photohiker wrote:If pointing out that someone has bias is ad hominem, then there are no standards to the discussion.
Ok perhaps "ad hominem" is a bit strong but the point I was making is nobody seems to have paid much attention to what they have to say.
Just immediately dismissed as "charlatans" because they have a web site or sell a book. No further analysis required.
Very much a case of shoot the messenger and ignore the message.
Here's some science that everyone seems to be craving...
Lowering cholesterol concentrations and mortality: a quantitative review of primary prevention trials.Description: 24,847 male patients studied for impact of cholesterol reduction
Conclusion: The failure of cholesterol lowering to affect overall survival justifies a more cautious appraisal of the probable benefits of reducing cholesterol concentrations in the general population.
The Nurse's Health StudyDescription: Very famous study where approximately 200,000 nurses were followed up over multiple decades to get statistics on lifestyle factors affecting illness.
Conclusion: With regard to coronary heart disease and diet, Mediterranean-type diet reduces risk of incident CHD and stroke. Fish intake reduces risk of stroke. Nut and wholegrain consumption reduces risk of CHD. Refined carbohydrates and trans fats increase risk.
Note: based on their findings standard recommended dietary guidelines (low fat, high carbohydrate) actually increases risk.
In the list of significant findings nowhere is cholesterol mentioned as a factor for any illness whatsoever (really).
It beggars belief that cholesterol would not have been monitored as part of the research.
Cholesterol lowering trials in coronary heart disease: frequency of citation and outcome.Description: Attempt to measure bias by examing pro and anti-cholesterol citations in experiments.
Conclusion:Lowering serum cholesterol concentrations does not reduce mortality and is unlikely to prevent coronary heart disease. Claims of the opposite are based on preferential citation of supportive trials.
Low-Fat Dietary Pattern and Risk of Cardiovascular DiseaseDescription: Randomized controlled trial of 48 835 postmenopausal women aged 50 to 79 years, of diverse backgrounds and ethnicities, who participated in the Women's Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial.
Conclusion:Over a mean of 8.1 years, a dietary intervention that reduced total fat intake and increased intakes of vegetables, fruits, and grains did not significantly reduce the risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD in postmenopausal women and achieved only modest effects on CVD risk factors, suggesting that more focused diet and lifestyle interventions may be needed to improve risk factors and reduce CVD risk.
LDL Cholesterol:Bad Cholesterol, or Bad Science?Description: Review of current cholesterol science
Conclusion: The concept that LDL is bad cholesterol is a simplistic and scientifically untenable hypothesis. The inordinate focus on cholesterol, a perfectly natural substance that performs many crucial functions in the body, has taken and continues to take valuable resources and attention away from factors more closely related to heart disease. Independent-thinking practitioners must look at the readily available evidence for themselves, instead of relying on the continual stream of anticholesterol propaganda emanating from health authorities. By doing so, they will quickly realize that the LDL hypothesis is aggressively promoted for reasons other than public health.
BusinessWeek: Do Cholesterol Drugs Do Any Good?Conclusion: Based on tests performed by pharma companies themselves patients without prior heart disease that only 1 in 100 is likely to benefit from taking statins for years.
Some of the above studies were quoted directly or indirectly by the greedy "charlatans" interviewed on Catalyst so it must all be wacko "pseudo-science" I suppose.
They also made an interesting observation about the US panel that decided on healthy limits for cholesterol (beyond which statins should be prescribed).
Apparently something like 90% of the members of that panel had financial links to big pharma (no I dont have a source for this but will post if I find it).
The level at which cholesterol is deemed unhealthy, is literally a billion dollar decision for these drug companies. The fact that one person on these panel had links to big pharma would be a cause for major concern I would have thought.
As far as I can tell, the consensus seems to be that statins are only of benefit to middle-aged men who have suffered at least one heart-attack.
Limiting drugs sales to such a small subset of the market would obviously be an undesirable outcome for pharma companies.
Perhaps they did something like paying a
few million dollars to key stakeholders to go on speaking tours to ensure they got the result they wanted.
Of course the above articles/research is by no means conclusive. You can pretty much cherry-pick research to support whatever conclusion you want.
However I would say that rejecting the cholesterol hypothesis is more than just a fringe theory.
Seems to be a ground swell of people questioning the whole idea.