News Article: High cholesterol 'does not cause heart disease' new research finds

Point/Counterpoint

That last part under "not so fast", seems that he has a preconceived idea of what the conclusion should be.

Way too many pharmacists (or assistants) try to give advice based on incomplete information. They fail to realize that medicine is not a 'one size fits all' science. Doctors prescribe medications based on a wide range of their patients' medical info, not something they read off a computer screen.
That's why doctors go to medical school and get licenses to practice medicine.

Bama Reb said:

Way too many pharmacists (or assistants) try to give advice based on incomplete information. They fail to realize that medicine is not a 'one size fits all' science. Doctors prescribe medications based on a wide range of their patients' medical info, not something they read off a computer screen.
That's why doctors go to medical school and get licenses to practice medicine.

Click to expand...

Way too many pharmacists think they are "like" doctors. I dated one. She thought she was "practically a doctor".

TIDE-HSV said:

And the fact that they frequently are more up to date in knowing the effects/side effects of meds they dispense reinforces that self-opinion. One thing I've found is that, as one ages, you tend to pick up more specialists treating one or another part of aspect of your body, particularly in view of the tendency of doctors to pursue specialties more and more. It is not unknown for different specialists to prescribe meds which neutralize or are even dangerous, when combined with the meds prescribed by another specialist. When something new is mentioned, I ask the doc about side effects. Then, when I get home, I do my own research. For people who don't have the means or inclination to do that, the pharmacist is the only line of defense...

Click to expand...

Good point. On several occasions, one specialist has prescribed something for my mom, and when we went to get the Rx filled, the pharmacist said, "uh, that's gonna mess with your heart medicine--let's call both doctor's and get this sorted out, OK?"

FWIW, my take on the article was that if you haven't developed cholesterol-related heart disease by age 60, you're probably some genetic freak who's unaffected by cholesterol, so cholesterol meds might be a waste of time. But as has been noted, the research is a bit suspect.

We all need to be proactive with our diets, exercise, and any treatment we may need and stay attuned to how it effects us. That is the best way to help doctors help us.

One of the reasons I like my doctor is he gives full disclosure on all my meds. I had to take Levaquin for a lung infection and he informed me that patients have been known to tear achilles after taking it.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/05/opinions/debate-low-fat-diet-ludwig/index.html

Normally, science advances by trial and error. When an experiment fails, researchers question assumptions, formulate new ideas and then design better studies. But the field of nutrition is having a hard time of this when it comes to the low-fat diet debacle.

Click to expand...

Much of what we take as gospel truth is more dogma than science. The diet world is being turned on its head.

http://www.realclearlife.com/science/new-drug-significantly-reduces-risk-cholesterol/

Each year, 15 million people died from heart attacks, stroke, and other forms of cardiovascular disease and, often, bad cholesterol (LDL) is the cause. But, scientists think a new drug could change that.

Evolocumab, which changes how the liver works to reduce bad cholesterol, reduced the risk of heart attack and stroke by 15 percent, according to the BBC. It also cut the rate of death in patients suffering from those by 25 percent.

Click to expand...

DzynKingRTR said:

One of the reasons I like my doctor is he gives full disclosure on all my meds. I had to take Levaquin for a lung infection and he informed me that patients have been known to tear achilles after taking it.

Click to expand...

Note to self: keep legs away from people taking Levaquin.

Earle, interesting about you cholesterol. I've always felt lucky (so far) with having good numbers on cholesterol along with low blood pressure but I guess you just never know.

I'll explain this - and I'll explain it ONCE. No, I'm not an MD, but I DID attend the military's medical school and completed the academic portion (when my sleep apnea resulted in worldwide non-qualification, I was not permitted to do my residency to be a PA). Also - I've worked in the lab for almost 25 years.


High cholesterol never "caused" heart disease.....just like cigarette smoking never "caused" numerous forms of cancer (or for that matter - heart disease!)...and just like obesity never "caused" diabetes. Having unprotected sex never "caused" someone to get HIV, in and of itself. Drinking antifreeze - technically - doesn't kill you, it's the fact your liver metabolizes it to ammonia that kills you (which is why - for those who may not know - the immediate "out in the country" treatment for ethylene glycol poisoning is to give a person the highest proof booze you have, because the liver enzyme alcohol dehyrogenase will have a greater affinity for the normal booze and break it down first, flushing the ethylene glycol out the kidneys without metabolizing it. You might be on dialysis the rest of your life, but you'll be alive).

They are contributing factors that increase your RISK of getting those things but they are not 'cause/effect.' General Schwarzkopf had an acceptable PSA score but also had prostate cancer. David Letterman's cholesterol (not the joke level he gave) was reported at the time as around 173 as I recall (a co-worker and I were discussing it) when he had his heart issue. Furthermore, your cholesterol is going to be high if your HDL (the 'good cholesterol') is high in many cases. My Dad is 71 years old and has never had a cholesterol level below 240. He's also never taken a statin (he refuses because he's old school country 'only a doctor at death' type who thinks the medical establishment wants him to fry his liver so they can make him take other drugs - the man is so smart about so many things but that particular one.....).....and NEVER had a heart issue ever. (He did have two strokes on Father's Day last year).

Genetics plays the largest role by far. I'm probably doomed for some sort of cancer, even though neither of my parents has as yet had it. My Dad's family - his Dad and eight siblings - had seven succumb to various forms of cancer and two who were murdered. What role farming played in those (pesticides, etc) or smoking (pretty much all of them) I have no way of knowing, though they were all in their late 70s or older when they died.

But I'm with Earle in that I wouldn't put much stock in ANY single study. The simple fact is that we TRY to do what is generally right and within what science has shown over and over is the greater probability. I lost 102 pounds three years ago and I've managed to keep 77 off for two years (I haven't gained or lost a pound since last April). My A1C went from 6.3 (pre-diabetic) to 5.3 when I last checked it in December. Diabetes doesn't run in my family so my odds are pretty good - but I still am not going to say, "I'll just eat and be happy because my family doesn't get diabetes." And we've all seen folks who we thought were walking diabetic time bombs who weren't even close.

So to say high cholesterol "does not cause heart disease" is not even a finding since that's not the claim anyway. It CONTRIBUTES to heart disease. Or to word it more carefully "it increases your risk of heart-related problems." This does NOT mean you won't have them anyway.

It's just like building your house out of material X rather than material Y because X is more fire resistant - it doesn't mean your house won't burn down under the right circumstances.

I'm wary of this whole "doctors specialize in keeping people sick because it keeps patients coming back so they get them on drugs blah blah blah" nonsense. You want a truth most folks don't want to hear? Most patients - and I'm speaking generally - are lazy. They don't want to lose weight (for example) with diet and exercise, they want you to give them a pill or a surgery. That's just a harsh reality of life, which isn't to say there aren't people who do the right stuff. But pills and surgery - while the patients think they are cure alls - have other effects. You have to remember that EVERY drug you take (unless it's a placebo) has consequences and it's the old process of chemical reactions. Something as simple as chronic use of aspirin can lead to GI bleeding that kills you. Every non-natural substance you introduce to the body as a drug will have a counter activity somewhere, and it might be bad.

Same with surgery. Ever watch these folks who get the fat person surgery? Have you EVER seen one who kept the weight off? I never have. It might take five years but they're right back to what they were, because they didn't change anything.

And btw - before anyone wants to slam me on my assessment of lazy patients, two notes: 1) I include myself in that, I'm no different at my core; 2) there ARE folks who WILL listen, and those are the ones you try to reach since there's no way of knowing for sure which patient is which.

OK, I'm done for now unless someone wants to hear my true story about the time I got my cat drunk.....

NationalTitles16 said:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/05/opinions/debate-low-fat-diet-ludwig/index.html



Much of what we take as gospel truth is more dogma than science. The diet world is being turned on its head.

Click to expand...

Our biggest problem by far is processed food.

Processed food and sugar are definitely culprits.

Here is an interesting article from this week -- "Indigenous South American group has healthiest arteries of all populations yet studied, providing clues to healthy lifestyle"
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170317132004.htm