Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Even more on cholesterol

All of what I have been saying about cholesterol has been supported in the latest 2 major studies published in the June 2010. The first study “Cholesterol Lowering, Cardiovascular Diseases, and the Rosuvastatin-JUPITER Controversy. A Critical Reappraisal “ by Michel de Lorgeril and her 8 colleagues found that one of the major studies, probably the most influential of the studies to justify cholesterol lowering drug use and sponsored by the drug companies “the JUPITER Study” was severely flawed. This study did a careful and independent review of both results and methods used in the Jupiter Study and reported that the “trial was flawed”. In an unprecedented attack on the study they (scientist other than myself usually don’t say boo even when it is serious) stated that “The possibility that bias entered the trial is particularly concerning because of the strong commercial interest in the study.” In other words the big pharmaceutical money influenced the study. And concluded "The results of the trial do not support the use of statin treatment for primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases and raise troubling questions concerning the role of commercial sponsors.” This is a scathing attack in scientific terms of the earlier drug company sponsored study. Scientist do not go out of their way to create waves but these ones have not just found different results but also criticised the earlier studies link with pharmaceutical industry. Why this is so important is that my next book “the great cholesterol deception” does exactly that. It highlights not only that the studies don’t show any significant results but these studies and the education of our doctors is strongly influenced by the drug companies. (Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(12):1032-1036. )

In the second study “Statins and All-Cause Mortality in High-Risk Primary Prevention. A Meta-analysis of 11 Randomized Controlled Trials Involving 65 229 Participants” (don’t worry about the title too much) by Ray Kausik and 6 other independent researchers found the use of statins in this high-risk individuals was not associated with a statistically significant reduction. That is they don’t save lives. Their data combined from 11 studies with 65 229 participants followed for approximately 244 000 person-years, a very big study reported that this meta-analysis did not find evidence for the benefit of statin therapy on all-cause mortality in a high-risk primary prevention set-up.” In other words they don’t save lives even in a high risk group. Even if you have all the elevated risk factors they don’t work. (Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(12):1024-1031).

Combining the results of the two studies cholesterol lowering drugs do not reduce the risk of heart attack, stroke or all cause mortality (eg cancer) in high risk individuals. They don’t work but cost the Australian tax payer more than $1 billion a year and up to a thousand dollars a year for individuals. Why doesn’t the government open it eyes. It could save a lot of pain and suffering (because of the serious side effects) and a lot of money? Why? All the major political parties get donations from the big pharmaceutical companies. Yes I have a chapter on that too.

Please circulate this information to everyone you know it might save their life and money.

Monday, September 6, 2010

Cholesterol debate

We have been researching the cholesterol issue for the past 2 years. Cholesterol is not the killer just a simple indicator that the liver is under a bit of stress. Nor is saturated fat the issue. If you look at heart attack figures around the world you find they are more closely linked with stress than anything else. The French, Swiss, Belgians, Dutch (Netherlanders) etc have high saturated fats and cholesterol and the lowest rates of heart attach in the world. It is not French paradox and wine it is the lifestyle and a healthy diet. It is so simple.

The cholesterol we monitor in the body is produced by the liver. This will be increased if you have sugar (hi GI), stress and too little water. But all it is telling you is that something is wrong. You don’t shoot the messenger.

In Japan when they increased both the saturated fat in the diet and cholesterol in the blood in the 1950s the heart attack rates go down. There are hundreds of cases like this that completely dispel the cholesterol hypothesis.

More importantly the cholesterol hypothesis and that is what it is, just a hypothesis. But people treat it like fact. However, in science (and i am a scientist) if a hypothesis is tested and it fails it is no longer considered a valid hypothesis except in medicine where money and the volume of media whitewash it all.
Not only can I find a single bit of fact in the cholesterol hypothesis but it acts like a chameleon, one of those lizards that change color to suit the background. It has changed so many times. First it was just saturated fat and cholesterol, then it was cholesterol, then it was LDL cholesterol, then LDL and HDL ratios, then VLDL, then HDL and the number of changes just keep happening.

This is the greatest lie that has ever been sold to the public. Cholesterol is just a marker and as highlighted above one of the most important functional molecules in the body.

For a great book on this get “the great cholesterol con” by Malcolm Kendrick and MD with a conscience and common sense. And in two months I will have my book out The great cholesterol deception”. Notice the similarity in titles but I only just found the other book 2 weeks ago.

Also note that this information is exactly what the pharmaceutical companies don’t want out there so please spread it around.