Normal Cholesterol Levels May Be Lowered…

Again!

Several years ago new recommendations were made to lower what was considered good cholesterol levels. If you’ll recall, they did this with the BMI which created 30 million “obese” people overnight.

These new LDL targets created a boon for the pharmaceuticals as this put millions more people into the UNhealthy cholesterol range requiring treatment with Statins.

Junkfood Science today reports that they may lower the LDL target range yet again, putting even more people on Statins:

We are all now abnormal and all shall have a pill

No, it’s not your imagination. They really said that.

As news media reported (verbatim from the press release), a new study published in the American Heart Journal found that nearly two-thirds of patients admitted to hospitals for heart attacks and cardiovascular events had low LDL-cholesterol levels, indicating they were not at high risk for heart problems. Yet — in another extraordinary example of ad-hoc reasoning — the authors concluded that since most heart attacks are occurring in people with low cholesterol levels, that this provided support for lowering the LDL-cholesterol goals even further.

They never applied Occam’s razor and considered the simpler, more obvious explanation: that cholesterol is a flawed risk factor and doesn’t predict who will go on to have a heart attack! Even the headline writers seemed to get that “cholesterol levels may not measure cardiac risk.”

© 2009 Sandy Szwarc

Read the FULL STORY here.

What I find amazing is that the majority of people admitted with heart problems had NO pre-disposition to heart disease and normal cholesterol levels. Of course, the highly educated medical professionals wouldn’t consider the obvious………..like maybe it’s not cholesterol after all?

According to the Washington Post article:

Cholesterol Levels May Not Measure Cardiac Risk

By Ed Edelson

HealthDay Reporter
Friday, January 16, 2009; 12:00 AM

FRIDAY, Jan. 16 (HealthDay News) — Nearly three-quarters of patients hospitalized for heart attacks had cholesterol levels indicating they were not at high risk for cardiovascular trouble, a new, nationwide study shows.

The finding points to the possibility that current guidelines on cholesterol levels should be changed, said study author Dr. Gregg C. Fonarow, a professor of cardiovascular medicine and science at the University of California, Los Angeles. His report appears in the current issue of the American Heart Journal.

“The LDL cholesterol range at which people have heart attacks shouldn’t be regarded as normal,” Fonarow said.

~snip~

While calling the study “excellent,” Dr. Manesh Patel, an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University, added, “The problem is that this is a snapshot, but we’re not sure we know all the risk factors and how they interplay.”

But it’s quite possible that the cholesterol guidelines will be changed, Patel said. “Ongoing studies have led to getting the LDL level to 100 and then to 70,” he said. “As more randomized trials come out, there may be further changes.”

© Copyright 1996-document 2009 The Washington Post Company

Read the FULL STORY here.

Once again, we see they won’t be happy until we are all popping their magic pills.

When you read the possible side effects, you have to wonder if you wouldn’t be better off taking your chances with a good attitude, some dietary change and little walking. I’m sure some prayer to whatever diety you choose wouldn’t hurt either.

According to Medicine Net:

What are the side effects of statins?

The most common side effects are:

The most serious (but fortunately rare) side effects are liver failure and rhabdomyolysis. Rhabdomyolysis is a serious side effect in which there is damage to muscles. Rhabdomyolysis often begins as muscle pain and can progress to loss of muscle cells, kidney failure, and death. It occurs more often when statins are used in combination with other drugs that themselves cause rhabdomyolysis or with drugs that prevent the elimination of statins and raise the levels of statins in the blood. Since rhabdomyolysis may be fatal, unexplained joint or muscle pain that occurs while taking statins should be brought to the attention of a healthcare provider for evaluation. Statins must not be used during pregnancy because of the risk of serious adverse effects to the developing fetus.

I don’t know about you, but I lose more trust for the medical professions every day.

Advertisements

~ by swfreedomlover on January 21, 2009.

3 Responses to “Normal Cholesterol Levels May Be Lowered…”

  1. I’ve been saying this for about a year now, that they’re going to keep lowering the diagnostic standards until everyone is considered at risk for some deadly disease and will have to take a myriad of pills. And when the side effects of those pills start killing people (which some already have), it’s not going to be the pills, it’s going to be “the patient was non-compliant” (didn’t take the drug properly, didn’t eat a proper diet, didn’t exercise enough, didn’t inform all his doctors of all the drugs he was taking [like they give a rat’s ass about drug interactions, just gives them an excuse to prescribe another medication]). I’ll take my chances and not take any drugs that are supposed to lower my cholesterol/blood pressure or prevent heart attacks (I’m a fatalist, if it’s destined to happen, it’s going to happen and it doesn’t matter how many precautions I took, it will happen anyway, in its own sweet time).

    • (I’m a fatalist, if it’s destined to happen, it’s going to happen and it doesn’t matter how many precautions I took, it will happen anyway, in its own sweet time)

      I’m the same way. I’ll do my part to a degree………..but I won’t stop living to do it, nor will I become a zombie or trade a little safety for a myriad of other problems. I’ve pretty much already proven to myself that no matter what you do or don’t do, when it’s your time, it’s your time. And if it’s not, it’s not. And nothing can or will change that.

  2. headache,
    nausea,
    vomiting,
    constipation,
    diarrhea,
    rash,
    weakness, and
    muscle pain

    I always love whent eh side effects can contradict themselves…will i get constipated, or have diarrhea???
    To eat Raisin Bran or to avoid it and replace the diet with bananas…… hmmmm, I think I’d prefer to just keep my happy butt on the toilet reading interesting articles, like the comics, than have the cramped up, solid bloating that only proves everyone’s hypothesis that I am in fact full of (blank). Better to read comics and be right, than to let others be proven right!

    But yes, overall….I’m not a drug kind of guy, despite what medical professionals might tell me. For the most part, my self abuse has still left me healtheir than all those people who choose to “do the right things”. Screw em, cuz I’m going to outlive everyone alive today. At least thats my goal. If I don’t, I expect beer and tobacco prodcuts at my funeral, not flowers…and you better be there!! LOL

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: