« | »

‘Good Cholesterol’ Does Not Cut Heart Risks

Buried in the ‘Research’ section of the New York Times:

Doubt Cast on the ‘Good’ in ‘Good Cholesterol’

May 16, 2012

The name alone sounds so encouraging: HDL, the “good cholesterol.” The more of it in your blood, the lower your risk of heart disease. So bringing up HDL levels has got to be good for health.

Or so the theory went.

Now, a new study that makes use of powerful databases of genetic information has found that raising HDL levels may not make any difference to heart disease risk. People who inherit genes that give them naturally higher HDL levels throughout life have no less heart disease than those who inherit genes that give them slightly lower levels. If HDL were protective, those with genes causing higher levels should have had less heart disease.

Another ‘scientific consensus’ bites the dust. By the way, did they run this study pass Michelle Obama or Mayor Bloomberg before publishing it?

Researchers not associated with the study, published online Wednesday in The Lancet, found the results compelling and disturbing.

No wonder. Just think of the havoc this is going to cause snake oil salesmen and nanny state busybodies.

Companies are actively developing and testing drugs that raise HDL, although three recent studies of such treatments have failed. And patients with low HDL levels are often told to try to raise them by exercising or dieting or even by taking niacin, which raised HDL but failed to lower heart disease risk in a recent clinical trial

So we don’t have to avoid red meat and eat a lot of fish, after all?

The study’s authors emphasize that they are not questioning the well-documented finding that higher HDL levels are associated with lower heart disease risk. But the relationship may not be causative.

Many assumed it was because the association was so strong and consistent.

How can that be? We thought there was a scientific consensus? Just like the scientific consensus that CO2 causes global warming.

Now it seems that instead of directly reducing heart disease risk, high HDL levels may be a sign that something else is going on that makes heart disease less likely

Still, doesn’t all of that sound vaguely familiar? In fact, haven’t we been saying that this is the problem that people have when they claim that CO2 is causing global warming?

Just because there are CO2, that does not mean CO2 is causing global warming. Something else might be going on.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, May 17th, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

6 Responses to “‘Good Cholesterol’ Does Not Cut Heart Risks”

  1. BannedbytheTaliban says:

    Another, perhaps more shocking, way to read this is, people with higher cholesterol have no greater risk of heart disease than people with lower cholesterol.

    The most likely correlation between high HDL and lower risk is people with high HDL tend to live healthier lives in general. If they normalized medical studies for other risk factors such as weight, smoking, diet, and activity, most studies no longer show as strong correlations. Such as the recent ‘news’ article put out by the militant vegan crowd claiming people who eat red meat die sooner.

  2. GetBackJack says:

    EDTA, taken orally, 625 mg/daily for 60 days

    Cost? Aox, $11

    Result – from 220 reading to 140 with a 1/1 ratio of good-to-bad cholesterol.

    Make sure you take a quality mineral supplement each day while taking the EDTA.

    Google the history of EDTA

  3. untrainable says:

    If there was money in it, they could run a study that could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that blood is green, oxygen is bad for you, and water is poisonous. The key being who provides the money for the study. If there is a company out there that has created a drug that lowers cholesterol (even if the original purpose was to kill foot fungus and the cholesterol thing was just a side effect. Viagra wasn’t intentionally created for it’s stiffening effects.) they will find a way to prove that lowering cholesterol is a good thing. The comparison to global warming is a good one. If you stand back and look at the last 100 years of medical research, you’ll see some pretty crazy stuff and think to yourself, “Holy crap! Doctors actually believed this?” I illustrate via the origins of the phrase, “Blowing smoke up your ass.” http://www.weirdwords.com/2010/03/20/blowing-smoke-up-your-ass/ or how about,

    One heart surgeon recently spoke out about cholesterol not being the cause of heart disease. He said that swelling of the blood vessels is the cause. If the vessels didn’t swell, cholesterol would just slide on through like it’s supposed to. And what causes swelling in the vessels? Eating “healthy” http://preventdisease.com/news/12/030112_World-Renown-Heart-Surgeon-Speaks-Out-On-What-Really-Causes-Heart-Disease.shtml

    My grandmother lived to be just shy of 101. That amazing woman ate a diet that would give any self-important rice cake eating healthfood nut a heart attack by osmosis. But it was balanced, and she worked hard every day. Fats? Yeah! Cholesterol? You Bet! Cookin’ with lard and lovin’ it. If you asked her what her secret for long life was, she’d say, “I just keep waking up every morning.” Not a low fat diet. Not veganism. Not fistsfull of vitamins or supplements. She just kept waking up.

    If Medical research has anything to teach us it is that medical researchers change their minds every few years just to keep things interesting, and to keep the money flowing. Follow the money.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Given the complexity of the human body, there are so many things that can go wrong. Yet, “scientists” are somehow ignorant of the fact that throughout human history, different races of people survived for thousands of years on a fish diet or a grain diet or a this or that diet.

      Yet these historical societies had long-lived people and short-lived people. Hmmmm. Could it be in the genes? Could it be that the law of averages dictates who gets the longevity gene and who gets the heart-disease gene? In some cases, I think it’s a “wag-the-dog” situation where doctors, in an ever more enlightened presence, are doing what all uber-elites do to justify their own existence and start drawing conclusions without any facts.

      It can be said though that smoking is bad for the health, excessive drinking, overeating, etc. The latest meme I keep seeing on the idiot-box is that overeating leads to diabetes. Though it’s true that overeating can lead to obesity, it’s the obesity that leads to type II diabetes because the body is overtaxed and cannot supply enough of its own insulin to keep blood sugar metabolism down. Type I diabetes is either hereditary or caused by an autoimmune problem. Ask me, I’m a type I diabetic. No family history, no symptoms until it hit me hard after a bout with the flu one year.

      But the nanny-staters think that to stave off diabetes and obesity, they need to tax sugar. Several ignorant reporters in the MSM are now “selling” the point that sugar causes diabetes. Oh brother. Nobody has yet said that self-discipline and a regulated diet are what’s needed, not government intervention. But no, the national socialists think that the government must be responsible to keep the population “viable”, like a Habitrail ™ for people. Or an ant-farm.

      But could it be that there are people who will live to be 100 based solely on their genetic makeup? Or only to 30? I should think so. That, to me is the single biggest factor aside from the obvious self-treatment things. Moderation in all things is a good way to go, I should think but generally, if the government did all the things it thinks it needed to to “regulate” all our bad habits, as they see it, guess what? The bell curve wouldn’t change in the slightest.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »