cholesterol

Jackie Patti said:

Susan said:

Yabbut, not necessarily in isolation. My LDL shot back up when my
adrenals were suppressed. You can figure out why, I know. :-)

LOL!

Hey! Please don't just LOL. At least *one* of us can't figure out
anything🙂

"Jackie Patti" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ophelia said:

Jackie Patti said:

With a full lipoprotein pattern, you'd know it was the "good" LDL
rather than the bad "LDL" and not aim to fix it.

Well you just knocked down what I thought I knew!!!!!!!!

Helppppppp!! I thought LDL was the baddy and HDL the goodie???

They keep changing the rules on ya.

First, it was just total cholesterol, and it was all bad.

Then it was LDL and HDL, with the LDL being bad and the HDL being good.

But if you get even more detailed testing, they can break that down into
even further - there's various types of LDL and HDL. Some of those have
"good" LDL bits and "bad" HDL bits, just to add a further layer of
complexity.

This BS is the very "heart" of the matter with cholesterol. They are
essentially searching for how and what it is that is the problem with
cholesterol. And the focus keeps changing because cholesterol never was the
problem in the first place. It's not a further layer of complexity, Jackie,
it's just more BS.

Roger Zoul said:

This BS is the very "heart" of the matter with cholesterol. They are
essentially searching for how and what it is that is the problem with
cholesterol. And the focus keeps changing because cholesterol never was the
problem in the first place. It's not a further layer of complexity, Jackie,
it's just more BS.

I don't think it's the cholesterol at all, but the lipoproteins. There
is definetly a very high correlation between high levels of
lipoprotein(a) - a subfraction of LDL - and plaque formation.

That being said, it looks like inflammation markers are even more
predictive than lipoproteins. If you don't have inflammation, you don't
seem to get plaque buildup regardless of what's in your blood.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Ophelia said:

FOB said:

Do you have a camera? I find my little digital camera does an
excellent job on documents with the macro (closeup) setting.

I do indeed🙂) I will take it with me.

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I have just remembered. Everything is on computer
now!!! No, pack of notes. I wonder if she can print it straight from
computer??

For cripes' sake, I'd hope so. What century is this? Not that a couple
minutes at a copy machine would be such a hardship either.

Quoted message said:

I will go next week. We can't even make forward appointments any
more. You must ring up on the day you want to see someone. Our
goverment has a lot to answer for🙁((

And yet we have people here in the USA just itching to implement a
similar system.

--
Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

Aaron Baugher said:

Ophelia said:

FOB said:

Do you have a camera? I find my little digital camera does an
excellent job on documents with the macro (closeup) setting.

I do indeed🙂) I will take it with me.

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I have just remembered. Everything is on computer
now!!! No, pack of notes. I wonder if she can print it straight from
computer??

For cripes' sake, I'd hope so. What century is this? Not that a couple
minutes at a copy machine would be such a hardship either.

Quoted message said:

I will go next week. We can't even make forward appointments any
more. You must ring up on the day you want to see someone. Our
goverment has a lot to answer for🙁((

And yet we have people here in the USA just itching to implement a
similar system.

Actually, I don't think we really know what we are "itching" for, but
know that the existing system is a disgrace. You must admit that the
existing "system" has a lot of defects.

The individuals who buy insurance get it at far higher rates than those
who are members of a homogeneous group plan such as at large places of
employment.

It is most likely true that no "ONE SYSTEM TO SUIT THEM ALL" exists.

It is certainly true, that most people don't understand the principles
of insurance and the intrinsic advantages and *disadvantages* in the
first place.

There is something operating here much like investment. In investments,
it is pretty well understood that you can't get HIGH YIELD and HIGH
SECURITY (low risk) in the same package.

There are always advantages and disadvantages. Yet most people don't
talk much about this intrinsic factor, and how it must be tolerated in
things like insurance.

HIGH SECURITY is like insurance automatically paying for everything with
fast access.

HIGH YIELD is insurance providing maximum benefits for lowest cost.

These things are incompatible, and will likely never happen together. At
least in one universal plan.

Aaron Baugher said:

Ophelia said:

FOB said:

Do you have a camera? I find my little digital camera does an
excellent job on documents with the macro (closeup) setting.

I do indeed🙂) I will take it with me.

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I have just remembered. Everything is on computer
now!!! No, pack of notes. I wonder if she can print it straight
from computer??

For cripes' sake, I'd hope so. What century is this? Not that a
couple minutes at a copy machine would be such a hardship either.

Quoted message said:

I will go next week. We can't even make forward appointments any
more. You must ring up on the day you want to see someone. Our
goverment has a lot to answer for🙁((

And yet we have people here in the USA just itching to implement a
similar system.

It used to be wonderful until our government introduced 'targets' They are
wrecking all kinds of things with 'targets' for example.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/apr/29/politics.ukgeneralelection2005

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6656411.stm

You might also be interested in this next one too

http://www.heartstats.org/atozpage.asp?id=1983

Jim said:

These things are incompatible, and will likely never happen together.
At least in one universal plan.

We, of course, have paid into our NHS all our working lives, but we still
pay for health insurance. I mentioned that I have, in the past couple of
years, had both knees replaced. I also had implants in both eyes because of
cataract. If I had to wait for the NHS I would be now blind and in a
wheelchair.

There is a receptionist at our docs surgery who can hardly walk because her
knee is so bad. Even she can't get it done on the NHS. They say she must
wait until she is much older.

NHS is good for trauma but for anything else, it is rubbish. It is far to
big and unwieldly. The goverment boasts that it puts millions into NHS but
makes no reforms, so it is wasted.

Everything now is also put out to tender. So, we have cleaners who have no
interest in the wards they clean, no one there to sack them if they are not
cleaning properly and we now have MRSA in most hospitals and dirty
hospitals.

I could go on but I am sure you get the picture

Ophelia said:

Jim said:

These things are incompatible, and will likely never happen together.
At least in one universal plan.

We, of course, have paid into our NHS all our working lives, but we still
pay for health insurance. I mentioned that I have, in the past couple of
years, had both knees replaced. I also had implants in both eyes because of
cataract. If I had to wait for the NHS I would be now blind and in a
wheelchair.

There is a receptionist at our docs surgery who can hardly walk because her
knee is so bad. Even she can't get it done on the NHS. They say she must
wait until she is much older.

NHS is good for trauma but for anything else, it is rubbish. It is far to
big and unwieldly. The goverment boasts that it puts millions into NHS but
makes no reforms, so it is wasted.

Everything now is also put out to tender. So, we have cleaners who have no
interest in the wards they clean, no one there to sack them if they are not
cleaning properly and we now have MRSA in most hospitals and dirty
hospitals.

I could go on but I am sure you get the picture

Bad Diet-Health science was to have the SOLUTION (low fat, low
cholestoerol diet) and then spend all your money to PROVE this, and
attempt to collect no information on the basic problem, just in case
THIS SOLUTION doesn't work out so well.

Bad public health issues are to look at other systems, such as the
British NHS, and conclude that "that system is no good" and then fail to
carefully dissect it to understand what were the driving forces that
caused this "no good' result.

I don't doubt that your claims of overall the system being "rubbish" are
a reasonable description of what happens.

You have a postulate about the lack of, as I intrepret it, "Lack of Real
Management".

This sort of complaint has cropped up with other health systems. It even
crops up with some of the private insurance plans here in the USA and
some of the medical facilities.

Of course, the political process is best described as "making sausage in
a sausage factory". If you saw how it was actually done, you wouldn't
dare eat sausage.

But all of this is just descriptive. Perhaps quite real, but still just
descriptive.

Taubes described the roots of some of the "Bad Science" well enough that
some good things can come out of it. Such as the need to somehow move
vital basic information across the seperated medical/scientific
subdivisions fast enough that ordinary people aren't hurt by
unscientific and outdated information.

How to solve that problem, and the mitigation of that problem, will
bring great benefits to regular people who are unfortunate enough to be
patients of the existing overly specialized medical fields.

"Jackie Patti" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Roger Zoul said:

This BS is the very "heart" of the matter with cholesterol. They are
essentially searching for how and what it is that is the problem with
cholesterol. And the focus keeps changing because cholesterol never was
the problem in the first place. It's not a further layer of complexity,
Jackie, it's just more BS.

I don't think it's the cholesterol at all, but the lipoproteins.

Well, the worry from the establishment is about cholesterol, not
lipoproteins.

There

Quoted message said:

is definetly a very high correlation between high levels of
lipoprotein(a) - a subfraction of LDL - and plaque formation.

That being said, it looks like inflammation markers are even more
predictive than lipoproteins. If you don't have inflammation, you don't
seem to get plaque buildup regardless of what's in your blood.

Yes, that makes sense.

"Jackie Patti" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Roger Zoul said:

This BS is the very "heart" of the matter with cholesterol. They are
essentially searching for how and what it is that is the problem with
cholesterol. And the focus keeps changing because cholesterol never was
the problem in the first place. It's not a further layer of complexity,
Jackie, it's just more BS.

I don't think it's the cholesterol at all, but the lipoproteins.

Well, the worry from the establishment is about cholesterol, not
lipoproteins.

There

Quoted message said:

is definetly a very high correlation between high levels of
lipoprotein(a) - a subfraction of LDL - and plaque formation.

That being said, it looks like inflammation markers are even more
predictive than lipoproteins. If you don't have inflammation, you don't
seem to get plaque buildup regardless of what's in your blood.

Yes, that makes sense.

Jim said:

Aaron Baugher said:

Ophelia said:

FOB wrote:

>Do you have a camera? I find my little digital camera does an
>excellent job on documents with the macro (closeup) setting.
>

I do indeed🙂) I will take it with me.

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I have just remembered. Everything is on computer
now!!! No, pack of notes. I wonder if she can print it straight from
computer??

For cripes' sake, I'd hope so. What century is this? Not that a
couple
minutes at a copy machine would be such a hardship either.

Quoted message said:

I will go next week. We can't even make forward appointments any
more. You must ring up on the day you want to see someone. Our
goverment has a lot to answer for🙁((

And yet we have people here in the USA just itching to implement a
similar system.

Actually, I don't think we really know what we are "itching" for, but
know that the existing system is a disgrace. You must admit that the
existing "system" has a lot of defects.

Absolutely. The biggest defect is that it's a "system" at all. For
starters, any time you have a third-party paying for something
(insurance) prices will skyrocket. That's just the nature of things
when the person getting the service isn't paying directly out of pocket.
If people had health insurance with a high deductible -- where you pay
for the office visits and prescriptions when you get a cold, but you're
covered if you get cancer and need chemotherapy -- it wouldn't be so
bad; but comprehensive plans that cover every sniffle with premiums
withheld by employers have really skewed things. It's *almost* as bad
as a true socialized health care "system," but not quite.

To relate this to the topic, I'm moving more and more to getting my food
from local individuals instead of the nation's (world's, in some cases)
food production "system." It's healthier, better for the local
community and economy, and gives me more oversight into how the food is
raised and processed.

It's a shame that it's so difficult to do the same thing with medical
care. Chiropractors and other "alternative" health care providers still
operate that way, mainly because the "system" shunned them for so long
and they had no choice but to go with a sort of "back to the people"
approach. But for surgery and prescriptions and the like, it's all huge
buildings and top-down bureaucracies.

--
Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

Aaron Baugher said:

Jim said:

Aaron Baugher said:

"Ophelia" <[email hidden]> writes:

>FOB wrote:
>
>
>>Do you have a camera? I find my little digital camera does an
>>excellent job on documents with the macro (closeup) setting.
>>
>
>I do indeed🙂) I will take it with me.
>
>ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I have just remembered. Everything is on computer
>now!!! No, pack of notes. I wonder if she can print it straight from
>computer??

For cripes' sake, I'd hope so. What century is this? Not that a
couple
minutes at a copy machine would be such a hardship either.

>I will go next week. We can't even make forward appointments any
>more. You must ring up on the day you want to see someone. Our
>goverment has a lot to answer for🙁((

And yet we have people here in the USA just itching to implement a
similar system.

Actually, I don't think we really know what we are "itching" for, but
know that the existing system is a disgrace. You must admit that the
existing "system" has a lot of defects.

Absolutely. The biggest defect is that it's a "system" at all. For
starters, any time you have a third-party paying for something
(insurance) prices will skyrocket. That's just the nature of things
when the person getting the service isn't paying directly out of pocket.
If people had health insurance with a high deductible -- where you pay
for the office visits and prescriptions when you get a cold, but you're
covered if you get cancer and need chemotherapy -- it wouldn't be so
bad; but comprehensive plans that cover every sniffle with premiums
withheld by employers have really skewed things. It's *almost* as bad
as a true socialized health care "system," but not quite.

A "system" can have copayments --- and in fact these have been around
for many years.

I have long had -- and still have -- an insurance "system" with
copayments to assist the patient in appreciating the value of the
system, and to limit (somewhat) unnecessary office visits for just a
"cold" or an arbitrary ache or pain.

I hope you speak in more measured "rants" in the future. I have "hope".

At any rate, your conversation above fails to meet ordinary definitions
of a meaningful exchange. Perhaps you will discover the "rant" on
rereading, and take out any internal hostilities where it is productive
to you, rather than merely relief.