The Biggest Lie in Medicine: The Cholesterol Conspiracy

reply to post by unityemissions


You're not too far off the mark. Overgrowths of yeast due to too much sugar intake is a prime example, and it can cause havoc in our bodies.

Also, tumors seem to love sugar.

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by Ghost375

 

It gets converted into triglyceride’s...stored fat. The OP is incorrect. The largest source for circulating cholesterol particles is your liver.

That doesn't really change anything. It still turns into cholesterol in addition to those things. Sorry, I was lookign for a source that shows it does not turn into cholesterol. but it does.

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by Ghost375

 

It gets converted into triglyceride’s...stored fat. The OP is incorrect. The largest source for circulating cholesterol particles is your liver.

I'd like to see a source for that.

Erm, you're going to have to be more specific than that. I mentioned two different things...both of which are well known, and the information easily attainable.

reply to post by unityemissions


I never said that sugar turns into cholesterol. EVER. The person you are replying to has twisted my words in order to ridicule me, something that is pretty low, but not unexpected in this case.

I did say that sugar is an inflammatory food. The inflammation that occurs, especially in our arteries, causes damage. The cholesterol increases as a result of inflammatory damage, as it has to do with repairing damage in the body (one of its many functions).

In reality, the biggest source of abnormal cholesterol is not fat at all -- it's sugar. The sugar you consume converts to fat in your body. And the worst culprit of all is high fructose corn syrup.

This was something I had quoted, and it is easy to see how it could be misrepresented. I think the author meant that sugar turns to BODY fat, which in turn can influence abnormal cholesterol levels. There is no way that sugar can turn directly into cholesterol.

Originally posted by FissionSurplus
reply to post by unityemissions

 

I never said that sugar turns into cholesterol. EVER. The person you are replying to has twisted my words in order to ridicule me, something that is pretty low, but not unexpected in this case.

I quoted your source directly!!! It's quoted in the OP!

This was something I had quoted, and it is easy to see how it could be misrepresented. I think the author meant that sugar turns to BODY fat, which in turn can influence abnormal cholesterol levels. There is no way that sugar can turn directly into cholesterol.

Um your quote says it does and so does this book in front of me....
not directly, but it does turn into it in a series of steps. It's NOT a misrepresentation at all.

Just because I'm saying the facts you want to ignore, doesn't mean I'm misrepresenting anything.

reply to post by FissionSurplus

This is what we are told, over and over again: High levels of cholesterol clog arteries and lead to heart attacks. Lower the cholesterol, and you won't get a heart attack. Sounds simple enough, right? They complicate it up a bit with the idea that there is "bad" cholesterol (LDL, or low density lipoprotein), and "good" cholesterol (HDL, or high density lipoprotein). They recommend a diet low in saturated fat and high in grains, veggies and fruit to raise the HDL and lower the LDL. Triglycerides are thrown in the mix as well. They tell us to take statins to lower cholesterol and prevent heart attacks. There has even been talk of dumping statins into our municipal water supplies to "protect us all". Although statins have a slew of side effects, they still claim it's worth the risk.

Well, statins actually do in fact help with lowering the risk of heart disease. There is a plethora of studies and having learned about this in school I can say for a fact that they do help.

For patients with coronary artery disease, the reduced rate of progression of atherosclerosis associated with intensive statin treatment, as compared with moderate statin treatment, is significantly related to greater reductions in the levels of both atherogenic lipoproteins and CRP.

Study 1

Further reductions in LDL cholesterol safely produce definite further reductions in the incidence of heart attack, of revascularisation, and of ischaemic stroke, with each 1·0 mmol/L reduction reducing the annual rate of these major vascular events by just over a fifth. There was no evidence of any threshold within the cholesterol range studied, suggesting that reduction of LDL cholesterol by 2—3 mmol/L would reduce risk by about 40—50%.

Study 2

Adding the results from the statin trials confirmed our original conclusion that lowering cholesterol is clinically beneficial. The relationships (slope) between cholesterol lowering and reduction in CHD and total mortality risk became stronger, and the standard error of the estimated slopes decreased by about half. Use of statins does not increase non-CHD mortality risk. The effect of the statins on CHD and total mortality risk can be explained by their lipid-lowering ability and appears to be directly proportional to the degree to which they lower lipids.

Study 3

The benefits of simvastatin were additional to those of other cardioprotective treatments. The annual excess risk of myopathy with this regimen was about 0.01%. There were no significant adverse effects on cancer incidence or on hospitalisation for any other non-vascular cause. Interpretation Adding simvastatin to existing treatments safely produces substantial additional benefits for a wide range of high-risk patients, irrespective of their initial cholesterol concentrations. Allocation to 40 mg simvastatin daily reduced the rates of myocardial infarction, of stroke, and of revascularisation by about one-quarter.

Study 4

Ok, as we have seen we have American and a foreign study that I picked up coming to the same conclusions. The title of the huffington post states: Why Cholesterol May Not Be the Cause Of Heart Disease. By the title alone, he is offering a theory, that in reality, may not be mutually exclusive to lowering of Cholesterol.

I did research all afternoon, and I couldn't find one single credible source which says that cholesterol is directly and solely responsible for heart disease. I believe that high cholesterol is a sign that our bodies are feeling under attack. Cholesterol manufactures vitamin D, which is an important vitamin for our immune systems. Blaming cholesterol for heart disease is like blaming firemen when they show up to fight a fire. Also makes you wonder why they don't want even children in the sunshine without sunscreen, as sunshine also helps create vitamin D...but I digress...

Your vitamin D theory is half accurate; also NOT blaming cholesterol for heart disease is like laughing at thousands of doctors, who have trained and learned about these systems.

If you wear sunscreen with SPF 30 on all exposed skin whenever you spend time outside, you reduce your body's ability to make vitamin D by 95 percent to 99 percent, according to a July 2010 Fox News report. However, most people don't actually use sunscreen as directed, and don't actually cover all exposed skin. This makes the sunscreen less effective.

live strong

reply to post by FissionSurplus


Thanks,

Here is some more information about Statins, if that has not been discussed already, one of the worst side effects is the depletion of CoQ10.

CoQ10, Statins and Cell Energy

www.healthy-eating-politics.com...

Interestingly when people lower their intake of food that contain cholesterol the liver usually will compensate.

reply to post by TheMythLives


The studies which show a drop are due to corruption from industry funding bias. Dr Russell Blaylock blew the lid on this a long time ago. They have fudged the statistics hardcore. You were duped in your "education". You paid to be misinformed The true drop is ~ 1-2%, and is likely due to the decrease in smoking over the decades.

reply to post by unityemissions


You cannot take Alex Jones as a serious source, nor prison planet or natural news. They are making money off of fear and misinformation. My studies, that I sourced, are not only accurate, but there is also a foreign study (along with hundred of others) that is NOT from the supposed "corruption" area or medical industrial complex. Correlating theories that have very similar results. If you do not believe it then that is fine. I hope that you are not one of the many people of the world that get diagnosed with heart disease, because I am afraid you will not listen to your doctor and "think" that you know better.

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by Ghost375

 

It gets converted into triglyceride’s...stored fat. The OP is incorrect. The largest source for circulating cholesterol particles is your liver.

That doesn't really change anything. It still turns into cholesterol in addition to those things. Sorry, I was lookign for a source that shows it does not turn into cholesterol. but it does.

edit on 4-12-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-12-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)

No, it doesn't. It changes everything.

You seem to not differentiate between triglyceride’s and cholesterol. That is your bad. It's of utmost importance, considering that it's being argued the amount of circulating cholesterol is what should be focused on.

One of the most efficient and natural ways to lower cholesterol is Using Red rice yeast even my husband doctor advised him to take it as a regular supplement.

But in order to have a real product as big pharma made sure that the FDA targeted the supplement as a drug, and have the product made in the US to be striped of the cholesterol lowering agent, you have to get it from oversea.

Kind of tricky actually but possible.

cholesterol.about.com...

reply to post by TheMythLives


Why are you mentioning Alex Jones?

Did I mention him?

Give me a break.

Originally posted by unityemissions

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by Ghost375

 

It gets converted into triglyceride’s...stored fat. The OP is incorrect. The largest source for circulating cholesterol particles is your liver.

That doesn't really change anything. It still turns into cholesterol in addition to those things. Sorry, I was lookign for a source that shows it does not turn into cholesterol. but it does.

edit on 4-12-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-12-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)

No, it doesn't. It changes everything.

You seem to not differentiate between triglyceride’s and cholesterol. That is your bad. It's of utmost importance, considering that it's being argued the amount of circulating cholesterol is what should be focused on.

Where do you think the Liver gets the building blocks for cholesterol from? Sugar!

What you said doesn't change the fact that most cholesterol is derived from sugar.

Originally posted by Ghost375
Where do you think the Liver gets the building blocks for cholesterol from? Sugar!

What you said doesn't change the fact that most cholesterol is derived from sugar.

You are trying everything you can to twist this into not being in the wrong. You have changed the goal posts twice in replies to me so far.

I challenge you to provide evidence that shows "sugar" is the source for the "building blocks" where most of the cholesterol is synthesized in the liver.

If you can't provide a source to back up this claim, you will be known as a troll in this thread.

reply to post by unityemissions


Infowars is directly related to Alex Jones and so is prison planet.tv. In using source material from inforwars you indirectly and directly stated Alex Jones (he is in the video!!!). And as for Blaylock, you should not consider him a serious source... especially when he thinks that a special formula you made can reverse and cure Alzheimer's.

Ironically, Blaylock perpetuates the myth that science-based medicine is not interested in prevention, despite the fact that immunization, which he opposes, prevents more disease and saves more lives than just about any other medical activity. Blaylock has retired from neurosurgery and has taken up a career opposing science-based medicine and promoting pseudoscience-based medicine and supplements that he sells under the label Brain Repair Formula. He suggests that his supplements can treat and prevent such diseases as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.

He asserts that his formula "will maximize your brain’s ability to heal and reduce inflammation." The rest of the scientific community seems oblivious to these claims, which are not based on large-scale clinical trials. Blaylock also sells hope to cancer patients by encouraging them to believe he has found the secret to prevention and cure.5

Skeptic

If you can't provide a source to back up this claim, you will be known as a troll in this thread

reply to post by unityemissions


Too late!

Originally posted by unityemissions

Originally posted by Ghost375
Where do you think the Liver gets the building blocks for cholesterol from? Sugar!

What you said doesn't change the fact that most cholesterol is derived from sugar.

You are trying everything you can to twist this into not being in the wrong. You have changed the goal posts twice in replies to me so far.

I challenge you to provide evidence that shows "sugar" is the source for the "building blocks" where most of the cholesterol is synthesized in the liver.

If you can't provide a source to back up this claim, you will be known as a troll in this thread.

WTF, it's quoted in the OP!

Not to mention Glucose is converted to Pyruvate, which is converted to Acetyl CoA, which then goes through a series of steps to reach Cholesterol. So yes, Glucose is converted into cholesterol.

and I didn't change my post in an attempt to change my thoughts or hide anything. I only added stuff.

Originally posted by FissionSurplus

If you can't provide a source to back up this claim, you will be known as a troll in this thread

reply to post by unityemissions

 

Too late!

yep too late! the source is in the OP!

Pointing out facts is far from trolling.
You guys are sad if you are going to call the person pointing out the facts as a troll.

thank you for your reply, which was sufficient.

I really do not understand (nor do i care) the basis of the ongoing thread dispute. I speak with a reasonable amount of authority that there is no internal inconsistency in the ops argument. and I do agree that we have every reason to believe that our health practitioners often do not place our health as their first priority.

with this in mind, please do not clutter the thread with petty bickering.


thanks for the info, op. I'll take 'er from here.

reply to post by TheMythLives


I'm sorry, but that's very poor reasoning you provide.

Dr Russell Blaylock was a neurosurgeon for 28+ years, and was fully accredited. He trumps your education by a wide margin.

He shouldn't be trusted because he has claims which go against the mainstream, and he offers solutions which he sees fit to make money off of? How about you try reading some of the literature he publishes, and reading the many studies he often cites and references before coming to a conclusion based on a "skeptic" site.