coenzyme Q10, folic acid, niacin, garlic, and selenium, to name just a few.
"Men and nations will act rationally when all other possibilities have been exhausted."