What's your opinion on this article: Cholesterol is NOT the Cause of Heart Disease

[JJ]

They tell us supplements are no good cause they get NO $$$$ from selling them. Here they shove us on all kinds of toxic meds., then we have to spend more money trying to undo the damage they have done. AARGGG People like myself who are on fixed imcomes have a tuff time trying to get meds. we really need, so now we have to pick and choose even what supplements we can afford. God, it never ends....

Like U said, give me the good ole days of "normal" foods. They were good for U and like U said, tasted a heck of alot better. I know I'm showing my age, but I remember getting eggs from the henhouse before school, picking apples, pears off trees, berries & grapes from vines, and veggies from a garden, and that was city living, not country.....

Have a great weekend, time to hit the sack...

[HubbleRules]

Originally Posted by JJ

They tell us supplements are no good cause they get NO $$$$ from selling them. Here they shove us on all kinds of toxic meds., then we have to spend more money trying to undo the damage they have done.

JJ,

I don't take any prescription meds right now. I've lost a tremendous amount of faith in the medical community over the past 10-15 years.

First, we were brain-washed in the 70s to shun butter, and eat margarine. We did this religiously! About 10 years ago, they do one of their typical 180 degree about faces, and tell us to avoid margarine because it is much worse than butter!! I got so mad!!! I wonder how much damage we did to ourselves and how many years we chopped off our lifespans listening to these idiotic experts. There was no internet then, but I'm sure there were 'clinical studies' (that some like to quote so much) vindicating the superiority of margarine over butter... In my opinion, you can take most of the clinical studies and line them up end-to-end, and they wouldn't reach a conclusion.



Second, the medical profession is one huge example of 'group think'. They all think and treat the same to avoid any legal liabilities.

Thirdly they get many perks from the pharmaceuticals, and have a personal interest in promoting them. Today the medical community (doctors, researchers, FDA...) is so tainted with financial conflicts of interest, that you may as well make your decisions with a dart board rather than trust the 'experts'.

I've switched to more and more natural remedies over the past few years, especially since my problem with Lipitor and Tricor. Doctors have so little time to spend with patients today, all they can think to do is pop pills. I don't want to take any meds for the rest of my life - especially since no-one is investigating the long-term side-effects of them... The side-effects only surface after the fact, after there are so many Adverse Side Effect reports, that not even a monkey could ignore them.

HubbleRules

[ARIZONA73]

Here is an excerpt from a book I have called the "Age-Defying Diet", by Dr. Robert Atkins. This explains how this whole fiasco unfolded and led to the dietary recommendations that have so strongly endorsed by the AHA for the last several decades:

"Ancel Keys was the famed nutritional researcher selected to determine the nutritional needs of GIs and design portable meals to meet those needs. He's the "K" in K rations."

"With the war over, however, Keys turned his attention to what he called the Seven Countries study, a review of diet and health around the world. The results, revealed in the early 1950s, supposedly showed that people in countries where the diet was high in saturated fat had higher rates of heart disease. Here's the fallacy: The WHO figures available to Keys totalled those of twenty nations. Keys selected the seven that proved his point. Had he chosen other nations, fat would have been exonerated. Unfortunately, Keys' reputation was so great that the medical establishment immediately embraced his conclusions."

"Based on the Keys Seven Countries study and others, equally flawed, the AHA undertook a campaign to replace butter, lard, eggs, and beef with corn oil, margarine, and cereal. By 1956, the campaign was in full swing. "Beware saturated fats" was the party line, and the medical establishment fell into place reciting it- with one notable exception. Dr. Paul Dudley White, Harvard's leading cardiologist and President Dwight Eisenhower's physician, pointed out that he hadn't seen a single coronary at Harvard between 1921 and 1928. On a televised panel discussion with other leading physicians, White proclaimed that "back in the myocardialinfarction-free days before 1920, the fats were butter and lard, and I think we would all benefit from that kind of diet." His sensible advice, based on years of clinical experience and on epidemiological studies, was ignored."

[Lenin]

linda,

You asked for opinions; here's my thought process:
I saw the word oxidation and know that's often a code word to sell "antioxidants." So first thing I suspected more of the same supplement peddling with inflated claim. Next step in the process was to search the name of the doctor. First entry under his name was RON ROSEDALE NATURETICALS, as expected.
That pretty much closed my case. Another quack cure getting couched in jargon.

There's a good, useful, OLD term for stopping the body's oxidative processes...it's called DEATH! Anything that is a reducing agent CAN be called an antioxidant; on Earth the most widely available is WOOD!

[HubbleRules]

Originally Posted by Lenin

linda,

You asked for opinions; here's my thought process:
I saw the word oxidation and know that's often a code word to sell "antioxidants." So first thing I suspected more of the same supplement peddling with inflated claim. Next step in the process was to search the name of the doctor. First entry under his name was RON ROSEDALE NATURETICALS, as expected.
That pretty much closed my case. Another quack cure getting couched in jargon.

There's a good, useful, OLD term for stopping the body's oxidative processes...it's called DEATH! Anything that is a reducing agent CAN be called an antioxidant; on Earth the most widely available is WOOD!

Lenin,

I also am skeptical when someone is promoting the virtues of a product that they benefit from financially. When I see this, I search for independent opinions on the product in question. If I can't find any, I don't buy it.

However, to be consistent and logical, you must also apply this standard to prescription meds.

Statins have over $30 Billion worth of conflict-of-interest behind them. Pharmaceuticals are THE MOST PROFITABLE INDUSTRY SEGMENT IN THE WORLD - no other industry segment comes close to their total profit and profit margins...

So, when I see articles extolling the virtues of statins, I can also legitimately question their validity unless I can be assured that the researchers, doctors or others promoting them HAVE NO FINANCIAL TIES TO THE PRODUCT OR THE MANUFACTURER. Given the revelations of the past 2 years of the extensive, systemic conflicts of interest between the Pharmas and the FDA, NIH and doctors... there is plenty of suspicion of some drugs being 'quack' cures also. Some (such as VIOXX and Baycol) have been recalled because they were actually quite deadly.

There's plenty of doubt to go around on both sides of the aisles.

I personally suspect the solution to CHD will eventually be found to be a combination of supplements and as-yet-unmarketed prescription drugs, which will target the root cause of the arterial injury/inflammation-response process (and not cholesterol per se), or which will target increasing good cholesterol (HDL).

HubbleRules