Thinking like sheep: High cholesterol is NOT a disease
Oh...to live in one of the world richest countries. It's so hard. Poor us.
We have so many terrible risks we face every day...like clean water, ample food supplies, and not enough of us are taking statins.
Yes, you read that right. We're at terrible risk from underuse of the world's number one selling drug.
Don't believe me about this looming danger? Just open a recent Time magazine that reported on a new cholesterol/statin review in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization.
Down in the dumps
"Results are depressing," says the Time author.
The review found that "effective medication coverage for control of high cholesterol remains disappointingly low."
So sad! I'm hoping Bono will start a concert to raise money for statin awareness (oh wait!).
According to the review: "Cholesterol-lowering medication is widely available, highly effective and can play an essential role in reducing cardiovascular disease around the world."
Oh brother! What nonsense!
Statins do lower cholesterol, but there's virtually no evidence that they do anything to protect you against heart disease.
But never mind the evidence! We're talking about mainstream mantra. So of course the Time article has to play along, as if this is just terrible, awful news.
"Japan has the worst record on prescribing cholesterol-lowering drugs," we're told.
Tut tut, Japan. It really is time to step up the drugging of your citizens.
"Germany and the U.S. also perform poorly."
Oh, the shame! Poor performance! How can we live with ourselves?
The WHO report says cardiovascular diseases were once thought of as "diseases of affluence" that are now common in "middle-income countries." But Time gets that wrong and says "high cholesterol" was once a disease of affluence.
It's a minor mistake, but it shows the mindset of the Time reporter: High cholesterol is a disease, so you better take your drugs.
High cholesterol is NOT a DISEASE! For most people it's not even a problem! In fact, driving cholesterol levels too low--THAT'S a real problem. Years ago, the Framingham Heart Study showed that total cholesterol levels under 160 actually caused heart disease problems to RISE (...a fact woefully absent from the Time story)!
The Times article calls statin under-medicating a "system failure." But from where I sit, it's the first successful thing I've read in the statin war.
Now if we could just get the world's other wealthy nations to join our cause.
About the author

Jenny Thompson is the Director of the Health Sciences Institute and editor of the HSI e-Alert. Through HSI, she and her team uncover important health information and expose ridiculous health misinformation, most notably through the HSI e-Alert.
Visit www.hsionline.com to sign up for the free HSI e-Alert.
OUTRAGE!! Billion-dollar drug company hides astounding discovery of a natural cancer killer.10,000 times stronger than chemo--but without the side effects!
Click here to read the full story of this astounding breakthrough…

Comments
Anonymous
This is utterly ridiculous, Japan I can understand is a country now with mixed emotions, modern cities with their cross over to American influence they opted for the worst from us, then again people in Okinawa they enjoy life to the fullest, healthy and no medication, Germany this puzzles the heck out of me they have the best cancer treatments in the world with less invasive treatments and they fell for this (crappolla) then again it will not surprise me that every thing related is money, money, and their concern for the citizens is actually zero, we need a revolution and not the one with riots, the revolution I am talking, is the revolution of knowledge, with some of the good Drs as teachers, whom by the way have sufficient information on general and independent studies that all this hype on cholesterol is not what they depict, feel free to comment. JAM
Anonymous
I really do wonder. I agree with the High Cholesterol problem being a myth. Howver, there is no clear guidance on what to do to reduce, eliminate or reverse arterial blockage. I have tried EDTA intravenous chelation - that did not work. What's left?
Maude
I have an 81-year-old (otherwise healthy) friend now in a rehab center, unable to walk and in terrible pain, as a result of the damage done to her muscles and nerves by the statin drug her doctor needlessly had her on, up until I managed to finally get her off of it just last week. And while Medicaid is more than willing to pay to keep her in this horrid condition, they will not pay for the intervention she now needs to repair the damage, because it requires a natural, rather than pharmaceutical approach.
If you're taking a cholesterol-lowering statin drug, PLEASE STOP NOW! If you're considering taking one ever in your lifetime, please don't! Visit SpaceDoc.net for excellent info on why statins are so dangerous to your health, as well as why saturated fats and cholesterol are, in fact, mandatory to a healthy body and mind.
And then please pass this on. I started a Stop-Statins-Now Campaign on Monday and have gotten 3 people off of them in the first week. Sending them to the Space Doc site makes it easy. One (older musician) friend on Crestor said, "This sounds like conspiracy theory s##t to me." So, I sent him a link to SD's Crestor side-effects page and half an hour later I got an e-mail saying, "Holy crap! I'm off of it as of right now!" I asked a customer service rep (I was placing an order with) if anyone in her life was on a statin. She said her husband was, and not feeling too hot. I told her to check out the SD site, and he was off the statin the next day. It works for me. It will work for you. They will never tell us this stuff on the news, unless a grassroots movement forces them to. I hope you'll join me!
http://www.spacedoc.net
Mark Kroger
I would love to see an article on the parasitics of earth worms, ants and insects in general. I can see the day coming when the only nutrients available will be from the insect kingdom.
Thank you for holding back the tide of Wall Street Pharmaceuticals, but with their new powerful ally of Obama Care, I can see the Acronym Police getting bolder and bolder in creating new markets for the drug cartel products including being the only source of supplements which I would then have to stop taking. Was it Harry Truman that said, "If you want a friend in DC, get a dog."
Thanks for teaching us how to get and stay healthy. I know I speak for a lot of folks when I say I look forward to your emails in my inbox.
Mark
Boomer12k
Gee, why don't they just ADD the Statins to our water, and food supply? Even countries without High Cholesterol would benefit, right? That ought to solve it....
Boy, as if the drug companies aren't making enough money!!!!
Control your DIET, and you control your cholesterol!!!!! End of Story!!!!! No refined flour and sugar products. No pastries, cookies, pies, cakes, donuts, candies, pop, or junk food. If you do them only as a SMALL snack fine. But BALANCE what you do with fruits and veggies, and even meat, and yes, if you can tolerate it dairy. If you are deficient in something, just start eating something with that in it....no brainer!!!! Stop clogging your system and your cells you are choking your body of nutrition. Fruits have a CLEANSING property, that helps flush bad stuff out of the system, and help clean up the blood, and vascular system. But don't go over board. Use a bit of common sense.
Be well and happy!
Steve
K.G. Rao
What NOBODY tells us in this debate, is whether monitoring LDL with a desirable target of <100, is as irrelevant as monitoring total chol. Even accepting the logic that inflammation is the key parameter to monitor, not tot.chol, surely it makes sense that hi LDL is a first step to plaque formation if, god forbid, inflammation sets in for any reason whatever, and so LDL should be monitored. And if so, what is the upper limit? Any views? Would appreciate hearing at
Lori
Ten years ago, the "cut off" for total cholesterol for people over 50 was 265. For those 40-49 it was 245, and for those 30-39 it was 225. Under 30 it was 200. And for LDL for all adults, acceptable ranged from 80-190. Yes, you're reading that correctly: 190!! LDL in and of itself is not the problem. It transports fat soluble nutrients from the liver to the cells. Our crappy diets high in refined grains, loaded with transfats, and void of essential fat soluble nutrients is what damages our arteries and makes LDL particles do nasty things. The reason the "cut off" numbers have changed is because there are now drugs to profit from. 50 plus years ago, people ate real food, real fats, little in the way of vegetable oils (which when heated become rancid and raise inflammation), and less grains. Since we've been told to cut fats, eat low fat versions of real fat foods, eat more grains and vegetable oils, the incidence of heart disease and all other chronic diseases have grown exponentially. What we really need are nutrients that have gone missing in our diets. Nutrients like K2 (anonymous 2 - you should really check out this info) that dictates calcium deposition and can actually move calcium from the arteries into the bones and teeth where it belongs; D3 which is implicated in the pathology of 17 different cancers, as well as heart disease etc; magnesium that relaxes smooth muscle tissue and provides a balance for calcium. We're being lied to and poisoned with drugs. For more info on cholesterol and how we got here with it, check out the info and link around on www.spacedoc.net. This is VERY scary stuff.
Anonymous
To Anonymous who tried EDTA Chelation, have you tried NattoKinase?, and SerraPeptase?, what about Vitamin C, L-Proline, and L-Lisine (The Linus Pauling Protocol?) curious...
K.G. Rao
Lori's comment of 14th Feb, which seems to be in response to my own, does tell me a bit reg my query on LDL, but rather obliquely. So ten yrs ago the recommended upper limit for LDL was 190, but the question is, for those who accept inflammation is the real culprit, is it IRRELEVANT to monitor LDL, or should one monitor it without being unduly worried by levels over 100, say upto 190? While totl chol of over 200 upto, say, 300, may not be anything to worry about, perhaps LDL 100-190 is a worry factor. Any views, Lori, or anyone else?
Lori
K.G. - I'm no expert, I was relating information from a text book. While it's been pretty well acknowleged that cholesterol in and of itself is not a decent marker for a heart attack, everyone needs to do what they're comfortable with. My understanding is that the particle size of LDL is more important than the level itself. Inflammation is an issue obviously, as it can damage arteries. I think looking at calcium factors related to artery health is really important, as calcium dysregulation, something I suspect is rampant in Americans, will certainly promote inflammation and cause accumulation of smaller LDL particles. Eating transfats, along with heated vegetable oils will also promote inflammation, and cause oxidation of LDL, which can cause artery damage. What I find interesting is that over the last few years as we've tried to reign in cholesterol levels, the incidence of heart disease continues to soar. And look at what we've done with food. The stuff Americans eat and drink has never been as predominant in our culture as it has the last couple of decades. I believe if we eat real whole food including small amounts of whole fats (including grass fed cultured dairy products), plenty of quality protein, lots of fresh vegetables and whole fruit, nuts and seeds, with small amounts of unrefined whole grains, get plenty of exercise, drink alcohol in moderation, and control our stress, while ditching all refined flour and sugar products (which will really tweak cholesterol and increase triglycerides), heated vegetable oils, transfats, and anything enriched or fortified with calcium, our cholesterol - LDL and HDL - will do exactly what it's supposed to for our bodies.
Post new comment