An article was published in September of this year that once again told us modern medicine's recommendations about cholesterol are not only unfounded, but in the case of women, totally backwards. The article followed 52,087 Norwegians from 1997-2007. It looked at not only cardiovascular disease, but overall mortality. When you really think about the purpose of following doctor's orders, isn't really about prolonging your life? If your doctor is telling you to do something that will reduce the risk of one condition, but increase your risk of getting another, which is just as bad, is that good medicine? In western medicine, we've focused intently on heart disease, since it is the #1 killer, and has been for most of the past century. But if the advice of modern medicine in reducing heart disease actually makes you more prone to cancer or stroke, is that good advice? I'd argue that trading a heart attack for a stroke or cancer isn't good medicine. We should be taking the blinders off so we can look at the whole body, and not break it into individual parts.
The study compared the cholesterol levels and other cardiovascular risk factors of the participants with the death rates. Of course they saw that cigarette smoking and high blood pressure were direct links to cardiovascular disease and a shorter life span. In contrast, the results for cholesterol should have blown the top off conventional medicine's view of "standard of care", but for some reason it hasn't been reported yet. If you are a woman, your risk of dying actually goes down as your cholesterol goes up, at least to 270. That's right, as a woman, the higher the cholesterol, the longer they live. This is similar to what I had written about in Medicine is Sexist, where I discussed the POSCH study showing that cholesterol lowering medications were worthless for women. Here is further proof that we are not only over medicating women in America, but we are actually reducing their life expectancy through false medical dogma.
With men and cholesterol, the issue is a little more complicated. It seems there is a "U"-shaped curve in regards to death rates versus cholesterol. While modern medicine would expect this curve to be in the low 100's, it is actually in the low 200's. As you can see in the graph below, the highest average death risk for both men and women was actually in those that had the lowest cholesterol. Medicine's concept is not only flawed, but it is raising the risks of everyone dying if their cholesterol is artificially lowered beyond 200.
Why would modern medicine do this? Why would they bully patients into going on medications to lower their cholesterol, when research has repeatedly told us it is unhealthy? Unfortunately, I'd say we have to follow the money. In 2010, between just Lipitor and Crestor, Americas spent $10 billion. This doesn't take into account the other brand name and generic medications that lower cholesterol, nor the visits to general practitioners or cardiologists to keep these prescriptions up to date. When you then add in the print, radio, TV, and internet advertisements that drug companies are paying to media outlets to promote their products, is it any wonder that research that places the status quo in doubt is ignored? To say that keeping the public focused on lowering their cholesterol is an industry that makes tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars a year is not outlandish. If we were to take this cost out of health care, what would happen? Would we see the rise in insurance rates begin to slow, or even drop some? That may be too much to expect, but we would see people living longer.
Does that mean that we should all forget about cholesterol and let it get as high as it can? The research doesn't tell us that. For men at least, it doesn't appear that way. It looks like we should try to keep it between 195 and 230, and for women, up into the high 200's looks fine. Unfortunately, the research didn't look at cholesterol type or particle size, and that's what the latest research is telling us is really the big deal.
For many years, medicine has been looking not only at total cholesterol, but also at HDL, LDL, and VLDL. They've considered these the "good" (HDL), "bad" (LDL), and "ugly" (VLDL) of cholesterol. Categorizing them as good, bad, and ugly is rudimentary when we look at health impacts, since in each of these categories, we can also look at particle size, and that seems to be the most important. Generally, having high HDL is good, but there are types of HDL that are also bad for us. LDL is considered bad, but there are some that are worse than others. Right now, getting your cholesterol checked, and getting only total, HDL, and LDL is like 15 years ago only getting the total. It really doesn't tell us a whole lot yet, because we're not looking closely enough.
Is cholesterol something we should be concerned about? Yes, we probably should, but not in the way modern medicine has bullied us into believing. Women have little to worry about, unless it it too low. Men seem to have a range that is best, but I believe that when we do the research and look at particle size, that will break down further. Having a total cholesterol of 250 with an HDL of 100 is more than likely just fine. Having a total of 220 with an HDL of 30 is far from safe. When we routinely start looking at sub-fractions, we'll see things that tell us a whole lot more.
It's unfortunate that quality research like this is ignored by the media and modern medicine right now. As the evidence continues to pile against current recommendations, eventually, the tide will turn and patients will be told the truth: BigPharma, modern medicine, the government, and the media have played a hoax on the public to the tune of hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars, and accelerated the death of millions. In the mean time, the best you can do is be educated and armed with research, so you can take control of your own healthcare. For more information on the study, click on the link below.
Look for future blogs that will give more information and insights into improving your health with natural health care. You can also visit my website, like me on Facebook, or follow me on Twitter.
"Is the use of cholesterol in mortality risk algorithms in clinical guidelines valid? Ten years prospective data from the Norwegian HUNT 2 study" Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice; Sept 25, 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment