Alan Wright said:
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:1095481853.MT2h3ZpthOLOAGBqrEtPZA@teranews...
Quoted message said:Alan Wright said:The truth of the matter may have little to do with what is currently
widely accepted. Science is not a democratic process, and truth is
not a matter for a vote.
Correct.
Quoted message said:I find the arguments against the established
ideas more than credible.
That does not mean these arguments represent the truth.
Nor does it mean they are not.
However, I discern that thay do not represent the truth.
Quoted message said:But I am qualified to judge
their merits, especially when it comes to the mathematical
sleight of hand employed in interpreting statistical results.
I would suggest you look at the data. You can start with Framingham.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:The financial interests which back the
status quo are formidable, however.
The financial interests actually back *new* drugs and *new* targets.
Patents do
Quoted message said:expire afterall.
Let's then hope that we eventually get new drugs that do something
helpful, rather than a nightmare like statins and predecessors.
Most folks on statins are not having nightmares with it.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Many who argue against them
seem to have few vested interests and do support their claims with
extensive references in the peer-reviewed literature.
All is not what they may seem.
Perhaps, but I often run down the references and look at raw
data myself. I also focus on papers or books which do provide
extensive references to the peer-reviewed literature.
Then you should conclude that LDL should be lowered and HDL should be
raised if the goal is to prevent atherosclerosis.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Typically these
are retirees since they would otherwise have suffered professionally
to go public sooner.
That is one way to look at it. Another way would be that these folks were
always on the fringe and retired early because of this.
Irrelevant. Does not change the data, nor my personal results.
The same could be said for your current view.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:
You might want to do some reading on the history of the whole
cholesterol/sat fat/heart disease idea. Ravnskov's book is a quick
and thorough read on the subject. I also enjoyed books by Enig,
McGee, and a couple of others listed on that site.
They all have a hard time explaining the animal models of atherosclerosis.
Not at all. The subject is well treated in the literature I've been exposed
to.
It seems by your next statement, your exposure has been "kill-filtered."
Quoted message said:And of course animal models are not in general directly relevant or
predictive
for humans. Until results with animals are actually shown to be reproducible
in humans, it cannot be assumed that they will.
The disease that is reproduced in the animal models occurs under
conditions that humans are currently exposed to in the societies with
high rates of atherosclerotic disease.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:One other good cross reference on this is to look at recent books
by aging researchers (e.g. Austad, Finch, Kirkwood) as well as studying
some nutritional biochemistry (e.g. Stipanuk). Seems a great deal can
be found in accordance with the idea that the lipid theory is wrong, and
that we should be more worried about refined carbohydrates, processed
foods, and chronic imflammatory processes. If you also do some Pubmed
searches on research into atherogenesis, you will find a great deal
going
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:on in areas unrelated to cholesterol or fat intake.
Most regard elevated serum cholesterol as a permissive condition.
As distinct from a causative factor. It is irrational to attempt to defeat a
normal and essential biochemical condition simply because it is permissive
of a potential disease process with a separate cause, especially when the
methods are exceedingly crude and on the whole ineffective, and in fact
promote a wide range of other disease processes. Studies show that
cholesterol lowering is a bad idea for almost everyone.
You are welcome to cite the studies. I would be more than happy to give
you my professional comments on each.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Seems quite a few
researchers are betting that answers to the CHD puzzle will be found
elsewhere (and implicitly that current hypotheses are lacking).
These folks have lost the bet with the discovery of "reverse cholesterol
transport."
Just another questionable way to attack symptoms when instead the
cause should be prevented.
This is a observed phenomenon rather than a treatment.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Personally I've adopted a restricted carbohydrate, high sat-fat
diet over a year a go. (I eat mainly whole unprocessed foods,
no fast food, and cook everything fresh or eat it raw.)
Uh-oh.
Not! Best decision I ever made relative to current quality of life
improvement.
Try not to be so confined to old-school and cardiocentric thinking.
The mission here is to prevent catastrophic cardiovascular events.
Quoted message said:I do
note
that since you cannot get past the rather primitive superstitions your were
taught
as a child, you may well have similar trouble accepting scientific data that
conflict
with your current medical indoctrination.
Sorry my being openly Christian distracts you.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:I've
effortlessly lost all of the excess weight I gained over 25 years,
and have had complete relief from several long term health
problems, one of them chronically debilitating.
I would be concerned about hyperketonemia being behind your loss of
appetite.
Not even a remote possibility. I have not needed to achieve ketosis for
quite
a long long time (if I ever did). My appetite is great, but non carbohydrate
rich
foods do not cause me to gain weight.
They would if you ate more of them.
Quoted message said:You ought to bone up on how these
diets are done and what they achieve past the initial rapid weight loss
phases.
It is doubtful that my reviewing your diet methodologies would reveal
another explanation for your loss of appetite.
Quoted message said:Now if you want to argue that my exceptionally stable and low blood sugar
levels (achieved via almost constant gluconeogenesis) are harmful then show
me the research.
Why would I want to do that?
My concern is your possibly having hyperketonemia because of inadequate
dietary carbohydrates. Your body stores carbohydrates in the form of
glycogen because carbohydrates are an essential macronutrient.
Quoted message said:Note that high blood sugar levels have much better
correlation
with cardiovascular disease that any level of any cholesterol fraction.
It seems you are confusing diabetes with high blood sugar.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:My blood sugar
stays locked in at the levels my liver maintains, my triglycerides
are very low, and my LDL has remained the same as it was on
the low fat diet I was on for 20 years.
With the weight loss, it should be lower.
It's not.
Which is why I would be concerned.
Quoted message said:But my levels have never been very high, and they have
followed a pretty typical age-related curve.
Such age-related curves are better explained as a weight-related curve.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Other measures have
improved, and I've had an echocardiogram which showed no
sign of disease.
An echocardiogram won't until *after* your heart has suffered injury.
Duh!
There can be severe atherosclerotic disease *before* there is injury.
President Clinton would be a timely illustrative case in point.
He was also low-carbing.
Quoted message said:Obviously, I've suffered no injury to date.
Presumably by not obviously to me.
Quoted message said:Until I see at
least some inkling that I have, I see no reason to alter my course.
That was apparently President Clinton's philosophy on this topic.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:For now this is the choice I am making, though I'm keeping
my eye on the scientific literature as new findings come out,
and of course watching the impact on my own health. So far
ignoring the established advice has been all good for me.
May that not be your epitaph.
Time will tell, and for now I place my bets on nutritional biochemistry
and other science over cardiology, as the latter has been a complete
and utter failure for all those in my extended family that have had such
involvement. None of the drugs, surgeries, or devices has done anything
to extend or improve quality of life.
The lifestyle changes and medications work better when done *before*
there is a cardiovascular "event."
Quoted message said:I will try a different path until new
data comes out that can change my mind.
Your informed choice for your health and your soul.
Quoted message said:Alan
You remain in my prayers, dear Alan whom I love.
May Christ heal you as only He can.
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048
What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48
Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
