Re: High cholesterol may protect---book excerpt from Uffe Ravnskov

Quoted message said:

Ok you convinced me that a high cholesterol is good for you. Now let's get

a

Quoted message said:

drug company to make a pill so that everybodies cholesterol can be high

and

Quoted message said:

let's sell it. What a minute though because if a drug company is involved

in

Quoted message said:

making money than you must be against it.

Pills deliciously packaged as burgers, fries, and fried chicken deligently
sold by evil manufacturers including DOW component Mickey Dees.

Quoted message said:

Please explain why I would be wrong since you brought up the topic of high
cholesterol being good or protective?

I dunno, but saying cholesterol is good for you is on par as saying uric
acid is great for you because it's an antioxidant (which it is) but if you
end up getting up getting gout, or, worse still, die of kidney failure,
that's just TOO BAD.

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

Quoted message said:

Ob boy we have another Doe with cholesterol instead of iron.
Thanks Doe Jr.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Gregory Poon said:

Quoted message said:

Ok you convinced me that a high cholesterol is good for you. Now let's get

a

Quoted message said:

drug company to make a pill so that everybodies cholesterol can be high

and

Quoted message said:

let's sell it. What a minute though because if a drug company is involved

in

Quoted message said:

making money than you must be against it.

Quoted message said:

Pills deliciously packaged as burgers, fries, and fried chicken deligently
sold by evil manufacturers including DOW component Mickey Dees.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Please explain why I would be wrong since you brought up the topic of high
cholesterol being good or protective?

Quoted message said:

I dunno, but saying cholesterol is good for you is on par as saying uric
acid is great for you because it's an antioxidant (which it is) but if you
end up getting up getting gout, or, worse still, die of kidney failure,
that's just TOO BAD.

I believe it was Isaac Asimov, in one of his science
articles, who conjectured that uric acid may have been
instrumental in humans achieving and maintaining their
mental abilities. It seems to have a biological function
in some species, and it may be the "natural" caffeine.

We have lots of anti-immune diseases, but does that mean
we should weaken the immune system? Cholesterol is used
in the immune response; if what high cholesterol causes
is in the nature of an auto-immune response, we should be
wary of lowering it too much. Type 1 (juvenile) diabetes
is an auto-immune response, and there is a genetic tendency
to have it among those with strong immune genes. It has
been found that low cholesterol increases susceptibility
to infectious diseases.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
[email hidden] Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

"Herman Rubin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Gregory Poon said:

Quoted message said:

Ok you convinced me that a high cholesterol is good for you. Now let's

get

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a

Quoted message said:

drug company to make a pill so that everybodies cholesterol can be high

and

Quoted message said:

let's sell it. What a minute though because if a drug company is

involved

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in

Quoted message said:

making money than you must be against it.

Quoted message said:

Pills deliciously packaged as burgers, fries, and fried chicken

deligently

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

sold by evil manufacturers including DOW component Mickey Dees.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Please explain why I would be wrong since you brought up the topic of

high

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cholesterol being good or protective?

Quoted message said:

I dunno, but saying cholesterol is good for you is on par as saying uric
acid is great for you because it's an antioxidant (which it is) but if

you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

end up getting up getting gout, or, worse still, die of kidney failure,
that's just TOO BAD.

I believe it was Isaac Asimov, in one of his science
articles, who conjectured that uric acid may have been
instrumental in humans achieving and maintaining their
mental abilities. It seems to have a biological function
in some species, and it may be the "natural" caffeine.

We have lots of anti-immune diseases, but does that mean
we should weaken the immune system? Cholesterol is used
in the immune response; if what high cholesterol causes
is in the nature of an auto-immune response, we should be
wary of lowering it too much. Type 1 (juvenile) diabetes
is an auto-immune response, and there is a genetic tendency
to have it among those with strong immune genes. It has
been found that low cholesterol increases susceptibility
to infectious diseases.

Again what is low and how much is enough? You leave the field of philosophy
when you actually start experimenting to evaluate those variable. If you say
that a high cholesterol is good then see what happens when you raise
cholesterol in an experimental setting under any situation you want,
diabetes, high blood pressure.
If you have survey studies indicating it may be good in old age then why not
apply that ?

Quoted message said:

--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
[email hidden] Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

In article <[email hidden]>,

Robert said:

"Herman Rubin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Gregory Poon <[email hidden]> wrote:

....................

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I dunno, but saying cholesterol is good for you is on par as saying uric
acid is great for you because it's an antioxidant (which it is) but if

you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

end up getting up getting gout, or, worse still, die of kidney failure,
that's just TOO BAD.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I believe it was Isaac Asimov, in one of his science
articles, who conjectured that uric acid may have been
instrumental in humans achieving and maintaining their
mental abilities. It seems to have a biological function
in some species, and it may be the "natural" caffeine.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We have lots of anti-immune diseases, but does that mean
we should weaken the immune system? Cholesterol is used
in the immune response; if what high cholesterol causes
is in the nature of an auto-immune response, we should be
wary of lowering it too much. Type 1 (juvenile) diabetes
is an auto-immune response, and there is a genetic tendency
to have it among those with strong immune genes. It has
been found that low cholesterol increases susceptibility
to infectious diseases.

Quoted message said:

Again what is low and how much is enough? You leave the field of philosophy
when you actually start experimenting to evaluate those variable. If you say
that a high cholesterol is good then see what happens when you raise
cholesterol in an experimental setting under any situation you want,
diabetes, high blood pressure.
If you have survey studies indicating it may be good in old age then why not
apply that ?

There are problems with all of the current approaches. If
one compares natural populations, almost everything is suspect;
I can even find fault with the studies which indicate that
people who diet benefit; it can be that those who can stick to
a diet are biologically different.

This is why controlled experiments, with the data collectors and
subjects not knowing the treatments, are used. But there is the
dropout problem, and the current methods assume that this is not
related to the properties of the drug, or other relevant factors.

The appropriate studies have not been made, and even if they are,
conclusive results will not be in for decades. We can do better,
but not by using crude statistical methods.

--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
[email hidden] Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558