HAh!

Roger Zoul wrote:
Jbuch wrote:
:: BJ in Texas wrote:
::: Roger Zoul wrote:
::::: Yes, Chol is pretty much a useless indictor of heart attacks
::::: (unless it's low), as discussed in "The Great Cholestrol Con"
::::: by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick.
:::::
::::: Bob in CT wrote:
::::::: When will they learn that LDL isn't bad and HDL isn't good?
:::::::
::::::: "And even though they and the Pfizer drug raised HDL good
::::::: cholesterol as intended, that made no difference in the
::::::: odds of
::::::: heart attacks or deaths, or key measures of cholesterol
::::::: buildup in arteries."
:::::::
:::
::: I had cholesterol numbers in the 155 to 170 range for a number
::: of years and still had a heart attack. Other indicators have
::: been
::: excellent.
:::
::: BJ
:::
::
::
:: It's commonly said that about half the people who have heart attacks
:: also have Low Cholesterol.
::
:: So, "cholesterol" is only a portion of the story, if it is indeed
:: much
:: of a driver at all.
::
:: It is easy to correlate cholesterol with something X, but harder to
:: prove that cholesterol causes the behavior of that something X.
::
::
:: I recently read a recent book on CHD which cited 20 risk factors for
:: CHD. Author was a practicing Cardiologist.
::
:: The risk factors were given severity or significance numbers ranging
:: from 0 up to 20.
::
:: A personal prior heart attack got a risk significance of 20.
:: Family history was 10 or 15.
:: Most everything else was a 2, 3 or 5
::
:: Cholesterol was a 2, if I remember it accurately.
::
:: There are some MD's who don't buy the "Cholesterol is #1 Killer"
:: viewpoint.

If anything in that book I listed above is true (the references he cites)
then the entire cholesterol business is based on an "ad-hoc hypothesis" and
has little or no basis.


Sounds vaguely like this dietary concept called Low Fat. Didn't low fat
become so popular right around the time that everyone started worrying
about cholesterol to the point where every two-bit corner drug store
started offering cholesterol screenings?

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:23:16 -0400, "Bob in CT"
wrote:

When will they learn that LDL isn't bad and HDL isn't good?

"And even though they and the Pfizer drug raised HDL good cholesterol as
intended, that made no difference in the odds of heart attacks or deaths,
or key measures of cholesterol buildup in arteries."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17798411/

I'm back on statins after my total went to 297. However, all my
family have high numbers and no history of heart disease at all even
at 80 and 93, and 99.

deke wrote:
:: On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:23:16 -0400, "Bob in CT"
:: wrote:
::
::: When will they learn that LDL isn't bad and HDL isn't good?
:::
::: "And even though they and the Pfizer drug raised HDL good
::: cholesterol as intended, that made no difference in the odds of
::: heart attacks or deaths, or key measures of cholesterol buildup in
::: arteries."
:::
::: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17798411/
::
:: I'm back on statins after my total went to 297. However, all my
:: family have high numbers and no history of heart disease at all even
:: at 80 and 93, and 99.

So why take statins?

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:02:38 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
wrote:

deke wrote:
:: On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:23:16 -0400, "Bob in CT"
:: wrote:
::
::: When will they learn that LDL isn't bad and HDL isn't good?
:::
::: "And even though they and the Pfizer drug raised HDL good
::: cholesterol as intended, that made no difference in the odds of
::: heart attacks or deaths, or key measures of cholesterol buildup in
::: arteries."
:::
::: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17798411/
::
:: I'm back on statins after my total went to 297. However, all my
:: family have high numbers and no history of heart disease at all even
:: at 80 and 93, and 99.

So why take statins?


I'm shopping for a term life policy and they hike the premiums for
high cholesterol by at least 50%

Strangely enough, if you are taking statins and it brings the
numbers down to normal, they don't penalize you.

This is per a letter from Genworth company.

deke wrote:
:: On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:02:38 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
:: wrote:
::
::: deke wrote:
::::: On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:23:16 -0400, "Bob in CT"
::::: wrote:
:::::
:::::: When will they learn that LDL isn't bad and HDL isn't good?
::::::
:::::: "And even though they and the Pfizer drug raised HDL good
:::::: cholesterol as intended, that made no difference in the odds of
:::::: heart attacks or deaths, or key measures of cholesterol buildup
:::::: in arteries."
::::::
:::::: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17798411/
:::::
::::: I'm back on statins after my total went to 297. However, all my
::::: family have high numbers and no history of heart disease at all
::::: even at 80 and 93, and 99.
:::
::: So why take statins?
:::
::
:: I'm shopping for a term life policy and they hike the premiums for
:: high cholesterol by at least 50%
::
:: Strangely enough, if you are taking statins and it brings the
:: numbers down to normal, they don't penalize you.
::
:: This is per a letter from Genworth company.

Sounds like as good a reason as any! (good idea!)

Amazing how insurance companies are running our life....if you don't take
the drugs, they make you pay big time!

Jbuch wrote:

It's commonly said that about half the people who have heart attacks
also have Low Cholesterol.

What I've often seen cited is that about half the people who have
heart attacks also have normal cholesterol levels. Plus, its
I've seen that slightly MORE that half of all women who have
heart attacks have normal cholesterol levels.



--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata

Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at:
http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm

RRzVRR wrote:
Jbuch wrote:

It's commonly said that about half the people who have heart attacks
also have Low Cholesterol.


What I've often seen cited is that about half the people who have heart
attacks also have normal cholesterol levels. Plus, its I've seen that
slightly MORE that half of all women who have heart attacks have normal
cholesterol levels.





I think that is what I MEANT to say, but a senior moment overly
simplified it.

Right now, I'm so terrified about Xylitol that I can't think straight.

Jbuch wrote:

RRzVRR wrote:

Jbuch wrote:

It's commonly said that about half the people who have heart attacks
also have Low Cholesterol.



What I've often seen cited is that about half the people who have
heart attacks also have normal cholesterol levels. Plus, its I've
seen that slightly MORE that half of all women who have heart attacks
have normal cholesterol levels.

I think that is what I MEANT to say, but a senior moment overly
simplified it.


.... and I pretty much thought that's what you meant ...

Right now, I'm so terrified about Xylitol that I can't think straight.

--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata

Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at:
http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:28:21 -0400, RRzVRR wrote:

Jbuch wrote:

RRzVRR wrote:

Jbuch wrote:

It's commonly said that about half the people who have heart attacks
also have Low Cholesterol.



What I've often seen cited is that about half the people who have
heart attacks also have normal cholesterol levels. Plus, its I've
seen that slightly MORE that half of all women who have heart attacks
have normal cholesterol levels.
I think that is what I MEANT to say, but a senior moment overly
simplified it.


... and I pretty much thought that's what you meant ...

Right now, I'm so terrified about Xylitol that I can't think straight..


I think that one caution with regard to the stuff I posted is that the
drug itself has some influence on heart disease. However, the high
cholesterol (or LDL) proponents don't treat it that way. For instance,
the "Prove it" trial used two different drugs at two different dosages,
where one drug (at the higher dosage) lowered LDL by a larger degree and
also appeared to cause fewer heart attacks. In this case, they asserted
that it was the lowering of LDL that caused the fewer heart attacks, even
though they used two drugs at two different dosages. Based on this flawed
thought process, the study I posted "proved" that higher HDL = more heart
attacks.

--
Bob in CT