|January 15th, 2012||#1|
Join Date: Nov 2003
Blog Entries: 34
Cholesterol as Bad
[good example of one my various laws: any subject you have not specifically thought about you will have adopted quite unthinkingly the illiberal position as the default]
Why the State Hates Cholesterol
by Chris Masterjohn
Cholesterol is found in every cell of the body. This fascinating molecule, found in rich abundance in the tastiest of foods, is the most critical component of mental function – surely one reason the State has waged its historical role on this vilified yet truly magnificent molecule, independent thought being the primary threat to its existence.
[if thought has a physical basis, then it makes sense that ZOG would try to destroy its components, right?]
The story of the government’s war on cholesterol follows – and an argument for why cholesterol is your best weapon against the State.
Keys: The Anti-Cholesterol Interventionist
In 1953, Ancel Keys kicked off the anti-cholesterol campaign, under the spell of which American health discourse has persisted ever since. Keys charted a graph of six countries’ death rates from coronary heart disease (CHD) against their respective available amounts of dietary fat, and showed that each country fell neatly on a line demonstrating that the more fat that was available, the more deaths from heart disease that followed.
Yet Ancel Keys was not, first and foremost, an opponent of fat. Keys was, first and foremost, a proponent of the Interventionist State. Keys’ 1953 paper argued that the US Public Health Service was too narrow in scope, and should be expanded to the prevention of all diseases – not merely occupational and infectious diseases.
Keys wrote that, even though "direct evidence on the effect of the diet on human arteriosclerosis is very little and likely to remain so for some time," the strength and money of the public sphere should be mobilized. It was not the conservative principles of the scientific method that motivated him, but the rush to lay at the feet of Government any problem in sight to solve – with the competence of a drunken elephant.
The proponents of State Intervention will not stop even at burning books when the cholesterol hypothesis is threatened. You may have thought this phenomenon belonged only to history and futuristic dystopias, but Dr. Uffe Ravnskov’s The Cholesterol Myths, has provoked the wardens of Dogma to such a degree that it was literally set on fire on national television in Finland by its opponents!
The Scientific Bankruptcy of the Anti-Cholesterol Campaign
Ever since Keys’ landmark paper, the anti-cholesterol campaign only gained strength over time, until the point where its claims were repeated so many times they would almost appear to be true. Yet there was a fundamental flaw in Keys’ chart: while he included six countries, there were sixteen that he didn’t include, for which data was available at the time.
In his masterpiece refutation of the anti-cholesterol dogma, The Cholesterol Myths, Dr. Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PhD, adds in the other data points. Once they are included, the relationship falls to dust. Countries with similar levels of available fat have widely varying rates of deaths due to CHD. For example, Mexico and Finland have about the same availability of dietary fat, yet Finland is only second to the U.S. for heart disease mortality, and Mexico, with about 30 times less CHD mortality, has the lowest rate of all 22 countries.
While Keys was infatuated with the "Mediterranean Diet" and the lack of significant heart disease in Italy, it is surprising that he didn’t take pause at the findings of George Mann and other researchers who found the Masai, a Kenyan cattle-herding tribe, to be free of heart disease, despite a diet consisting almost entirely of meat, blood, and milk, whose parties sometimes consist of eating four to six pounds of meat per person. Yet to Keys it was "abundantly clear" that the mission of the Public Health Service could and should be expanded to cut the reins on America’s consumption of fat.
One of the greatest threats to science that the State poses is its monopoly of credibility. Scientific principles are inherently anti-authoritarian. A hypothesis must be judged on its merits, not by the identity of its author. Yet the idea of a central, all-encompassing, "public" institution, representing some sort of mythical synthesis of all humanity, gives an authoritative stamp upon the scientific opinions of a State agency.
In The Cholesterol Myths, Dr. Ravnskov traces the entire history of the cholesterol hypothesis and refutes each of its claims. He shows how most of the "evidence" in favor of this hypothesis can be traced back to claims in reviews which cite other reviews or studies that do not lend any support to the claim. All too often, authors of studies will make claims in the abstract (summary) that their study does not support, simply to conform to the prevailing orthodoxy. Then, other researchers will cite the claims in the abstract, rather than the findings of the study itself.
The State, of course, with its monopoly of credibility given to it and its associated Institutes, marks its stamp of approval on the cholesterol hypothesis like a drunken elephant stomps its feet, unaware of what it tramples upon. The most outrageous misrepresentation of a study that Dr. Ravnskov demonstrates must be that of the Framingham study, where this point is amply demonstrated.
One of the most famous, largest, and often-cited studies in support of the cholesterol hypothesis is one that took place in Framingham in the 1950s. One of the findings of the Framingham study was that when cholesterol decreased on its own, every 1 mg/dL decrease in cholesterol was met with an 11% increase in heart disease risk. Yet a joint statement of the American Heart Association and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute in their review, The Cholesterol Facts, wrote, "The results of the Framingham study indicate that a 1% reduction . . . of cholesterol [corresponds to a] 2% reduction in CHD risk." That’s right – they wrote the precise opposite of the relationship that was found!
Yet the credibility of the National Institutes and organizations like the AHA, which is an outgrowth of the government-enforced AMA cartel, cannot be stopped. Countless journalists, doctors, and authors have doubtlessly referenced this authoritative review, while few would be willing to dig up the original publication at a university library.
The Strong Arm of the Tax Dollar
After World War II, the scope of government’s influence in science began to expand through the creation of another layer of bureaucracy known as the peer-review system. Yet the result brings to question how beneficial government funding of science really is. Dr. Gilbert Ling (PhD), in his critique of the peer-review system, points out that at the time large-scale peer-review began to develop, the dominant paradigm held that the progress of science was smooth and continuous, progressing in small increments, while later scholarship corrected this view, showing that scientific progress occurs in sporadic leaps.
Some may object that leaving funding to the private sphere would leave out public health concerns as well as general academic knowledge, while private interests and technologies would be over-emphasized. Yet let us, for a moment, compare the field of computers with that of medicine and the dietary sciences. Computer technology has progressed at light speeds, such that its products become outdated or obsolete within a few years of going to market, as evidence by the rapid price deflation that this industry has experienced.
On the other hand, with 52 years of the cholesterol hypothesis and countless billions of wasted research dollars, we have yet to be able to achieve what the penniless cattle-herders of Kenya can do merely with possession of a cow for food – achieve freedom from heart disease.
Ling’s own theory of cell physiology, the association-induction hypothesis, which holds that the water in a cell exists in "polarized multi-layers" that behave like the water in Jello, was the basis for the invention of the MRI, a medical success. The opposing orthodoxy, which holds that cells are a sac of liquid water, has not demonstrated any such success. Yet Ling’s research has been continually persecuted and he has been deprived of funding and facilities for his unorthodox views. The massive amounts of money the government throws towards scientific research merely penalizes those with successful theories!
Dr. Alexei Koudinov (MD, PhD) has been a tireless struggler against corruption in Alzheimer’s research. Dr. Koudinov, in his "Written Evidence to UK Parliamentary inquiry on Scientific Publications," has accused several major scientific journals of covering up the financial conflicts of interest of several major promoters of the "amyloid hypothesis" of Alzheimer’s disease, who are involved with pharmaceutical companies.
The amyloid hypothesis holds that a protein fragment called "beta-amyloid" accumulates in the brain to form plaques that cause Alzheimer’s. The amyloid hypothesis ignores the fact that beta-amyloid is an essential brain protein, and its proponents frequently disregard scientific reasoning in order to support it. (For a thorough discussion of this, please see my article, "Myth: Cholesterol Causes Alzheimer’s Disease.") Yet several of those Dr. Koudinov accuses of corruption have served on the National Institutes of Health, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Food and Drug Administration.
Thus, the result of "public" institutions like the State and its mongrel agencies reflects the reality that there is no such thing as "public," a meaningless abstraction. These institutions are composed of their human members, who have their own ideological biases and financial self-interests.
How does this affect researchers in the field? One junior researcher wrote to Dr. Koudinov:
"I agree whole-heartedly with your letter to Science concerning Alzheimer's disease and the amyloid beta protein. It is amazing how this field has been led down the "amyloid hypothesis" trail to the exclusion of other viable hypotheses. If you don't go along with the amyloid dogma, you have difficulty publishing and extreme difficulty being funded. The anti-intellectual, anti-science mentality displayed by many in this field has slowed progress to a crawl. This is a shame."
When researchers feel a pressure to conform to a favored hypothesis, they will pursue only certain avenues and ideas, and will frequently sugar up their abstracts, introductions, and conclusions to fit the standard orthodoxy, even when the finding is precisely opposite to that orthodoxy. As Dr. Ravnskov has shown in The Cholesterol Myths, this phenomenon has been the primary force driving the bankrupt cholesterol hypothesis of heart disease.
The increased amount of money that is available due to government intervention is actually an illusion. The monopoly on credibility and monetary resources that the State possesses is like a canal that funnels these huge amounts of tax dollars into the toilet of unviable hypotheses, upheld by human ideological stubbornness and private interests, leading into a common septic tank where it shares lodging with countless billions of tax dollars funneled in from other government pursuits.
State Intervention: The Results
The results of the last half-century’s public health recommendations have been dismal. Honest farming industries have been hurt, our diets have been turned from rich and enjoyable cuisines to bland and tasteless fake food, and we have become guilty when we eat the things we like.
The demonization of the egg yolk for its rich cholesterol content has caused many people to abandon eggs as a highly nutritious and healthful staple, and others to discard the yolk in favor of consuming the white. If you don’t know what an egg white omelet tastes like, consider yourself blissfully ignorant.
As I demonstrate in my article, The Incredible, Edible Egg Yolk, the absurdity of discarding egg yolks from a health perspective is shown by the fact that the yolk contains nearly all the nutrition in an egg. Egg whites serve almost no nutritional purpose, contrary to their companion super-food, the yolk. And one must consider the health consequences of being chronically deprived of tasteful food.
Dr. Ravnskov describes the beginnings of the anti-cholesterol campaign in Sweden, which occurred much more recently than in the U.S. When those with high cholesterol levels were notified that they were supposedly at risk for a heart attack, many patients reported shock and fright. One reacted as if she was "almost paralyzed." He cites a Gallup poll showing that 56% of Americans worry about fat and cholesterol, 45% think that the food they like is not good for them, and 36% feel guilty when they eat food they like.
The fruits of the State’s war on cholesterol have not been the abolition of heart disease, but the sowing of seeds of self-doubt and guilt. What better way to subdue a population, than to have its members constantly feeling like they cannot live up to the noble standards of their Government?
A War on Cholesterol Is a War on the People
Why is the war on cholesterol of such benefit to the government, despite being bankrupt as a scientific theory? The State relies on a submissive population – one in which the individuals do not think for themselves, and preferably do not think at all.
It is no surprise then, that a molecule that plays such a central role in the brain would become the primary target of government. The brain makes up only 2% of the body’s weight, yet it consists of a full 25% of the body’s cholesterol! The importance of cholesterol to mental function is enormous. Cholesterol was discovered in 2001 to be the limiting factor in the formation of synapses, which are the connections between neurons, or nerve cells. A more recent study found that extracting some of the cholesterol from the cell membrane of a neuron causes a loss of functioning of signaling proteins that tell the neurons what direction to grow in, so they can make the proper type of connections. And, Dr. Iwo J. Bohr has hypothesized that a contributing factor to Alzheimer’s disease is a deficiency of cholesterol in the membranes of brain cells.
Big Business Bed Buddies – Agricultural Subsidies
It doesn’t stop here. Big Government’s notorious love affair with Big Business has intimate ties to the cholesterol hypothesis. Big Government prefers Big Business over small businesses because larger businesses are fewer in number. How can a population largely consisting of independent self-managers be harnessed into sufficient submissiveness to bow down to the State? Conversely, a small number of large businesses can enter into co-management of the society, as government enforces their cartels and monopolies, and transfers wealth into their hands.
The grain and soy industries are much more conglomerated than the beef industry. More importantly, animal products have a long history of providing independent sustenance to even poor people. In early 19th century rural New England, for example, even the poorer people tended to own a small piece of land with one or two cows that provided meat and milk products. A small mixed farm can provide a full dietary range at a smaller size than could a grain-based farm. A garden, pasture, and animals can co-exist closely, whereas grains would be ridiculously inefficient to harvest unless they were planted as a large, consolidated crop. Additionally, hunting animals allows for the independent procurement of food.
Public health recommendations capable of making a monolithic shift in the food supply toward wheat, corn, and soybeans result in an overall decrease in the independence of the population.
Additionally, the State-created cartel of subsidy receivers is heavily biased in favor of grain products. According to this breakdown, between 1995 and 2003, $8.5 billion in U.S. subsidies went to growers of plant-based food crops, while only $5.5 million went to animal products, which means that over 99% of agricultural food subsidies go to plant products. The largest 10% of subsidized farms received 72% of subsidies, but a full 60% were not subsidized at all. As Brian Riedl points out, the $360,000 per year cap on farm subsidies is easy for large farms to pull loopholes through: Tyler Farms of Arkansas collected almost $32 million in farm subsidies between 1996 and 2001 by dividing its farm into 66 individual "corporations."
Not only has the cholesterol hypothesis helped consolidate the government’s ties to the agricultural industry through a shift in the diet away from animal foods and towards plant foods, but doubtlessly the massive level of soy subsidies – soy is the fifth most subsidized crop – has contributed to a surplus to be disposed of, whose result has been the manufacturing of a massive myth that this odd-tasting, highly estrogenic bean is a "health food."
Big Business Bed Buddies – The Pharmaceutical Companies
Now that the newest class of cholesterol-lowering drugs, statins, has become a bonanza of profits for Big Pharma, new cholesterol guidelines are promoted, and new junk theories about cholesterol’s relationship to various diseases are being manufactured, to maximize the profit-potential of these drugs by classifying nearly every member of society as a candidate for drug therapy.
Not far behind are the ugly claws of the State ready to abuse the population to enhance these profiteers. According to this article:
"Fluoride in drinking water is a topic to raise the hackles of those doubting its dental benefits and resenting its addition to the public water supply. Meanwhile the water additive plot thickens as doctors in England debate whether drinking water might be used to administer cholesterol-lowering drugs to the public in an effort to reduce incidents of cardiovascular disease, the biggest cause of death in the United Kingdom."
If your fluoridated and chlorinated municipal water supply wasn’t toxic enough, you may just be a victim of theft in the coming future: the unwilling robbery of cholesterol from your cells, and an extra hit in the wallet to finance the addition of expensive drugs to your water. Thanks to private enterprise, bottled water will (hopefully) still be available.
It is telling that the doctor cited in this article as advocating water-treatment with statins was named "Dr. John Reckless."
The most preposterous new cholesterol theory blames Alzheimer’s disease on high brain cholesterol. In my article, Myth: Cholesterol Causes Alzheimer’s Disease, I quote a researcher who was ecstatic that his group was able to reduce normal levels of brain cholesterol in Alzheimer’s patients by over 20%! The theory, of course, has no basis in science whatsoever. As the above article discusses, cholesterol appears to be protective against Alzheimer’s, and the only diet that, based on a sound scientific foundation, shows promise to Alzheimer’s treatment is the super-high-fat ketogenic diet, which was first used to successfully treat epilepsy at the famed Mayo clinic in the 1920s.
In Part II of this article, I demonstrate how a deficiency of DHA, a nutrient found exclusively in animal products (with the exception of some forms of algae), especially cholesterol-rich egg yolks (from chickens raised on pasture), has been demonstrated to play a causal role in Alzheimer’s, as well as insulin resistance, which could be brought on by a diet excessively high in carbohydrates – derived from plant foods.
One more (fake) reason for the government to take your money and put statins in your water to return the favor.
And what a grand coincidence that a massive increase in the demand for pharmaceuticals means a massive increase in the demand for Federal prescription drug benefits.
But We Can’t Just Do Nothing!
Finally, the State profits from the cholesterol hypothesis simply because it offers the State one more massive campaign in which it can engage. The State, were it to stand idly by and do nothing, would deteriorate. If the State wasn’t active, for what purpose would it exist? And if there is nothing to fix, as a mere matter of self-sustenance, it must create a problem to solve. The State’s philosophy is "If it ain’t broke – break it!"
The quantity of money that has been poured into researching the cholesterol hypothesis and public health campaigns to hook the public on an unsatisfying, bland, and tasteless diet piles the drunken elephant that thieves that money over its head. The State derives its sustenance from taxing and spending, like it is the one form of human relationship who was born with a terminal birth defect, requiring an insatiable appetite to fuel its exponential growth – and eventual death through implosion.
This is especially true in a democracy, where the frequency with which a political leader must prove her- or himself, through restless legislative activity, is increased to a level that induces continuous expansion. You do not get elected in a democracy by making promises to ride the waves and wait for a problem to arise.
Cholesterol Is Your Best Weapon Against the State
The State makes war on cholesterol because it is your best defense against that State:
Cholesterol empowers independent thought by strengthening mental capabilities
Relieving oneself of the notion that cholesterol causes heart disease increases financial independence from pharmaceutical companies and the State, through whom the pharmaceutical companies receive their wealth redistribution
Cholesterol-rich animal foods are more conducive to a more numerous farming population, where small and community-centered can still mean successful
Eating a fulfilling, rich, and tasteful diet without dropping down in guilt before the State encourages ones emotional independence
In truth, to be anti-cholesterol is to be pro-State; to be anti-State – that, dear reader, is to be pro-cholesterol.
August 13, 2005
Chris Masterjohn [send him mail] is the editor of Cholesterol-and-Health.com, a website devoted to extolling the benefits of cholesterol.
Last edited by Alex Linder; January 15th, 2012 at 06:06 PM.
|January 16th, 2012||#2|
Join Date: Jul 2011
I am not sure when it happened, but cholesterol and sodium for whatever reason became enemy number 1. It was hard for me to believe when I had all these active relatives in their 70s and 80s, Hell, pushing 90, going hunting, fishing and farming. They would then cook gargantuan meals and eat like pigs afterwards.
I swear my old relatives have been having 3 egg, 4 pieces of bacon and whole milk breakfast for 50 years and they just refuse to die. If there was anything to the cholesterol and fat and sodium demonizing they wouldn't have made it to 40.
How can an egg and a glass of milk be bad for somebody? It is just about the perfect thing to eat for breakfast, so far as I know.
|January 17th, 2012||#3|
Join Date: Apr 2010
I saw this documentary "Fathead" about how the push against animal fats was largely a political one.
I think sugar is the main culprit in most of the diseases that are brought on by eating.
|January 17th, 2012||#5|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Those statin drugs are bullshit. I suspect the doctors are getting kickbacks from pushing that shit.
Itís time to stop being Americans. Itís time to start being White Men again. - Gregory Hood
|January 17th, 2012||#10|
Join Date: Nov 2010
Comparative Anatomy: Carnivores, Omnivores, Herbivores, Humans
"The Comparative Anatomy of Eating", by Milton R. Mills, M.D.
CARNIVORE: Reduced to allow wide mouth gape
CARNIVORE: Angle not expanded
OMNIVORE: Angle not expanded
HERBIVORE: Expanded angle
HUMAN: Expanded angle
Jaw Joint Location
CARNIVORE: On same plane as molar teeth
OMNIVORE: On same plane as molar teeth
HERBIVORE: Above the plane of the molars
HUMAN: Above the plane of the molars
CARNIVORE: Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion
OMNIVORE: Shearing; minimal side-to-side
HERBIVORE: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
HUMAN: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
Major Jaw Muscles
HERBIVORE: Masseter and pterygoids
HUMAN: Masseter and pterygoids
Mouth Opening vs. Head Size
CARNIVORE: Short and pointed
OMNIVORE: Short and pointed
HERBIVORE: Broad, flattened and spade shaped
HUMAN: Broad, flattened and spade shaped
CARNIVORE: Long, sharp and curved
OMNIVORE: Long, sharp and curved
HERBIVORE: Dull and short or long (for defense), or none
HUMAN: Short and blunted
CARNIVORE: Sharp, jagged and blade shaped
OMNIVORE: Sharp blades and/or flattened
HERBIVORE: Flattened with cusps vs complex surface
HUMAN: Flattened with nodular cusps
CARNIVORE: None; swallows food whole
OMNIVORE: Swallows food whole and/or simple crushing
HERBIVORE: Extensive chewing necessary
HUMAN: Extensive chewing necessary
CARNIVORE: No digestive enzymes
OMNIVORE: No digestive enzymes
HERBIVORE: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes
HUMAN: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes
HERBIVORE: Simple or multiple chambers
CARNIVORE: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
OMNIVORE: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
HERBIVORE: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach
HUMAN: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach
CARNIVORE: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
OMNIVORE: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
HERBIVORE: Less than 30% of total volume of digestive tract
HUMAN: 21% to 27% of total volume of digestive tract
Length of Small Intestine
CARNIVORE: 3 to 6 times body length
OMNIVORE: 4 to 6 times body length
HERBIVORE: 10 to more than 12 times body length
HUMAN: 10 to 11 times body length
CARNIVORE: Simple, short and smooth
OMNIVORE: Simple, short and smooth
HERBIVORE: Long, complex; may be sacculated
HUMAN: Long, sacculated
CARNIVORE: Can detoxify vitamin A
OMNIVORE: Can detoxify vitamin A
HERBIVORE: Cannot detoxify vitamin A
HUMAN: Cannot detoxify vitamin A
CARNIVORE: Extremely concentrated urine
OMNIVORE: Extremely concentrated urine
HERBIVORE: Moderately concentrated urine
HUMAN: Moderately concentrated urine
CARNIVORE: Sharp claws
OMNIVORE: Sharp claws
HERBIVORE: Flattened nails or blunt hooves
HUMAN: Flattened nails
So, where can I get plant-based cholesterol?
|January 17th, 2012||#13|
Join Date: Sep 2010
New studies of Statin medications indicate an increase of diabetes.....but at this point they are not recommending abrupt stoppage of statin medication...rather developing new classes of statin drugs that don't increase the risk of diabetes.....an excellent video report is included, of which the below is a transcript.
You'll have to sign up if you want to watch the vid.....as I recall, it was free to register for Medscape....
From Medscape Ob/Gyn > Manson on Women's Health
Statin Medications and Increased Risk for Diabetes Mellitus
What Clinicians and Patients Need to Know
JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH
Authors and Disclosures
Hello, this is Dr. JoAnn Manson, Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital. I would like to talk with you today about a recently published study on the link between cholesterol-lowering statin medications and an increased risk for new-onset diabetes. A paper was just published online in the January 9 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine. Along with my colleagues, I looked at this question in the Women's Health Initiative observational analysis of more than 153,000 women, ages 50-79 at baseline. During follow-up, more than 10,000 cases of diabetes were diagnosed.
We found that statin therapy -- statins of all types -- were associated with an increased risk for diabetes, about 48% overall, or moderate increase in risk. This was similar to the magnitude seen between rosuvastatin and diabetes risk in the JUPITER trial, and meta-analyses of randomized trials have further supported that there may be an increased risk for diabetes with a very wide range of statins. This could be a medication class effect.
Our analyses similarly suggested that this could be a medication class effect that was relevant to all forms of statins. We found increased risk for diabetes with both low-potency and high-potency statins across the board, but no clear relationship with dose or with duration of therapy.
What are the implications of these findings? We don't think the findings should change clinical practice guidelines, because for the vast majority of patients who are on statins, the benefits are expected to outweigh the risks. Statins are very effective at lowering risk for heart disease and stroke. We hope that the public and patients won't be alarmed about these findings and abruptly stop taking their statin medications. But we do believe that the findings should lead to increased vigilance about testing for diabetes in patients who are on statins and that the awareness of this link is important. Patients are aware of it and they are aware of some symptoms of diabetes to look for (increased thirst, increased frequency of urination, blurred vision, etc.) and they may be more likely to report these symptoms to their clinicians and have diabetes diagnosed earlier than it might be otherwise.
We hope this research will stimulate additional studies to understand the mechanisms involved. Is this at the level of the liver, the pancreas, the tissue's response to insulin? We also hope that it will spur development of new statins or new medications that won't be associated with these adverse events. We also hope for research that will indicate ways to minimize or avoid these risks altogether.
For those who advocate even more widespread use of statins -- virtually "putting statins in the water supply" -- these findings give pause and suggest that perhaps if statins are used even more widely in those at lower risk and from very early ages, at some point this increased risk for diabetes could begin to offset some of the benefits of statins, unless new statins are developed without this risk or new medications are found to be of comparable benefit without the increased risk for diabetes.
So, overall, there are some clinical implications, but we definitely do not think that this should lead to abrupt stopping of statin medications. Thank you very much for listening. This is Dr. JoAnn Manson.
Statins Associated With Significant Increase in Diabetes Risk
|September 24th, 2012||#14|
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: under your bed
Cholesterol, fat and protein as essential components to brain health?
You better believe it.
My experience from three months of the atkins diet convinced me of that (hint: chest-freezers full of halibut).
Before, I was a very poor eater, for years suffering up & down periods of mental strength, which no kinds of herbal supplements or vitamins seemed to remedy. Today... it's like a beneficent varg slipped into my room and surgically installed an i7 into my sleeping head.
Meat: fuck yeah
"Don't underestimate the power of 'evil.' ... The fact is, 'evil' makes women horny and men curious. Use those to further the cause."
|September 24th, 2012||#15|
Ole' Cyber Crusher
Join Date: Jan 2012
It's all biochemistry you'd learn in a year's course, the major reason for fat build up are excessive carbs, this means that to stay healthy the essential idea is to eat proteins and fat normally but cut back on carbs. The second principle in staying healthy is to not eat on a schedule basis, rather eat when you are actually hungry (easier said than done considering how regimented our lives are). Last of all it's well known that "good cholesterol" provides no defense against heart attacks whereas the link between "bad cholesterol" and heart problems is a far shot at best. So in conclusion the essential detail is eating fewer carbs and eating when you actually want to eat, two mistakes that make the average american so fat (and thus prone to heart attacks).
|September 24th, 2012||#16|
Join Date: Jun 2009
99.99% of mammals make their own Vitamin C. Humans don't. Artery damage is low-level scurvy.
The book can be had (used) for as low as a penny, plus shipping.
Why Animals Don't Get Heart Attacks but People Do,Fourth Revised Edition: Matthias Rath: 0016748000080: Amazon.com: Books
|September 24th, 2012||#17|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Under the Panopticon.
I did a survey of mammals that make their own vitamin C. If you compute the amount of vitamin C they make and normalize it to a 150 lb human, the amount falls within 10 to 20 grams a day.
Then I did a survey of mammals (mostly anthropoid apes) that do not make vitamin C, but have to consume it. The same calculation came out to about 8 to 12 grams a day (amount normalized to an 150 lb human.) No wonder animals that must consume vitamin C live in near-equatorial parts of the planet where fruit is available all year. Also apes eat all day long.
That's a lot of vitamin C. The recommended intake of vitamin C for humans males is about 100 mg. That's about 80 x less than the low range for apes. I think under 40 mg and you show obvious signs of scurvy. I would bet that if you are under any stress even 100 mg will not be enough to prevent low-level scurvy.
I will look for the book you referenced, and if I can get it on kindle, I'll buy it.
(And for the mathematically challenged, the amounts I calculated were adjusted to the amount that would be for an 150 lb human.)
Hunter S. Thompson, "Big dark, coming soon"
Last edited by Mike in Denver; September 24th, 2012 at 01:59 PM.
|September 24th, 2012||#18|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Under the Panopticon.
This is Dr. Rath's web site. You can legitimately download the book, chapter by chapter, into a PDF format.
Hunter S. Thompson, "Big dark, coming soon"
Last edited by Mike in Denver; September 24th, 2012 at 02:12 PM.
|September 24th, 2012||#19|
The Jew Hunter
Join Date: Sep 2012
Don't stuff any food or drink down your face-hole and you'll be OK.
Human beings are designed to be adaptive. That is exactly of what some modern forces take advantage. They want us to eat what they want us to eat. But, we don't have to.
Turn their agri-farms into deserts. Stop eating anything in a box, anything derived from corn. It's really not that important, unless you live on boxed food.
Only Whites, Worldwide
|September 25th, 2012||#20|
Join Date: Feb 2012
I've been taking this Vitamin C 3 times a day for the past 2 years and it definitely makes a difference.
I would always get the flu every Nov/Dec.
Now, no matter how many bug-faced chinks, or shit-skinned monsters I cross paths with, I never get sick.
Best $30 you can spend. (Other than giving it to Alex)
....and this time, Hymie - We Go Vertical!