Cholesterol Levels: Heart of the Matter, Dietary Villains

[JEY100]

A half-hour major television network serious science show debunking the lipid hypothesis in Australia: Heart of the Matter, Dietary Villains

The Heart of the Matter – ABC (Australia) Catalyst Series – 24th of October, 2013 Is the role of cholesterol in heart disease really one of the biggest myths in the history of medicine? For the last four decades we’ve been told that saturated fat clogs our arteries and high cholesterol causes heart disease. It has spawned a multi-billion dollar drug and food industry of “cholesterol free” products promising to lower our cholesterol and decrease our risk of heart disease. But what if it all isn’t true? What if it’s never been proven that saturated fat causes heart disease? In this special two part edition of Catalyst, Dr Maryanne Demasi investigates the science behind the claims that saturated fat causes heart disease by raising cholesterol.

http://vimeo.com/77730824

From Dr. Eades blog:

Is cholesterol the villain it is made out to be by the medical authorities? Does too much cholesterol cause heart disease? Will it shorten your life? Should you avoid saturated fats to stay free from heart disease? The answers to these questions are not the ones most people would anticipate. The video below provides a different perspective.

About three months ago I got an email from a television producer in Australia informing me she was going to be in the US and would like to interview me. I consented, and the resultant TV show was just show last night in Oz.

It may be the first time a major television network devoted a serious show to debunking the lipid hypothesis. As readers of the blog are all too aware, most take the opposite approach. Let’s hope this one starts a trend. It would be nice to have an investigative reporter go after a lot of these mainstream lipid guys. As you will see, they look pretty uncomfortable under intensive questioning. Unlike those of us on this side of the debate, they’re not used to being questioned as to the validity of their views.


Enjoy!

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/lipid-hypothesis/5257/

Dr. Eades, Sinatra, Bowden and Gary Taubes featured.

[teaser]

About ten minutes into the video, a fellow from the National Heart Foundation in Australia makes the argument that dietary interventions are hard--that saturated fat clearly causes heart disease by raising cholesterol, but that it's almost impossible to prove this in a study because of poor long-term compliance. This is the second thread in several days in which an "expert" made this defense. How damning is that? If the best defense that the diet-heart hypothesis (saturated fat is the villain) defenders can come up with is that their position is true but unproven (and pretty much unprovable)--well, you wouldn't choose that as your defense if you had a better alternative, would you?

Even if he was right--what does he have? An intervention that it's impossible to get the general public to actually adhere to. Certainty that people can flap their butt cheeks and fly to the moon is pretty useless if you can't actually get anybody to try it.

[Aradasky]

More from Dr. Mike


The Blog of Michael R. Eades, M.D.
Cholesterol levels: Are they really that important?
Posted: 24 Oct 2013 02:01 PM PDT
Is cholesterol the villain it is made out to be by the medical authorities? Does too much cholesterol cause heart disease? Will it shorten your life? Should you avoid saturated fats to stay free from heart disease? The answers to these questions are not the ones most people would anticipate. The video below provides a different perspective.

About three months ago I got an email from a television producer in Australia informing me she was going to be in the US and would like to interview me. I consented, and the resultant TV show was just show last night in Oz.

It may be the first time a major television network devoted a serious show to debunking the lipid hypothesis. As readers of the blog are all too aware, most take the opposite approach. Let’s hope this one starts a trend. It would be nice to have an investigative reporter go after a lot of these mainstream lipid guys. As you will see, they look pretty uncomfortable under intensive questioning. Unlike those of us on this side of the debate, they’re not used to being questioned as to the validity of their views.

Enjoy!

Click here to view (http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/lipid-hypothesis/5257/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+drmikenutritionblog+%28The+Blog+of+Michael+R.+Eades%2C+M.D.%29) the embedded video.

The post Cholesterol levels: Are they really that important? appeared first on The Blog of Michael R. Eades, M.D..

[JEY100]

:lol: He has the deer in the headlights look after some of her questions. Their Facebook page goes into classic crisis mode...Fat? Did we say fat? Let's talk about Salt. http://www.dietdoctor.com/heart-foundation-facebook-page-crisis-mode-tv-show

This is entertaining. Yesterday an Australian TV-show detailed how saturated fat has nothing to do with heart disease. Today the Australian Heart Foundation’s Facebook page is in damage control mode. While more and more Australians are getting obese the Heart Foundation is choosing to campaign against salt (of doubtful importance) and collecting industry money for recommending candy for breakfast. They are way behind the times. Perhaps you can help them wake up. The Heart Foundation on Facebook

[Cleome]

The Facebook comments are great!

[JEY100]

The official "Everything in Moderation" response has had multiple requests to see that evidence base...we're still waiting...

A message from Lyn Roberts, Heart Foundation’s National CEO: “There has been some debate on our page this week on saturated fat and cholesterol and I wanted to reiterate that our recommendation remains quite simple: everything in moderation, except smoking.

I can assure you we take our role as Australia’s leading voice for heart health with great responsibility and are committed to providing information based on the best available evidence from across the world. We stand by the comprehensive evidence base on which we base our information for the public. Our guidelines are developed by the country’s best academics, researchers, health professionals and other experts external to our organisation to ensure transparency. The process ensures a robust position paper that reflects the conclusions of the strongest evidence available at the time.

The Heart Foundation values the ongoing support of the community. We are committed to continuing to assist people with heart health information."

[WereBear]

A message from Lyn Roberts, Heart Foundation’s National CEO: “There has been some debate on our page this week on saturated fat and cholesterol and I wanted to reiterate that our recommendation remains quite simple: everything in moderation, except smoking.


Glad to know heroin's okay then :)

The human habit of defensiveness seems to serve no useful purpose except as a way of saving one's hide in a punitive society. I find it's great to admit when I'm wrong; I dodge a lot of suffering that way.

Look at Ancel Keyes; I do believe he hung in there as long as he did to squish any opposition to the stuff which made him famous. Can you sue scientists for being bad scientists?

Can we sue doctors who didn't know any better? To me, the resistance to shifting with new evidence is what should get people all upset.

As we say in the US; it's always the cover-up that gets you.

[Cleome]

The Aust. HF is getting well-deserved criticism for the requirements for its 'tick of approval'. Tick criteria (http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/healthy-eating/heart-foundation-tick/Pages/tick-facts.aspx)

Tick criteria
We make sure that every Tick product contains less of the bad stuff and more of the good stuff. So Tick foods have reduced levels of unhealthy saturated fat, trans fat, salt and kilojoules (energy); and more healthy nutrients like fibre, vegetables and calcium. We judge a food as whole, as it’s eaten, and not just according to one nutrient.

We are often asked why sugar is not a Tick criterion. What's interesting is that a seemingly high sugar content doesn't automatically make a food 'bad'. It’s important to look at the food as a whole, taking into account the other nutrients it contains.

Made up of mostly sugar and/or fat, a high kilojoule chocolate bar or soft drink is rightly considered an unhealthy food because it’s also low in nutrition. On the flip side a wholegrain breakfast cereal, yoghurt or piece of fresh or dried fruit can also be high in sugar but also very nutritious. To overcome this, we strictly monitor serve size and kilojoules (energy) in Tick products. By limiting kilojoules, the level of sugar in a food is automatically taken into account. Research continues to show that excessive energy intake is the major contributor to being overweight or obese.

The NHMRC (National Health and Medical Research Council) recently reviewed all available evidence to update the Australian dietary guidelines and concluded that sugar as an individual nutrient was only important in relation to dental caries.

...If we were to consider only sugars in a food, it would mean foods like breakfast cereals, yoghurts and even fresh and dried fruit would appear to be poor choices as they can be higher in sugars than other foods despite providing vital nutrients for good health.

In my neck of the woods ticks are very unhealthy. They carry Lyme disease ;-).

[Cleome]

Glad to know heroin's okay then :).

I like this response in the Aust. HF Facebook comments:

Cyndi O'Meara: If I hear somebody else say everything in moderation I'll scream. I wouldn't touch margarine, breakfast cereals, commercial yogurts, Lean Cuisine, Healthy Choice, modified milks, and all the other ridiculous food chemicals you put your tick on. My body is all I get I will treat it with the up most respect by feeding it what any evolutionary body needs. Real foods, not foods laced with additives, preservatives, flavourings, fortification with synthetic nutrients, man made and artificial sweeteners and the list goes on. As you probably know HF as a nutritionist, author and health advocate I haven't supported you for decades, since I graduated from Deakin University and University of Colorado. I refuse to donate to an association that is more about itself then that of the Australian people. Like I said previously become the hero and make the changes that are needed in order to turn the tide on the growing obesity, morbid obesity and heart disease rates that are hurting Australian families. Not only is their physical health being damaged but also their mental health. We have youth in a desperate situation because of the nutritional guidelines that you support. There is a plea from the people, listen to it and make the changes that you know will change the health of the Australian people.

[RawNut]

Speaking of moderation, there's a new study out suggesting that ApoE4 carriers shouldn't drink moderately or even lightly.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24049153

[ojoj]

....... and in answer to the obesity epidemic in the UK........http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24668937

Jo xxx

[RobLL]

But do keep in mind that most people can eat far higher amounts of carbs and even wheat than others of us. And even the much maligned food pyramid suggested about 200 grams of carbs plus fruit. Far less than many of us were eating in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.

[teaser]

I don't know about most people, long-term, in this culture. I don't have a lot of friends who haven't ended up pot-bellied in middle age. When I was eighteen, I probably looked like somebody who could afford to eat lots of carbs--even as early as twenty-five, and I most decidedly did not.

[Angeline]

I really enjoyed the raw footage of the video interviews for this piece. I specially enjoyed Gary Taubes interview. Many people have trouble understanding how the authorities could have gotten it so horribly wrong and are doubtful for that reason. "Saturated fat is bad", and "cholesterol causes heart disease" have been proven beyond the shadow of doubt by now no ? Gary's paints a horrible, but very compelling picture of how it all went so wrong. Basically the health authorities have been trying to prove to the public that coins have only one side. It's easy to do if you discard all evidence that coins have a flip side.

I love short videos like that, because they are more compelling than dry text. The next time someone expresses astonishment that the prevailing theories could be wrong, you can point them to this video.

[ojoj]

.... and then theres this!!!!!!!!!! http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3878646.htm

As my hero, Dr. Malcolm Kendric says "If you cannot win the argument, bully your opponents into submission"

Jo xxx

[RobLL]

Years ago Willet, while not willing to buck the establishment, made a point of noting that the demonization of saturated fat was poorly supported by the evidence. He also recommended being cautious about soy.

[Cleome]

Professor urges ABC to pull Catalyst episode on cholesterol drugs (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-28/professor-says-abc-catalyst-episode-could-result-in-deaths/5050866), says it could result in deaths By Tom Nightingale

Updated October 29, 2013 08:00:33

A leading public health physician is warning the ABC not to air a second program on cholesterol, saying it could result in deaths.

Last week Catalyst claimed the notion that saturated fat and cholesterol causes heart disease is the biggest myth of medical history.

This Thursday's program is about anti-cholesterol drugs known as statins, which are widely used in Australia.

The chair of the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Medicines has written to the ABC in a private capacity, warning the program might cause people not to take their drugs.

[jmh]

Just heard on Dr Maryanne Demasi's twitter feed that someone has approached the Australian Prime Minister (Tony Abbott) to get the programme pulled. Not sure how true that is - interesting stuff!!

[ojoj]

I wonder how this all sits with the recent change in Swedens dietary advice http://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2013/10/20/sweden-gets-is-right/ one country says one thing and another country contradicts it??

Jo xxx

[Ken66]

I really hope the Catalyst show and Demasi hold firm and air the second part critical of stains. I'm amazed at the lengths the establishment is going to to try to censor her science documentary. Terrible.

She did the excellent report on sugar a few months back and I didn't hear of anyone trying to suppress that show. I guess the anti-fat believers feel a lot more threatened.

[JEY100]

Promo for Thursday show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6lwzF0sB1U

[Cleome]

Dr Maryanne Demasi's twitter feed is an interesting read
https://twitter.com/MaryanneDemasi

From the promo for the next Catalyst show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6lwzF0sB1U&feature=player_detailpage&list=UUR_kFbcwWy1cKLCkmcMf4lg):

Published on Oct 28, 2013

The Heart of the Matter Part 2 - Cholesterol Drug War

We've been told that medications to lower cholesterol can save lives. And now over 40 million worldwide take drugs to lower their cholesterol.

But what if the majority of these patients won't benefit from taking these pills?

And, what if drug companies are distorting the data to make cholesterol lowering medications seem more effective than they are?

In our second episode of Heart of the Matter airing on Thursday the 31st of October, Dr Maryanne Demasi puts the billion dollar drug industry under the microscope, and asks who really benefits from taking cholesterol lowering medication?

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/
https://www.facebook.com/ABCCatalyst
https://twitter.com/ABCCatalyst

[ojoj]

I really hope the Catalyst show and Demasi hold firm and air the second part critical of stains. I'm amazed at the lengths the establishment is going to to try to censor her science documentary. Terrible.

She did the excellent report on sugar a few months back and I didn't hear of anyone trying to suppress that show. I guess the anti-fat believers feel a lot more threatened.


Theres huge amounts of money in statins and the pharmaceutical industry run the game - for now!

Jo xxx

[WereBear]

I believe that statins are so bad that one crack in the dam and a lot of collapses follow.

If anyone LOOKS at the actual stats... there goes the billions.

[ojoj]

I believe that statins are so bad that one crack in the dam and a lot of collapses follow.

If anyone LOOKS at the actual stats... there goes the billions. I think the problem isnt only the money from statins, but if they are found to be as bad and as detrimental to health as they are, we're looking at a huge amount of litigation and compensation payouts and from who - the pharmaceutical companies? The NHS/private insurance companies? the FDA? Our governments?

'Tis a very big problem and this is why statins need to be protected IMO. Hense the "hoo haa" re this documentary

Jo xxx

[Ken66]

I was really disappointed watching BBC Trust Me I'm a Doctor recently where the host, Dr. Michael Mosley, after listening to two experts with opposite opinions on statins, decided to continue taking statins.

I thought he would know better, but after watching many of his programs, I guess he's still too much a mainstream believer.

[keith v]

I do hope the drug companies are making a LOT of money off statins, cause like Jo says, when it collapses theres going to be a huge class action Lawsuit. I predict cigarette level lawsuit

[jmh]

I was really disappointed watching BBC Trust Me I'm a Doctor recently where the host, Dr. Michael Mosley, after listening to two experts with opposite opinions on statins, decided to continue taking statins.

I thought he would know better, but after watching many of his programs, I guess he's still too much a mainstream believer.


That is disappointing. You would think when somebody smart gets two opposing opinions he would go and look up the studies himself.

One thing I notice about smart people is that they often place undue reliance on the opinions/advice of other smart people (who can be wrong!).

[ojoj]

Episode 2

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3881441.htm

Jo xxx

[Elizellen]

Thanks for posting the link, Jo!

I see they added a "disclaimer" voiceover at the start and finish of the programme, but it seemed pretty conclusive to me, and confirmed info I had seen elsewhere.

Unfortunately my hubby has been on statins for many, many years but places great faith in "doctors" so will not question anything :(

[ojoj]

TBH, I'm finding this all quite scary now. I have my beliefs and I live and "eat" by them, but how can it be that a whole nation - several nations can be so wrong?? yes, I know theres money involved and "vested interests", but this is the 21st century and this is playing with peoples lives. You only have to look around malls, the streets, public places, on this forum, to see how many people are being disfigured and disabled (obesity IS a form of both isnt it - sorry) by the governments advice - or am I missing something?? If its proved they're wrong and it feels quite close now, how on earth are they going to compensate our countries people who have tried and failed???

Jo xxx

[CMCM]

At one point there was such a push for women to take hormone drugs as menopause began. I hate taking anything, and always refused. I had no real symptoms, why take them? The doctor tried to say I still needed it to protect my heart. Thank goodness I resisted, as it later became suspected that the hormone drugs were linked to heart issues in women. But as the pharma market lost that drug (their biggest seller, apparently), statins took over. Then the doctor was all of a sudden astounded by my cholesterol, which was suddenly "too high", and gosh darn, I MUST take statins to lower it. This I also refused. BTW, the "ideal" cholesterol level keeps getting lowered....to allow more people to take the statins, in my opinion!

I felt horrible until I found Atkins and started to eat that way. I refuse to believe that eating in a way that made me feel horrible was better for me. Eating natural foods including fats (but no trans fats) agrees with me 1000%. I have high cholesterol, but so what? My HDL is phenomenally high, my Tri's are generally quite low, and my LDL, while frighteningly high according to my doctor, consists of the fluffy particle type. There is no heart disease in my family, and many of us have high cholesterol numbers (relatively high). My grandmother lived to 99, my mom is healthy at 92. I'm not going to worry about it and I'm not succumbing to marketing pressure. I've dealt with enough other issues in which doctors are woefully ignorant (celiac disease, as one example) that I remain quite skeptical about the general medical hoardes. My GP freely admits that what he learned since medical school generally came from pharmaceutical reps, all of which are pushing the statins like crazy, by the way.

[CMCM]

TBH, I'm finding this all quite scary now. I have my beliefs and I live and "eat" by them, but how can it be that a whole nation - several nations can be so wrong?? yes, I know theres money involved and "vested interests", but this is the 21st century and this is playing with peoples lives. You only have to look around malls, the streets, public places, on this forum, to see how many people are being disfigured and disabled (obesity IS a form of both isnt it - sorry) by the governments advice - or am I missing something?? If its proved they're wrong and it feels quite close now, how on earth are they going to compensate our countries people who have tried and failed???

Jo xxx

Jo, off the subject of this thread, but I just read your success story and you are SUCH an inspiration and a true success because you found out what to do (Atkins) and you took charge of yourself, set a goal, and exceeded it. Better yet, you don't appear to battle the carb demons any more and you have maintained your loss for a lot of years now....that's the real story of success!
Carole

[Ken66]

TBH, I'm finding this all quite scary now. I have my beliefs and I live and "eat" by them, but how can it be that a whole nation - several nations can be so wrong?? yes, I know theres money involved and "vested interests", but this is the 21st century and this is playing with peoples lives. You only have to look around malls, the streets, public places, on this forum, to see how many people are being disfigured and disabled (obesity IS a form of both isnt it - sorry) by the governments advice - or am I missing something?? If its proved they're wrong and it feels quite close now, how on earth are they going to compensate our countries people who have tried and failed???Thanks for the link. I watched it. It was great. As was Part I and also Demasi's program on sugar a few months back. The doctor suggesting muscle pains from statins were just in patients heads and not real was horrible. Demasi's bit comparing statins with ketchup was funny and sad.

But do I think it will make any difference? I don't see how the whole scientific establishment and culture can be turned around to see that our problems are not caused by saturated fat and high cholesterol. There's just too much vested in the status quo and it makes too much money to give it up no matter how much proof there is to the contrary.

I just don't think the "incalculable damage" as Taubes says, will ever be redressed.

We each need to stop listening to "experts" and figure out what works by experimentation, not theory or authority.

[Seejay]

I have my beliefs and I live and "eat" by them, but how can it be that a whole nation - several nations can be so wrong?? Do you think that whole nations, and several of them, can't be wrong? Or maybe I should say, did you think that widely held beliefs must be true because otherwise they wouldn't be widely held.

I can think of several examples from history where whole societies believed in something that either turned out really bad, or wasn't true, or the whole rest of the world thought the opposite.

Also in the history of medicine there are examples of society-wide "general practice" that have turned out to be ill-advised, ignorant and enforced by doctor group standards. Like childbirth doctors and hand-washing. Or pellagra in the US South in the 20s. Or thalidomide.

I don't think we can blame the ignorant for what they don't know. Doctors have defined themselves as delivering medical treatment. Hence why would they learn about something that was not that. Of course the assumption is that health comes out of it, but basically they deliver drugs and procedures.

Doctors are the ones who set the curriculum in med school. It's not like good doctors wish someone told them. The good doctors keep learning for themselves.

[aj_cohn]

We each need to stop listening to "experts" and figure out what works by experimentation, not theory or authority.

QFT. Ironically, as people gradually do this more often, it will do two things:

Discredit the medical profession for nutrition advice, which is what they're afraid of if they do an about face
Allow to the medical profession gradually to follow the public's lead

[WereBear]

Dr. Atkins started his diet-related treatment plan because of research he had been discussing with a doctor friend.

Dr. Davis suggested cutting out grains because of the blood sugar lowering possibilities suggested by glycemic index research.

It's not like the research isn't out there. In fact, I bet a team could look at the raw data and pull together more and better conclusions than the ones that got us eating low fat and high carb.

It's getting people to look at the evidence and listen to ideas that's the problem.

[Angeline]

This quote is restoring some of my faith in the scientific community :

Doctor Steve Hambleton, the president of the Australian Medical Association, thinks the program should go to air.

"I think we have to have a debate. And I think that there needs to be balance," he said.

"We need to, as medical professionals, justify why we choose drugs. We do criticise others for not acting on evidence. We need to be judged by the same criteria.

"So if there's a good reason to take it, we should be able to explain it, and we should be able to explain the risks and the benefits of any treatment."

[Karhys]

Looks like the Heart Foundation decided to double-down in their stance:

http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/news-media/Media-Releases-2013/Pages/cholesterol-important-risk-factor-heart-disease.aspx

http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/news-media/Media-Releases-2013/Pages/cholesterol-medication.aspx

Bloody idiots, in my opinion, but there you go. Those very firm statements are going to bite them in the arse in a few years time.

I feel like I'm seeing this "new" message (the wait, we got it all wrong about saturated fat message) more and more in the media lately, and when I talk to general people (friends, acquaintances, my hairdresser - no really) more and more people seem to already know the "new" message. It's really changed even from just a few years ago, and it gives me hope, even though I'm a jaded cynic.

[JEY100]

That PR on statins basically says what the HF spokesperson did...if the patient has diagnosed heart disease or has had a heart attack..statins may reduce the risk of another (by what means not stated). A doctor in the Cholesterol Clarity interviews also said if the patient is an overweight man, who refuses to give up smoking, doesn't exercise, etc. Then a statin might help. The other risk factors are important. But that still leaves millions of normal weight with TC of 200-260 (many women in their 60s I know) on statins. The HF Press release really didn't address them, but Catalyst did. The press releases are interesting for what they did not tackle. By putting it out, they are are going to have to provide that huge evidence base. I agree the message on good fats is more common ....my hairdresser and her 20 something office manager and her young friends are doing Paleo...coconut oil all around :)

[teaser]

http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/HW-FS-Sterols-Stanols-PS-LR.pdf

Their page on plant sterols is interesting. They recommend these based on nothing except for their ability to reduce ldl cholesterol.

There is no consistent evidence that would lead to safety concerns associated with the short-term consumption of phytosterols and stanols, although long-term safety studies have not been performed.

If long-term safety studies are absent, I think it's safe to say that long-term effectiveness studies are as well.

Disgusting that these people are taken so seriously by the public and by medical professionals in general, really.

This reminds me of the insulin fiasco. Stephen Guyunet has pointed out that certain insulin "mimics" have a slimming effect. So insulin can't be the fattening hormone, right? But an insulin mimic is simply defined as something that lowers blood glucose--or allows the body to control blood glucose with less insulin. This could happen by increasing the fat cell's appetite for glucose--and make us fatter, as many diabetes drugs do. Or it could cause greater uptake and use of glucose by muscle--or improved storage of glucose as glycogen, so that after a meal, the body gets back to burning fat sooner. Even if lowering cholesterol is desirable, how we lower it would still matter.

[JEY100]

Dr Eades review of Part 2 on statins:

Statins: Not for everyone...Maybe not for anyone.

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/statins/statins-everyone-maybe-anyone/

[Bonnie OFS]

Unfortunately my hubby has been on statins for many, many years but places great faith in "doctors" so will not question anything :(

Mine too. He had bypass surgery 18 years ago and has been on statins ever since. His argument for keeping the statins is 2-fold: 1- many of his relatives died fairly young from heart disease and 2- he's still alive.

Being that I'm the head cook, I'm getting some healthy fats in him. He actually ate the chicken skin the other night! :yum:

And he's very nice about not leading me into temptaion by buying bread. He eats my flax bread which is made with coconut oil. And doesn't complain. :)

[Elizellen]

Gosh - well done! Mine turns his nose up at my "weird" bread (his description) and sticks to his cornflakes with milk for breakfast though he does use sweetener instead of sugar.

Though at nearly 82 years old and with stents and a 3 year old pacemaker he isn't doing so badly, I suppose.

[Bonnie OFS]

Though at nearly 82 years old and with stents and a 3 year old pacemaker he isn't doing so badly, I suppose.

Tell him congrats on keeping alive! Mine is 78 and still going strong. So far his heart is still doing well. Which is good as he has stated that he won't undergo heart surgery again. Even tho he was a young and vigorous 60 at the time, recovery was difficult.

[keith v]

I was watching the oldies TV station on Sunday (Cheech and Chong is a classic now !) and it's all medical commercials, kinda scary.
But what really got my attention was the ad for a class action lawsuit against Lipitor. apparently it has been decided in a court of law that Lipitor causes an increased risk of diabetes in women?

So yay your cholesterol is lower, but oh sorry you're now diabetic...

seems like a bad thing!

[Liz53]

Yes, and by the way, doesn't diabetes increase the true risk for heart disease?

[ojoj]

Yes, and by the way, doesn't diabetes increase the true risk for heart disease?


Ironically, I dont believe that diabetes increases the risk, but the cause of diabetes is the same as the cause for CHD - carbohydrates, in particular refined flour and sugar! Which has nothing to do with statins - or saturated fat!

Jo xxx

[Seejay]

I was watching the oldies TV station on Sunday (Cheech and Chong is a classic now !) and it's all medical commercials, kinda scary.I've noticed that too. Also ED treatments are all over the golf channel. Those poor guys, don't know it can be fixed with lower carb and some strength training. They must not read Art DeVany - or their wives don't, lolol.

[Liz53]

Ironically, I dont believe that diabetes increases the risk, but the cause of diabetes is the same as the cause for CHD - carbohydrates, in particular refined flour and sugar! Which has nothing to do with statins - or saturated fat!

Jo xxx

True. Diabetes may not cause heart disease, but it is a marker just the same.

[ojoj]

True. Diabetes may not cause heart disease, but it is a marker just the same.

Definitely. They're both caused by the same thing, so if you get one from overeating bad carbs, then its likely you'll get the other! Thats my take on it all!?

Jo xxx

[keith v]

So I wonder if people, esp women apparently(?), when put on statins increase their carb intake and lower their fat intake increasing the rate of diabetes?
Where men are more likely to say, F it, I'm eating my hamburger?

[Rosebud]

I apologize if the link (http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3881441.htm) to this has already been posted, but here is the transcript of last Thursday's Catalyst's Heart of the Matter Part 2 - Cholesterol Drug War

NARRATION
We've been told that medications to lower cholesterol will save lives.

Professor Beatrice Golomb
We repeatedly hear from patients that their doctors tell them, 'If you don't take this, you will die.'

NARRATION
Over 40 million people worldwide take drugs to lower their cholesterol. But now there's evidence that the majority of them won't benefit.

Professor Rita Redberg
None of those people are less likely to die.

NARRATION
I speak to doctors accusing the drug companies of distorting the evidence about the drug's side effects.

Dr John Abramson
Of course they're going to try to minimise the adverse events 'cause that will increase the sales of their drugs.

Professor Beatrice Golomb
In its effect it's certainly scientific fraud, and in its effect it's organised crime.

Dr Maryanne Demasi
So how do these drugs work? And are they really safe? I've come to the United States to investigate how drugs to lower cholesterol came to be the most widely prescribed drugs in the history of medicine.

NARRATION
The '80s saw the debut of a new weapon in the battle against heart disease - a novel class of drugs called 'statins' that lowered cholesterol like no other medication before them.

Dr Ernest N Curtis
They were heralded as... Nirvana. The next great thing. Because all of a sudden, now you're getting 30-40% reduction with statins, which was huge. And this was great news to the people who were pushing the cholesterol theory, because they said, 'Aha! Now we don't have to settle for these piddling little amounts anymore - we can really show how important cholesterol is by knocking it way down.'

Man, in advertisement
..medical information comes along that say you may need to get...

NARRATION
In the US, influential TV ads like this use popular actors to boast the enormous potential of these drugs.

Man, in advertisement
Crestor, along with diet, can lower bad cholesterol by up to 52%.

NARRATION
But the reality is - lowering your cholesterol with medication doesn't guarantee you won't have a heart attack.

Professor Rita Redberg
The marketing concentrates on the fact that you can lower your cholesterol as if that was the end in itself, which it is not. Cholesterol's just a lab number. Who cares about lowering cholesterol unless it actually translates into a benefit to patients?

NARRATION
Over the decades, drug companies have had an enormous vested interest in statin drugs.

Dr Ernest N Curtis
It's the most profitable group of drugs in the history of the world. Something like $15 to 25 billion, with a 'B', per year, spent on these drugs. So that's higher than the gross national product of many countries around the world.

Dr John Abramson
Lipitor is the bestselling drug in history. So in terms of cost, total sales of Lipitor have been in the range of $140 billion since it came on the market in 1996.

NARRATION
Statins work by disabling a critical step early in the formation of cholesterol.

Dr Jonny Bowden
There's a pathway that produces cholesterol in the body. You could think of it like a tree. So, we've decided collectively that one of the branches of this tree is bad, meaning cholesterol. So we've decided that the best way to get rid of that branch is to cut the tree off at the root.

NARRATION
Statins inhibit this enzyme, which is also required for essential molecules like Coenzyme Q10. Nutritionist Dr Jonny Bowden says CoQ10 is essential for optimal heart muscle function.

Dr Jonny Bowden
This is partly, we believe, why so many side effects have to do with lack of energy, muscle pain - because Coenzyme Q10 is so vital. So what's the irony of giving people a drug to reduce something that probably doesn't even have that much to do with heart disease, that also reduces one of the molecules that's most necessary for heart health? How insane is that?

Dr John Abramson
It's assumed that the cholesterols a toxic substance in your body and getting it as low as you can is a good thing. Well, cholesterol is the organic molecule that's most common in your brain, by weight. It's in every cell wall. It's the precursor of many of the hormones in our body. It's an enormously complex molecule. And to think that you can radically pull this out of the body and not have consequences is just... it's ridiculous, it's such bad science.

Dr Maryanne Demasi
It's been about 30 years since statins were first introduced as the new blockbuster drug in heart disease. And millions of people around the world are being prescribed these medications. But many are concerned that the benefits of these drugs have been grossly exaggerated.

NARRATION
Professor Rita Redberg is a world-renowned cardiologist. She says, barring a genetic condition, the only people who live longer by taking a statin are those that have already had a heart attack or stroke.

Professor Rita Redberg
Valve's working great.

Patient
That's good.

Professor Rita Redberg
Yeah.

NARRATION
And of them, only a very small number will benefit.

Professor Rita Redberg
One or two people in a hundred will benefit from taking a statin. What people don't understand is that means the other 98 will get no benefit at all. It's not going to reduce their chance of dying.

NARRATION
But this hasn't limited their use. These drugs are now being widely prescribed to relatively healthy people - those without diagnosed heart disease. And Dr Redberg warns most of them won't benefit.

Professor Rita Redberg
For healthy people, even people that have a lot of risk factors. So they might have high blood pressure, they might smoke, they might have diabetes. The data is not there to suggest that those people are better off taking a statin. No, I don't think it's a wonder drug.

NARRATION
But Dr David Sullivan disagrees. He says all the risk factors should be considered equally, including cholesterol.

Assoc Prof David Sullivan
If you want to mount these arguments about not treating the cholesterol, you've got to take the responsibility of saying it's not necessary to treat these other risk factors either. I would certainly encourage people who are considering cessation of treatment for perceived side effects and so forth to discuss it with their doctor.

NARRATION
In 2012 there was an interesting turn of events. The CTT collaboration, a highly regarded group of researchers, reanalysed all of the old data with different methods and concluded that statins were effective for the wider population. The report was subject to harsh criticism, but it's still the data that many cardiologists turn to. The media jumped on board and reported that everyone over the age of 50 should be taking a statin to reduce their risk of heart disease, even if you had normal cholesterol. But Professor Redberg says there's a downside.

Professor Rita Redberg
None of those people are less likely to die. So you can take a statin for many, many years and you're just as likely to die as if you had not taken a statin.

Dr Maryanne Demasi
Unless you've already been diagnosed with heart disease, then taking a statin won't help you live longer. It may reduce your risk of a cardiovascular event, but it may also increase your risk of developing something else, like diabetes. Either way, taking a statin won't extend your life span.

NARRATION
Dr Abramson says cardiologists are so focused on how these drugs prevent blood vessel disease they often overlook the other problems caused by statins.

Dr John Abramson
People are more than their cardiovascular system, and what we really want to do is improve people's overall health, longevity and the risk of serious illness. If you look at overall health, we haven't done anything for them. Now, do people want to take a statin to trade one cardiovascular event for some other very serious illness - in other words, no net benefit - and expose themself to the risk of harm from the statins? Do you want to do that? I think it's a bad deal. If somebody has a particular fear of heart disease and says, 'Look, I don't care if I get diabetes, I don't care if I have muscle symptoms, I don't care if I can't exercise the way I want to exercise, I do not want to have heart disease,' fine, take a statin. But understand that that's why you're taking a statin, not because it's going to improve your overall health.

NARRATION
Cardiologist Dr Ernest Curtis says the absolute benefit of statins is so minor that it's unlikely to be because of their ability to lower cholesterol. He says statins probably work through other mechanisms.

Dr Ernest N Curtis
It seems very likely that the amount of reduction that they saw with the statin agents could easily be due to its effect on the blood clotting, and possibly the anti-inflammatory effect, and have nothing to do with the cholesterol.

NARRATION
Dr Golomb has scrutinised the data, and she's even more sceptical about the value of these drugs, especially in women.

Professor Beatrice Golomb
Right now the evidence has not supported benefit to women, even if they have heart disease, in terms of mortality and all cause morbidity. It has not shown benefit to elderly, even if they have heart disease. In fact, in the 4S trial, there was a 12% increase in mortality in the women in that group who were assigned to statin rather than placebo. So the evidence really doesn't support that the benefit is the same for women and for men. And on top of that, women are at higher risk of complications from statins.

Dr Maryanne Demasi
Should women take cholesterol-lowering medication?

Professor Beatrice Golomb
In general, no. Now there may be exceptions. Medicine actually does have an element of art. And if women are from a family with severe familial hyperlipidaemia, where a lot of people are dying from heart disease in their 30s and 40s, that's a group where I would say there is an art.

NARRATION
There are now calls for patients to give written consent before taking a statin.

Professor Beatrice Golomb
If you do plan to give statins to women, to elderly, to people at low risk, they should sign a consent form saying they understand that they're receiving a drug that will not extend their life, but will only shift the cause of death. I think patients have a right to know that before they agree to take on a medication.

NARRATION
The National Heart Foundation of Australia agrees that people are being prescribed statins unnecessarily.

Dr Robert Grenfell
I would agree that there are people in Australia today who are being treated for cholesterol where their cardiovascular risk is not high. And you have to question whether they should in fact actually be on that.

NARRATION
A report estimated around 75% of people taking statins are in the low to moderate risk category, and, according to these researchers, that means up to 30 million people are taking a drug that won't offer them the benefit of living any longer.

Edward
My doctor pointed out that my cholesterol levels were high and that I should take some sort of medication to reduce the cholesterol level.

NARRATION
There was nothing wrong with Edward's health, apart from his high cholesterol. He took his doctor's advice and began taking a statin.

Edward
After about two weeks I was having a difficult time walking in the daytime, and at night I had trouble sleeping, my legs ached. I was definitely experiencing a memory loss. I didn't feel that I could recall things as clearly as I did before I was taking the statin.

NARRATION
Statins have a long list of side effects - like muscle weakness, memory loss, and, in rare cases, a potentially fatal condition called rhabdomyolysis, where muscles break down and cause kidney failure. Edward decided to stop taking his medication.

Edward
I started feeling better after about three weeks to maybe a month afterwards.

Dr Maryanne Demasi
How long did it take for you to get 100% improvement?

Edward
100% better took from the time I stopped taking the statins, it took six months.

Professor Rita Redberg
They feel like they're in a fog, they can't get out of their chair - side effects that go away when they stop their statins. And I have patients come in and tell me they'd rather be dead than keep taking the statin.

Professor Beatrice Golomb
Some of them tell us that their doctors fire them as patients if they discontinue their statins, which I really wonder about the ethics of. Some of the people that we hear from also say that their doctor didn't believe them, that their problem couldn't be due to statins, and based on how patients perceive it, badger or bully them into resuming or continuing the medication. That's not an acceptable way for medicine, as a system, to be run.

NARRATION
But Dr Sullivan says it's possible that patients talk themselves into having side effects.

Assoc Prof David Sullivan
In alerting patients to some undesirable possibilities, and, in fact, maybe even through the power of suggestion, lead them to believe that they're experiencing those particular issues, which they would then blame on the drug when in fact it might be arising from other factors.

Dr Maryanne Demasi
Their imagination?

Assoc Prof David Sullivan
Um, look, I'd be reluctant to... I think a lot of these things aren't imagined. I think there are days when you can feel more of a muscle ache than others, and it can be age, it can be all sorts of other things.

NARRATION
Dr Golomb makes a stunning accusation about why she believes some doctors in the US may push their patients to take statins.

Professor Beatrice Golomb
I think they often intentionally hide those risks because there are often physician incentives that benefit the physician for having more patients on statins. So it pits physician self-interest against patient benefit. This particular woman contacted me, and she had left the practice that she was at because they insisted that at least... I believe it was 80% of her patients be on statins. This has actually been written up in media as something that is actually considered legal and acceptable. I can't see any way in which that's acceptable. I'm literally the only researcher I know who studies this class of drugs who has a policy not to take money from industry.

NARRATION
Statins are meant to be lifelong medications, but Dr Curtis says we don't know about the long-term side effects.

Dr Ernest N Curtis
The studies that have been done have generally been just a few years in duration. The long-term effects may not show up for many years. It may take many years for a cancer that develops to make itself manifest. Because cholesterol is so important in the brain, could it contribute to dementia when someone gets older if you lower their cholesterol? We don't know. Again, how would we be able to tie that to the drug? So all of these concerns about the unknown long-term side effects are very serious, in my opinion.

NARRATION
Harvard Doctor John Abramson is an expert in litigation involving drug companies. He says we're not being told the whole truth about the dangers of these drugs.

Dr John Abramson
We're told over and over again that statins are extremely safe. And when you look at the results of the clinical trials, you would conclude that they are safe. Problem is that the clinical trials are not designed to pick up all the side effects.

NARRATION
The CTT collaboration, for example, use mostly drug company data, and report very low levels of muscle side effects from statins. But when you look at the side effects in the general population, it's 100 times higher.

Dr John Abramson
Are the trials lying? No. I just don't think they ask the right questions. Why don't they ask the right questions? It's not in the interest of the drug companies to ask the right questions. So, it's creating the impression that the drugs are safe.

NARRATION
Another complication with clinical trials is that drug companies don't recruit volunteers that reflect the typical patient on statins.

Dr Robert Grenfell
The problem with the study design is that we exclude people with chronic disease or other comorbidities. We exclude people who are very old or very young, and we'll certainly exclude people with other types of risk factors or diseases that may interfere with the metabolism of the drug. So we often get a skewed picture of what the side effect profile is.

Professor Beatrice Golomb
The fraction of people with problems in my sort of real-world, on-multiple-medications, etc clinic is far higher. And I would say that in that sample it really seems in the order of a third of patients that develop problems.

Professor Rita Redberg
There are a lot of ways that one can manipulate data in a trial. Trials do what they call a washout period, and what that means is before they choose the people that are going to be in the trial, they give everybody the drug, and the people that have side effects get excluded from the trial. And they say that so people aren't uncomfortable when they are in the trial. But of course it takes out all the people that have side effects, and that's very commonly done in drug trials.

Dr Maryanne Demasi
So the side effects would be grossly underestimated.

Professor Rita Redberg
Yes, it would definitely grossly underestimate the number of people that have side effects. They're not as safe as they're made out to be, no.

Professor Beatrice Golomb
In its effect, it's certainly scientific fraud, and in its effect it's organised crime. It's always difficult to allege intent, but it is clear that manipulation of evidence subjects many people to treatments that those people should never have been subjected to.

Dr John Abramson
I think there is criminal activity that goes on. And I think when drug companies act in ways that misrepresent information that leads to harm, they ought to be held responsible, just like any other individual or organisation that conducts itself in a way that leads to harming other people.

NARRATION
Drug companies have a history of illegal activity. This is just a sample of the billions of dollars in fines they incur for things like fraud and bribery in any given year. In the '80s, when President Reagan came into office and slashed funding to the national institutes of health, it left a gaping hole for private industry to move in. Nowadays, around 85% of trials are funded by drug companies. A review concluded that if a drug company paid for a trial, it was 24% more likely to report the drug was effective and 87% less likely to report the drug's side effects.

Dr John Abramson
There is a sense that science is science, so it doesn't matter who pays for it. And yet because the research is privatised, the fundamental purpose for which it's conducted has changed. It's not to improve the public's health - it's to fulfil the fiduciary obligations of the sponsors and create an opportunity to maximise profits instead of improve the public's health.

Dr Maryanne Demasi
Some might say that that's a rather cynical view of how science works.

Dr John Abramson
To say it's cynical that commercial sponsorship of science taints the science is just totally naive. It's silly. Business is in business. Their job is to make money. We ought to be clear in our public discourse that to say we've got a bias in commercially sponsored research is neither cynical, nor paranoid, nor impolite - it's a fact. So let's just accept it as a fact and stop being naive at our own expense.

NARRATION
But, if big pharma doesn't pay, it will have to be the taxpayer.

Assoc Prof David Sullivan
A drug now costs about $2 billion to develop. The success rate of drugs is very low. You know, is the public purse going to be willing to shell out, in advance, $2 billion for a drug which it doesn't know the likely outcome of?

Dr Maryanne Demasi
Arguably, the biggest ethical issue in science is that drug companies withhold unflattering results. So, in the end, what we're presented with is a distortion of the data.

NARRATION
Two of the three major drug companies declined to comment. AstraZeneca denied these allegations, stating that all their trials are publicly available. But in 2010, the drug-maker reportedly paid a half a billion dollars to settle a class action after being accused of burying information about the increased risk of diabetes seen with their widely prescribed anti-psychotic drug, Seroquel.

Dr John Abramson
I spend a lot of time as an expert in pharmaceutical litigation, and one thing you learn is that you can't possibly know what's going with that drug unless you have access to the corporate hard drives. If you want to know the truth about a drug, you need to have subpoena power or, in litigation, discovery that gets you into those corporate hard drives. Because without getting into the corporate hard drives, it's impossible to know what the real benefits and the real risks of those drugs are.

NARRATION
Even the definition of 'high cholesterol' keeps changing. In 2004, a US panel of experts decided to lower the threshold of cholesterol, which sparked outrage amongst many doctors.

Professor Rita Redberg
More and more people think they have high cholesterol even though they don't have high cholesterol.

NARRATION
By changing the definition, it meant that millions more people became eligible for statins, and these thresholds were adopted by many countries around the world.

Dr Ernest N Curtis
Has this been on the basis of any scientific data? Absolutely not. Absolutely not, no evidence whatsoever, just the theory that less is better. You're creating more patients, you're creating more people who now have something to worry about where they didn't have anything before.

NARRATION
But Dr Sullivan insists this was a good decision.

Assoc Prof David Sullivan
I think what we actually started off with was maybe appropriately conservative targets which were really not in the patients' best interest. So the likely outcome is a further reduction in targets.

Dr Maryanne Demasi
More cholesterol lowering.

Assoc Prof David Sullivan
Yep, I think that's absolutely to be expected.

Dr Maryanne Demasi
The decision to lower the threshold of cholesterol was a controversial one. An investigation into the matter revealed eight out of nine panel members had a direct conflict of interest after declaring financial ties to the companies that manufactured statins.

Dr John Abramson
We don't have independent reviewers evaluating the data and making independent recommendations. You might ask, 'Am I accusing these people of selling their opinion because they're getting paid by the drug companies?' No, I'm not. I'm not accusing anybody of bad faith. But the people the drug companies choose to pay are people who advocate the use of their drugs, and have standing and presence and reputation that will enhance the sales of their drugs.

Dr Maryanne Demasi
So do drug companies seek out doctors to be their mouthpieces?

Dr John Abramson
Drug companies clearly seek out what's called key opinion leaders. These are people with a national reputation who can create the street knowledge for practising physicians, that this is the way things should be done.

NARRATION
There is ample published literature showing that doctors who receive money from drug companies have more favourable attitudes and prescribing habits towards that drug.

Dr John Abramson
There's no question that doctors are influenced by drug companies. And I hate to say it, but drug reps showing up in nice suits and fancy women's clothes without much medical education play a significant role in what doctors think. Now, there's no reason for doctors to be getting their information from drug reps, my goodness. The drug rep's job is to increase the sales of the drugs they represent. Doctors need to take some responsibility. They need to do their best to get independent knowledge, and they need to put political pressure on their governments to get the clinical trial data unsealed so they can know what the clinical trials really showed.

NARRATION
Many doctors feel obliged to follow the guidelines, even if they don't agree with them.

Dr Ernest N Curtis
They have to worry about malpractice suits if they don't follow the guidelines. An opposing attorney could make them look very bad in court by saying, 'Well, doctor, do you think you're smarter than this national group of recognised experts?' And this is a factor that's impelling doctors to follow the guidelines.

NARRATION
The push to lower cholesterol in the wider population continues.

Dr Maryanne Demasi
A group of doctors published an article claiming that statins could counter the effects of eating a burger. They suggested that statins be handed out as free condiments, just like ketchup.

Professor Rita Redberg
Because it gives people that false reassurance that it's OK if you eat this food that is not good for your health, because then you're going to take this pill that is going to make it OK. And that's very attractive, but it is a fallacy, it's just not true. And it's still bad for your health to eat processed foods, eat trans fats and have a regular diet of fast food hamburgers.

Dr Maryanne Demasi
And the absurdity doesn't stop there. Here in the US, it was even suggested that statins be put in the public water supply.

Dr Ernest N Curtis
I think this idea of handing out statins willy-nilly to everybody is totally irresponsible. You're talking about a drug with potentially toxic side effects, and a drug whose quote ‘beneficial effect' is extremely small, and whose benefit can be achieved with much less toxic drugs and even with some non-drug treatments.

Dr John Abramson
We're missing the message: that health rarely comes out of a bottle. Exercise and a Mediterranean-style diet is the best way to prevent heart disease. I think virtually everybody agrees with that. Now, it's very clear that when you look at the effects of exercise, they're far more powerful than statins. Moderate exercise, exercising the equivalent of two hours of brisk walking a week, adds about two years to your life compared to not exercising that much. Two years. Now, for statins for low-risk people? No benefit in longevity. So do you want to exercise, which is going to add two years to your life? Or do you want to take a pill that's not going to lengthen your life and has the risk of side effects? It's craziness.

Dr Maryanne Demasi
Until the science of clinical trials can break free from commercial interest, then decisions about our health rest in the hands of big business.

And the drama of this is continuing here.

On the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald: People will die because of Catalyst. (http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/abc-report-could-cause-death-says-abc-health-specialist-20131104-2wx3n.html) :rolleyes:
Dr Norman Swan is the idiot who stated several years ago that low carb diets had been "proven not to work". Because the CSIRO had compared a low fat not all that low carb diet with a standard diet, and the folk on the "low carb" plan didn't lose any more than the others.
I also saw him answering questions on the Aussie Biggest Loser a few years back where he was asked by one of the inmates contestants if eating carbs in the absence of fat could make you gain weight. Not possible, said the esteemed doctor, because only fat makes you fat. :rolleyes: So you can see why I assumed he was an idiot even before I heard his opinions of the latest Catalyst programme.

[JEY100]

Dr. Eades disects more cholesterol studies and adds interviews which did not make it into the program. More interesting info at the end of this new blog post.
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/lipid-hypothesis/cholesterol-heart-disease-science/

[CMCM]

I was really disappointed watching BBC Trust Me I'm a Doctor recently where the host, Dr. Michael Mosley, after listening to two experts with opposite opinions on statins, decided to continue taking statins.

I thought he would know better, but after watching many of his programs, I guess he's still too much a mainstream believer.

Mosley may well believe this, BUT....he is also on BBC and is undoubtedly under pressure to put the official medical/pharmaceutical party line out there for the low information masses.

[JEY100]

Rosebud, good that you copied the transcript. It and the show has been pulled from the TV website. Story: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/catalyst-statins-show-breached-abc-code/story-e6frg996-1226914344342

Catalyst statins show breached ABC code.

A CONTROVERSIAL television program on heart disease breached the ABC’s standards on impartiality, an internal investigation has found.

The two-part Catalyst episode described the link between saturated fats, cholesterol and heart disease as “the biggest myth in medical history’’ and downplayed the benefits of anti-cholesterol drugs called statins, prompting many to stop taking them.

After complaints from health experts, a seven month investigation has resulted in the ABC ordering the programs being pulled from their website and information added to the Catalyst site to detail the findings.

An editor’s note will also be made on the PM program transcript, after Catalyst presenter Maryanne Demasi was found to have made inaccurate statements about the program.

In a 49 page report, the ABC’s independent Audience and Consumer Affairs Unit found the program had breached the Code of Practice with regard to impartiality, and concluded “a genuine attempt to produce content in accordance with the Code was undermined by the tone and structure of the program”. ABC managing director Mark Scott suggested the ABC would do better on such issues in future.

“The Catalyst programs were very engaging, attracting large audiences and clearly touched on an issue of importance to many Australians,’’ Mr Scott said in a statement.

“The link between statins and heart disease is a matter warranting investigation and coverage on our programs. The issue has been extensively covered overseas and continues to be the subject of debate within medical circles. I would like to see our science programs on radio and TV work together to revisit it, whilst taking absolute care to comply with our rigorous editorial policies.”

[Bonnie OFS]

Ironically, I dont believe that diabetes increases the risk, but the cause of diabetes is the same as the cause for CHD - carbohydrates, in particular refined flour and sugar! Which has nothing to do with statins - or saturated fat!

Jo xxx

I just read a brief "news" item that diet sodas increase the risk of diabetes, heart disease, et al. :eek:

These "journalists" need to write 1000 times: Correlation is not causation!

[Nancy LC]

It reminds me a bit of what I saw recently regarding "impartiality". If 97% of scientists believe one thing, you always have to have one goofwad that believes something completely irrational to represent the other side, or else you're not being impartial. That just leads people to believe that there is a legitimate debate, not that there's always a goofwad out there. :p

[M Levac]

I just woke up with thinking about cholesterol and how it became the focus of our entire medical system worldwide. I thought cholesterol does not merit such attention. It has all this attention for two reasons. 1. Naive observation. 2. Easy detection. Cholesterol is a material like amino acids, not an actor like insulin. As such, it cannot act on its own, unless the actors which act on it actually act on it. Therefore, the focus must shift to those actors.

Since cholesterol is indeed found everywhere we look in our body, it follows that there must be many actors acting on cholesterol. I forget exactly (could be GCBC), but I remember reading about a researcher who forgot to cut the insulin drip in a dog's leg, then later observed that this leg was full of atherosclerosis while the other leg was fine. Insulin is as good a place to start as any in the search for causality.

[Nancy LC]

Dr. Briffa wrote a good piece on those documentaries being removed. He suggests that if all documentaries were held to the standards as the statin one, none would ever air.

http://www.drbriffa.com/2014/05/14/australian-documentary-challenging-the-value-of-statins-is-removed-by-broadcaster/

[khrussva]

I have always been a skeptic. Not everything in life is a con or a snow job, but enough of it is to always be wary. There are arterial motives behind just about everything.

I pre-date the cholesterol craziness by a few years. From a Joe-blow pubic perspective (i.e. I'm in the medical profession) - the idea of watching and managing your cholesterol to prevent heart disease just seemed to pop up out of the blue. And when it did, it did not come in with a bunch of fanfare. Everyone, including patients and doctor's just seemed to accept the concept as if the idea had been around forever. I remember thinking "Where's the big earth-shattering study?" Shouldn't something as major as this - a new treatment in the prevention of heart disease -- have had an "Ahh Haa" moment and been splashed all over the news. If there was an "Ahh Haa" moment - I must have slept through it.

As far as all the cholesterol drugs that have been advertised for decades on TV... I've kept waiting for one of them to site some study or some proof that their pill or treatment will actually reduce the risk of heart disease. They may advertise help it reaching target cholesterol numbers and by association fight heart disease - but I never heard any claims that convinced me that taking their pill would reduce my risk of a heart attack. It seems to me that if any proof exists that your pill works and saves lives, you'd put that in your TV ad.

I have been a cholesterol skeptic from the beginning. My numbers have been borderline high for 20 years. No doctor has recommended meds yet - but when/if they do I will decline. There may be some value behind it - but I'm not convinced. I'm not sure what the con is. Bad science? Drug company greed? I don't know. What I do know is that it is big business and the world has thrown way too many dollars at it for there to be so little information as to whether lowering cholesterol actual does anything.

[ojoj]

I hope this doesnt sound too harsh, but its interesting. I work in an administration role within the NHS in the UK. I get to see patients medication prescriptions and summaries and it never fails to amaze me the number of elderly patients who are suffering terminal and "end of life" illnesses still being prescribed statins, to the point where we have to exchange the pills for liquid forms of statins as the patients are too ill to swallow. When I've questioned this, I'm told that even the end stage terminally ill are entitled to something to help prevent heart attacks - and looked at with horror for questioning otherwise!

Jo xxx

[brushfire]

I pre-date the cholesterol craziness by a few years. From a Joe-blow pubic perspective (i.e. I'm in the medical profession) - the idea of watching and managing your cholesterol to prevent heart disease just seemed to pop up out of the blue. And when it did, it did not come in with a bunch of fanfare. Everyone, including patients and doctor's just seemed to accept the concept as if the idea had been around forever. I remember thinking "Where's the big earth-shattering study?" Shouldn't something as major as this - a new treatment in the prevention of heart disease -- have had an "Ahh Haa" moment and been splashed all over the news. If there was an "Ahh Haa" moment - I must have slept through it.

Gary Taubes wrote in GCBC about a study that may have triggered the cholesterol worry and included a graph that shows the 6 year death rate of men increasing with higher serum cholesterol. The rate was lowest at 4 per 1000 men at a level of 150 or so, increasing to 9 at 230, jumping to 13 at 250 and 17 at 280. Insert standard causation vs. correlation statement here!

[khrussva]

Gary Taubes wrote in GCBC about a study that may have triggered the cholesterol worry and included a graph that shows the 6 year death rate of men increasing with higher serum cholesterol. The rate was lowest at 4 per 1000 men at a level of 150 or so, increasing to 9 at 230, jumping to 13 at 250 and 17 at 280. Insert standard causation vs. correlation statement here!

Thanks for the info. I didn't know that. Not exactly indisbutable evedence. That would certainly warrent further study, but there is nothing in there that proves that lowering your number will result in less risk. That is pretty much just an assumption.

[M Levac]

You mean lowering cholesterol with statins? Yeah, that's the assumption based on the flawed premise that cholesterol is the culprit.

[JEY100]

And now the British Medical Journal has asked anti-statin authors to retract some of the studies used and will investigate the articles further.

The BBC is asking for stories from people who were prescribed statins and stopped them due to research, or I would add, side effects.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-27420100

[JEY100]

Many of the doctors who see oxidation and inflammation as drivers of heart disease still view the Trig and HDL levels as useful indicators. In old studies when only Total cholesterol was measured, those with the sky-high triglycerides would have been in the high TC group, most at risk of heart attack. Now we have more sensitive tests to know which components of cholesterol are indicators of inflammation, but TC may be a reflection of the high Trigs/low HDL and needs action. Hopefully diet and lifestyle not statins.

[M Levac]

Continuing with my doubts about cholesterol/CVD.

The latest explanation is that cholesterol (actually the lipoprotein LDL) is bad if it's small and dense and it gets oxidized more easily. That still doesn't make it a culprit. If there's a culprit, it's the oxidizer. OK, so how do we stop oxidation of small dense LDL? LC will do it. Going LC will shift LDL to big fluffy particles, thus making them less prone to oxidation. OK, but it still doesn't make cholesterol or LDL a culprit of anything. It merely prevents the oxidizer to act. Maybe LC also acts on the oxidizer itself directly, but even here it doesn't make cholesterol/LDL a culprit. If anything, it shows that cholesterol/LDL is just another victim of some other culprit.

I prefer the explanation of injury/repair for atherosclerosis. Isn't it true that we find literally hundreds of different compounds - not just LDL - in atherosclerotic plaque? If the injury/repair explanation is accurate, finding all kinds of stuff in there makes sense. The injury is in a spot where blood flows constantly, and blood contains all kinds of stuff besides LDL, therefore it's likely that we will find all that stuff in the plaque as well, as repair wouldn't be that quick or that good to prevent contaminants from getting in before repairs are completed. Maybe once repairs are done, then clean up gets going. But then, if injury is recurring, maybe clean up can't keep up.

If this injury/repair explanation is accurate, maybe small dense LDL gets small and dense and gets oxidized even before it gets in the plaque, even before there's injury, and it's part of the injury process, or a parallel effect of the culprit but not part of injury at all. When normal stuff gets altered, they can't do their job properly anymore. Consider HbA1c for example, where hemoglobin gets glycated and it can't shuttle oxygen properly. Small dense LDL wouldn't be able to do their job well anymore either. The point is when we're talking about LDL/cholesterol within the context of CVD, we're not talking about a culprit, we're talking about a victim. Statins don't make sense at all here.

[M Levac]

And now the British Medical Journal has asked anti-statin authors to retract some of the studies used and will investigate the articles further.

The BBC is asking for stories from people who were prescribed statins and stopped them due to research, or I would add, side effects.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-27420100
So wait, we got these pro-statin experts who want us to take statins, but then there's this guy who gets serious side effects and we ignore him? I'm all fine with an investigation into biased reporting, but when the reporting is accurate, bias is moot.

Thanks for the link, Janet.