Antioxidants may be harmful sometimes

Quoted message said:

newswise.com504678Open ↗

...and being born is routinely fatal! ;^]

--
_o Kristofer Dale, _ \<,_ ragged individualist,
_____( )/ ( )_____ statistic at large...

p.s. Learn and live, vitaletherapeutics.orgvitaletherapeutics.orgOpen ↗

"Kristofer D. Dale" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

newswise.com504678Open ↗

...and being born is routinely fatal! ;^]

HEHEHE funny. Hard to take him seriously most of the time.
I believe this so called study was comented on some time
ago. If anything it proves that LDL is NOT BAD!! GASP!!
Love how they come to the wrong conclusions instead of
abandoning flawed preconceived notions and theories. Thanks
Markd, yet another great example of the joke and failure of
modern medical research. I could not have picked a better
one myself.

Wolfbrother said:

If anything it proves that LDL is NOT BAD!! GASP!! Love
how they come to the wrong conclusions instead of
abandoning flawed preconceived notions and theories.

Another nail in the coffin. Correlation doesn't breed
causation, repeat after me . . .

-Chad

"Chad C." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Wolfbrother said:

If anything it proves that LDL is NOT BAD!! GASP!! Love
how they come to the wrong conclusions instead of
abandoning flawed preconceived notions and theories.

Another nail in the coffin. Correlation doesn't breed
causation, repeat after me . . .

-Chad

That's why intervention studies are important. The other
problem that is limiting is the testing parameters of so
called LDL. What are you calling LDL? Low Density
Lipoproteins are so called because of the methodology that
was used in detecting their presence and not by the
methodology that is presently being used. Nor is the type or
quality of the LDL mentioned. You can have a heart attack
with an LDL-C of 103 mg/dl and only determine later that it
is predominantly
Lp(a)-C. So you see one person with an LDL-C of 103 and be
perfectly healthy and another with an LDL-C of 103 the
typical lipid screen and he has premature heart
problems. Correlation is important and you have to have
the right one to begin with. With better testing then
better more valid correlations can be made and
interventional meds can be used more wisely and have a
less shotgun approach. You can't say lipid profiles are
meaningless without doing the appropriate studies in
the first place. It is not the final answer nor is it
implied to be that lipid modification is the primary
culprit. It is only a temporary target in which to
modify risk at present.