The big fat Cholesterol lie

Why Haven't You Heard the Truth About Cholesterol?

By Dr. Mercola

Millions of people around the world take medications known as statins to lower their cholesterol.

The current value of the cholesterol-lowering drug industry is estimated at around $29 billion -- and this is clearly a conservative estimate considering spending on cholesterol drugs in the United States alone reached nearly $19 billion in 2010.

But have the facts about cholesterol and heart disease been distorted by drug companies eager to increase their profits?

A new documentary film project is underway to look for answers, and get the truth out about cholesterol once and for all…

There may be $29 billion very good reasons why … and this is the premise behind the new documentary film $29 Billion Reasons to Lie About Cholesterol (based on a book by the same name, authored by Justin Smith). As the film's synopsis explains:

"So many resources are currently directed at cholesterol-lowering, however, a huge body of evidence suggests that this cholesterol-lowering is having little or no effect on people's health. In fact, it may even be doing more harm than good.

We want to present the facts about cholesterol to the general public. These facts are fully supported by published studies within the medical literature, but unfortunately they are hardly ever discussed.

The pharmaceutical industry spends hundreds of millions of dollars each year promoting the idea that high cholesterol causes heart disease. The other side of the story receives very little attention. As a result, even doctors may have been misled; since they have only been exposed to the pharmaceutical industry's viewpoint."

Could it be possible that nearly everything your doctor and the media is telling you about high cholesterol and how it relates to saturated fats, heart disease and strokes is wrong?

Absolutely!

Could it also be possible that the makers of statin drugs are generating massive ill-gotten profits of this completely misguided and patently incorrect medical dogma -- while patients, maybe even you or someone you love, are risking poor health or even death as a result? Yes! And it's time the word got out.

Does Lower Cholesterol Really Lead to Better Health?

A major clue that something is very off with the notion that high cholesterol causes heart disease can be found in this: even as cholesterol levels have become lower, rates of heart disease deaths have not followed suit!

In a report by Smith, it's noted:

" … between 1994 and 2006 the percentage of men aged 65 to 74 with 'high' cholesterol decreased from 87% to 54% … Despite this, the rate of coronary heart disease for this age group stayed about the same … Other age groups have experienced an increase in the rate of heart disease as the number of people with 'high' cholesterol has decreased."

Now here's something you might find surprising: it turns out evidence linking high cholesterol to heart disease is actually weak, including the results of the Framingham Heart Study, which is often cited as proof of the lipid hypothesis (the notion that dietary fat leads to high cholesterol and causes heart disease).

The Framingham Heart Study began in 1948 and involved some 6,000 people from the town of Framingham, Massachusetts who filled out detailed questionnaires about their lifestyle habits and diets. The study is credited with identifying heart disease risk factors, such as smoking, high blood pressure, lack of exercise and, yes, high cholesterol.

Despite being widely publicized, the cholesterol link was weak, as researchers noted those who weighed more and had abnormally high blood cholesterol levels were slightly more at risk for future heart disease. What you don't hear about is the fact that the more cholesterol and saturated fat people ate, the lower their cholesterol levels. In a 1992 editorial published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, Dr. William Castelli, a former director of the Framingham Heart study, stated:

"In Framingham, Mass., the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person's serum cholesterol … We found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories, weighed the least and were the most physically active."

Cholesterol is simply not the main perpetrator causing heart disease. Dr. Stephen Sinatra, a board certified cardiologist and a prominent expert in the field of natural cardiology, explained in a recent interview.

Read more http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/02/01/29-billion-reasons-to-lie-about-cholesterol.aspx


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-3151962/HEALTH-Cholesterol-big-fat-lie-plus-prevent-heart-disease.html


And most interesting of all: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/06/the-big-fat-lie-about-cholesterol/

Have you ever read those 3 - 4 pages of side affects from those 'cholesterol lowering statins'?  OMG ...just from the top 10 side affects you'll need some other serious Pain medication to survive those: joint swelling/painful leg cramps {like rheumatoid arthritis bad pain} and then there's the hair loss which is a real downer for those elderly ladies and those statin's play hell with the daily dosage for blood thinners and that always needing adjustments sooo the patient are SCREWED if you try to take them.

Doesn't surprise me at all.

4EVER2 wrote:Have you ever read those 3 - 4 pages of side affects from those 'cholesterol lowering statins'?  OMG ...just from the top 10 side affects you'll need some other serious Pain medication to survive those: joint swelling/painful leg cramps {like rheumatoid arthritis bad pain} and then there's the hair loss which is a real downer for those elderly ladies and those statin's play hell with the daily dosage for blood thinners and that always needing adjustments sooo the patient are SCREWED if you try to take them.

So why isn't this BIG news then and why aren't people being told?
One word: Money

It's sickening - there's so many articles about it.

eddie wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:Have you ever read those 3 - 4 pages of side affects from those 'cholesterol lowering statins'?  OMG ...just from the top 10 side affects you'll need some other serious Pain medication to survive those: joint swelling/painful leg cramps {like rheumatoid arthritis bad pain} and then there's the hair loss which is a real downer for those elderly ladies and those statin's play hell with the daily dosage for blood thinners and that always needing adjustments sooo the patient are SCREWED if you try to take them.

So why isn't this BIG news then and why aren't people being told?
One word: Money

It's sickening - there's so many articles about it.

We're all being manipulated all the time. In almost every way.

Yes but those that think it, or say it, are just "conspiracy nuts".

eddie wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:Have you ever read those 3 - 4 pages of side affects from those 'cholesterol lowering statins'?  OMG ...just from the top 10 side affects you'll need some other serious Pain medication to survive those: joint swelling/painful leg cramps {like rheumatoid arthritis bad pain} and then there's the hair loss which is a real downer for those elderly ladies and those statin's play hell with the daily dosage for blood thinners and that always needing adjustments sooo the patient are SCREWED if you try to take them.

So why isn't this BIG news then and why aren't people being told?
One word: Money

It's sickening - there's so many articles about it.

'BIG PHARMA' buys a hell of a lot of commercial air time on all of our major media stations; do you really think that those carrier stations are going bite the hand that pays their programs - feeds & pays their staff    That's the entire basis for why we have such programs like '60 Minutes' and those other investigative shows ...but the information is out here - it's all over the WEB, it's in those finite printed 3-4 pages of possible side affects that they hand out - consumers just have to be able and wise enough to READ UP on those meds and brave enough to tell their doctors - NO THANKS ...I do not want to take those statins and Don't Do It. 

But we are not conditioned to disagree with those 'Holy Humans' in those white frocks and stethoscope carrying attitudes; they've been the GODS that gave us knowledge and sustained our lives. 
It's only been in the past 12 years that we've been clued into just how much bribery and BS that Big Pharma has been allowed and it really became evident when GWB passed that 18 trillion dollar Medicare Part 'D' prescription bill --- Big Pharma was doing 'hail Mary's and counting their cold hard cash' that they'd be reaping from Americans!  Hell, even the AARP {area agency retired people} fell in line and told all of their members - 'Yes, we support that Medicare part 'D' bill, it's not what we preferred, but it's the best that's available for right now' ...and they stuck it to America in the worst way!

So people can accept that the media lie to us about medicines.
What seek do they lie about?

eddie wrote:So people can accept that the media lie to us about medicines.
What seek do they lie about?

You asked > "So people can accept that the media lie to us about medicines." - no, just those COMMERCIALS that we get force fed during our TV time; one has to be 'self aware' enough to understand that those paying for that 'commercial air time' are selling a product and thereby MIGHT be fudging their factual data ...that's why we have the 'Truth In Advertising' that they have to abide by but just my the slimmest margins.  Americans have to be their own ADVOCATES but the elderly and mentally impaired need someone having their backs --- and that is often hard to find.

And honestly, Eddie ...I do not know what you've tried to ask me in that 2nd part   it's 6:30am over here and I'm only ½ way through my morning coffee 

Sorry was mean to say "what else do they lie about?"

Btw statins don't get advertised over here? No medicines do apart from cough syrups and children's medicines like Calpol etc

eddie wrote:Sorry was mean to say "what else do they lie about?"

LOL ...been there - done that before  

SERIOUSLY ...you don't have commercials promoting all of those WONDER DRUGS THAT WILL CURE ALL OF OUR AILMENTS
Now that is amazing ...it was earth shaking when we had to force those tobacco commercials off our TV air time ...I can't imagine what life would be like without those Viagra/Migraine/Allergy/Pain proscription meds commercial ...but it's nice to DREAM~~~~

Allergy meds ie hayfever, migraine relief....yes they are advertised. I was meaning "hard" prescribed drugs like statins are not advertised.
Sorry I wasn't clear.

I don't think gambling should be advertised either but that's a whole other moan!

eddie wrote:Allergy meds ie hayfever, migraine relief....yes they are advertised. I was meaning "hard" prescribed drugs like statins are not advertised.
Sorry I  wasn't clear.

I don't think gambling should be advertised either but that's a whole other moan!

Do you get those 'VIAGRA' {male potency/erectile} problem commercials that we get flooded with here - especially during the peak family view time 6pm - 10pm every dang night?  

Oh, and we get loads of those 'come to our Casino - see the live shows - the best buffets around' and they'll run a special charter bus for people from our rural areas for $10. so they get loaded up with the handicapped and elderly - fixed income group.

We don't seem to get viagra ones - do they show an actual physical example?

We get those casino ones and the chat lines - girls on a sofa in various stages of undress asking if you "want to chat..?"
I'm no prude, as you well know lol, but I baulk at those ads! Do we really need to advertise sex??

eddie wrote:We don't seem to get viagra ones - do they show an actual physical example?

We get those casino ones and the chat lines - girls on a sofa in various stages of undress asking if you "want to chat..?"
I'm no prude, as you well know lol, but I baulk at those ads! Do we really need to advertise sex??

Oh, there lot's of snuggles and warm embraces/hugs/warm embraces/winks/longing looks and then the camera cuts away to later when they are getting back to whatever it was that they were doing prior to the 'interruption'
No - Noooo, even with those innuendo and sexual suggestive hints ya gotta know that little kids are asking:
'why, would grandpa or daddy need something like that and why would they have to take VIAGRA for erectile malfunction and if they experience an erection for over 4 hours why, would they need to get to their doctors ASAP?'

Call #900 if you're lonely - or #900 for your horoscope to improve your chances if your REALLY SUPER LONELY; yes, we have those too ...but they are in the wee hours for those 'night owls/insomniacs' that have nothing but those numbers to use or those teenagers that don't know how fast that is eating up their cell phone time!

Our chat line ones start at about 10pm! Too early IMO

And we have had some ads for "sex toys" - no demonstrations thank the Lord.
But sex toys!?! Do they need advertising? We all know they exist and if we want them we can go to various shops online or wherever - they don't need to be advertised!

Well, we are now seeing a 'lady' in a trench coat and fedora advertising such a SHOP but it's strictly for an 'ON LINE' sales advertisement --- no show & tell allowed.


Did you know that back in the pre-1970's click here > 30 years ago  
No attorney firm could advertise their services: ...nada/zip/nothing!
Not even in the yellow pages and never on a commercial TV ad ... LOL

Now we get all these "Have you had an accident?" ads

Gambling causes so much heartbreak within families, breaks them apart and bankrupts people, and yet the adverts are still allowed? It really annoys me.

I'll apologize for keeping this topic going off you main theme but it's interesting to know the differences between what we get fed via our TV/Newsprints and what you all do over there. 
We get these: workmen compensation - are you waiting for an annuity pay off - do you have IRS debt - are you about to lose your home ...commercial ads.

And I was always curious as too why our legal profession was treated like lepers when it came to advertising; maybe Quill would be able to step in here and give some input. 

But I remember that mortuary's/funeral homes were never 'mentioned in polite society' - never advertised in any public spot/bill board/phone book yellow pages either ...it was like we all knew that they existed but you really had to know that exact location or you didn't know where they were!

We don't get funeral home advertising now you mention it? And let's face it, we need to know this stuff more so than bloody sex toys!

Yes. Would like to hear Quill's input here...

Wiki wrote:Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the right of lawyers to advertise their services. In holding that lawyer advertising was commercial speech entitled to protection under the First Amendment (incorporated against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment), the Court upset the tradition against advertising by lawyers, rejecting it as an antiquated rule of etiquette.

The Court emphasized the benefits of the information that flows to consumers through advertising, positing that lawyer advertising would make legal services more accessible to the general public and improve the overall administration of justice. The Court had previously held in Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council that advertising by pharmacists regarding the price of prescription drugs was commercial speech protected by the First Amendment.

I don't know if advertising promotes shared information, but in Bates the Court ruled it was unconstitutional to prohibit it.