http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-28/professor-says-abc-catalyst-episode-could-result-in-deaths/5050866

Professor Banks is highly critical of last week’s program, which claimed the science linking cholesterol with heart disease is not as conclusive as widely thought.

“We have overwhelming evidence from studies of over 900,000 participants showing a strong and graded increase in the risk of heart disease with increasing cholesterol levels,” she said.

“But what we saw on Maryanne Demasi’s report, was a series of anecdotes from, I think what would be broadly termed fringe-dwelling scientists or people who weren’t actually scientists, criticising things about the cholesterol myth.

“But actually it’s one of the relationships that we have the strongest evidence for.”

—-

I didn’t see it (don’t have access to it.)

What’s the deal? IS the link between cholesterol and heart disease well established?

dv said:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-28/professor-says-abc-catalyst-episode-could-result-in-deaths/5050866

Professor Banks is highly critical of last week’s program, which claimed the science linking cholesterol with heart disease is not as conclusive as widely thought.

“We have overwhelming evidence from studies of over 900,000 participants showing a strong and graded increase in the risk of heart disease with increasing cholesterol levels,” she said.

“But what we saw on Maryanne Demasi’s report, was a series of anecdotes from, I think what would be broadly termed fringe-dwelling scientists or people who weren’t actually scientists, criticising things about the cholesterol myth.

“But actually it’s one of the relationships that we have the strongest evidence for.”

—-

I didn’t see it (don’t have access to it.)

What’s the deal? IS the link between cholesterol and heart disease well established?

Was a good example of quackery and half truths etc.

Yes.

“Observational studies have demonstrated a continuous, graded, strong, positive relationship between CVD risk and blood cholesterol concentrations. A 10% increase in total cholesterol (TC) has been associated with a 27% increase in CHD incidence and this relationship persists, irrespective of other CVD risk factors such as smoking status, hypertension and even a history of prior CVD.”

Whether or not elevated cholesterol is elevated from saturated fats in the diet is debateable.

I didn’t see it but my sister told me about it. By the sound of it the show was taking these people very seriously. Rather unhelpful given that the general public isn’t equipped to tell who’s right and who’s not.

poikilotherm said:

dv said:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-28/professor-says-abc-catalyst-episode-could-result-in-deaths/5050866

Professor Banks is highly critical of last week’s program, which claimed the science linking cholesterol with heart disease is not as conclusive as widely thought.

“We have overwhelming evidence from studies of over 900,000 participants showing a strong and graded increase in the risk of heart disease with increasing cholesterol levels,” she said.

“But what we saw on Maryanne Demasi’s report, was a series of anecdotes from, I think what would be broadly termed fringe-dwelling scientists or people who weren’t actually scientists, criticising things about the cholesterol myth.

“But actually it’s one of the relationships that we have the strongest evidence for.”

—-

I didn’t see it (don’t have access to it.)

What’s the deal? IS the link between cholesterol and heart disease well established?

Was a good example of quackery and half truths etc.

Yes.

“Observational studies have demonstrated a continuous, graded, strong, positive relationship between CVD risk and blood cholesterol concentrations. A 10% increase in total cholesterol (TC) has been associated with a 27% increase in CHD incidence and this relationship persists, irrespective of other CVD risk factors such as smoking status, hypertension and even a history of prior CVD.”

Whether or not elevated cholesterol is elevated from saturated fats in the diet is debateable.

What factors other than diet might lead to high blood cholesterol concentrations? It seems remarkable that we are all designed to require statins.

morrie said:

poikilotherm said:

dv said:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-28/professor-says-abc-catalyst-episode-could-result-in-deaths/5050866

Professor Banks is highly critical of last week’s program, which claimed the science linking cholesterol with heart disease is not as conclusive as widely thought.

“We have overwhelming evidence from studies of over 900,000 participants showing a strong and graded increase in the risk of heart disease with increasing cholesterol levels,” she said.

“But what we saw on Maryanne Demasi’s report, was a series of anecdotes from, I think what would be broadly termed fringe-dwelling scientists or people who weren’t actually scientists, criticising things about the cholesterol myth.

“But actually it’s one of the relationships that we have the strongest evidence for.”

—-

I didn’t see it (don’t have access to it.)

What’s the deal? IS the link between cholesterol and heart disease well established?

Was a good example of quackery and half truths etc.

Yes.

“Observational studies have demonstrated a continuous, graded, strong, positive relationship between CVD risk and blood cholesterol concentrations. A 10% increase in total cholesterol (TC) has been associated with a 27% increase in CHD incidence and this relationship persists, irrespective of other CVD risk factors such as smoking status, hypertension and even a history of prior CVD.”

Whether or not elevated cholesterol is elevated from saturated fats in the diet is debateable.

What factors other than diet might lead to high blood cholesterol concentrations? It seems remarkable that we are all designed to require statins.

NFI. Got evidence? That’s the main crux of their argument – no studies have shown diets high in sat fats lead to elevated cholesterol. Never mind the ethics of trying to design that study…

It is thought that elevations of LDL cholesterol are mainly due to failure of cellular mechanisms to clear it from the blood as you age.

The show stated that I can eat as much bacon as I want.

I choose to believe them!

sibeen said:

The show stated that I can eat as much bacon as I want.

I choose to believe them!

You smoke as well so it should all be good.

Do you have a boat?

poikilotherm said:

sibeen said:

The show stated that I can eat as much bacon as I want.

I choose to believe them!

You smoke as well so it should all be good.

Do you have a boat?

You forgot “drink like a fish”.

sibeen said:

poikilotherm said:

sibeen said:

The show stated that I can eat as much bacon as I want.

I choose to believe them!

You smoke as well so it should all be good.

Do you have a boat?

You forgot “drink like a fish”.

Didn’t know that fish drank.

I am not a medical person, however I have heard that the amount of cholesterol you eat has no influence on the concentration of blood cholesterol. Brains have an exceptionally large cholesterol content, but eating brains won’t reduce your lifespan. The one thing that has the greatest influence on blood cholesterol is eating saturated fats – such as butter and meat fat – not cholesterol.

mollwollfumble said:

I am not a medical person, however I have heard that the amount of cholesterol you eat has no influence on the concentration of blood cholesterol. Brains have an exceptionally large cholesterol content, but eating brains won’t reduce your lifespan. The one thing that has the greatest influence on blood cholesterol is eating saturated fats – such as butter and meat fat – not cholesterol.

That’s always been my impression.

morrie said:

poikilotherm said:

dv said:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-28/professor-says-abc-catalyst-episode-could-result-in-deaths/5050866

Professor Banks is highly critical of last week’s program, which claimed the science linking cholesterol with heart disease is not as conclusive as widely thought.

“We have overwhelming evidence from studies of over 900,000 participants showing a strong and graded increase in the risk of heart disease with increasing cholesterol levels,” she said.

“But what we saw on Maryanne Demasi’s report, was a series of anecdotes from, I think what would be broadly termed fringe-dwelling scientists or people who weren’t actually scientists, criticising things about the cholesterol myth.

“But actually it’s one of the relationships that we have the strongest evidence for.”

—-

I didn’t see it (don’t have access to it.)

What’s the deal? IS the link between cholesterol and heart disease well established?

Was a good example of quackery and half truths etc.

Yes.

“Observational studies have demonstrated a continuous, graded, strong, positive relationship between CVD risk and blood cholesterol concentrations. A 10% increase in total cholesterol (TC) has been associated with a 27% increase in CHD incidence and this relationship persists, irrespective of other CVD risk factors such as smoking status, hypertension and even a history of prior CVD.”

Whether or not elevated cholesterol is elevated from saturated fats in the diet is debateable.

What factors other than diet might lead to high blood cholesterol concentrations? It seems remarkable that we are all designed to require statins.

Well I don’t think anyone is saying we all need to take statins.

What factors other than diet might lead to high blood cholesterol concentrations?
————————————————-

Well therein lies the rub…

The argument is not so much you are what you eat but eat and you are.

A science TV program has controversially challenged conventional wisdom on diet and heart health. But there is more to the story.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/health/nothing-sweet-about-this-debate-20131101-2ws18.html

The cholesterol and statin debate

Over the last couple of weeks on ABC Television’s Catalyst there’s been a major investigation into whether cholesterol is the coronary risk factor that we’ve been led to believe and that taking statins can have a detrimental effect. Statins are the medications which are widely used to lower LDL – the so-called bad form of cholesterol. This program will try to make some sense of the debate.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/healthreport/the-cholesterol-and-statin-debate/5067536

Sorts that out.

From: neomyrtus_
ID: 425773
Subject: re: November chat
https://theconversation.com/viewing-catalysts-cholesterol-programs-through-the-sceptometer-19817

http://scepticalnutritionist.com.au/?p=1121

Catalyst: was the ABC enlisted to sell palm oil?

neomyrtus_ said:

http://scepticalnutritionist.com.au/?p=1121

Catalyst: was the ABC enlisted to sell palm oil?

lol “He has a Clayton’s PhD, awarded by the Clayton College…”

“Woo”:
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3888657.htm

poikilotherm said:

Woo

yeah, i watched media watch. the show got a bucketing. and their feeble excuse was a laugh.

The ABC needs a fat checker.

The ABC needs a fat checker.

RINGO!

Peak Warming Man said:

The ABC needs a fat checker.

Like a chubby checker?

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

The ABC needs a fat checker.

Like a chubby checker?

or a fats domino?

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

The ABC needs a fat checker.

Like a chubby checker?

or a fats domino?

but then what else to expect from a black and white minstrel show?

An ‘insider’ slagging off nutrition research:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37918/title/Opinion—A-Wolf-in-Sheep-s-Clothing/

sibeen said:

An ‘insider’ slagging off nutrition research:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37918/title/Opinion—A-Wolf-in-Sheep-s-Clothing/

“ funding agencies must stop funding flawed nutrition research, and the editors of nutrition journals need to stop publishing the results.”

lol. ‘sif.

sibeen said:

An ‘insider’ slagging off nutrition research:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37918/title/Opinion—A-Wolf-in-Sheep-s-Clothing/

I admire your gonadal fortitude, Sibeen

Bunnings cholesterol levels anyway…

http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleid=1770218

http://my.americanheart.org/professional/StatementsGuidelines/PreventionGuidelines/Prevention-Guidelines_UCM_457698_SubHomePage.jsp

Poik…do I need to follow your links tonight? I’m seeing my mother on Saturday and I think I am going to make a last attempt to get her to talk to her GP about a trial off the statin. I’m gathering the genetic stuff, and I’m thinking of giving her a list of things in favour (her present blood fat levels, genetics) and those against (diabetes)

buffy said:

Poik…do I need to follow your links tonight? I’m seeing my mother on Saturday and I think I am going to make a last attempt to get her to talk to her GP about a trial off the statin. I’m gathering the genetic stuff, and I’m thinking of giving her a list of things in favour (her present blood fat levels, genetics) and those against (diabetes)

Maybe…it says in cases such as mumsy here, that statins are needed regardless of levels.

Have fun with this – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naranjo_algorithm – probability calculator for adverse reactions.

poikilotherm said:

buffy said:

Poik…do I need to follow your links tonight? I’m seeing my mother on Saturday and I think I am going to make a last attempt to get her to talk to her GP about a trial off the statin. I’m gathering the genetic stuff, and I’m thinking of giving her a list of things in favour (her present blood fat levels, genetics) and those against (diabetes)

Maybe…it says in cases such as mumsy here, that statins are needed regardless of levels.

Have fun with this – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naranjo_algorithm – probability calculator for adverse reactions.

On this discourse.. So what is the general consensus on how to gain the required levels of statins for each individual within their natural environment? ie: without relying upon drug companies?

All need medicating for one thing or another, every individual is sick.

transition said:

All need medicating for one thing or another, every individual is sick.

which is why we should be our own pharmacists.

>>Maybe…it says in cases such as mumsy here, that statins are needed regardless of levels.<<

I’m on the wireless dongle, so I’ll have to wait until I get home tonight. I don’t understand the difficulty of a trial off the drug. All her GP needs to do is monitor her. I suspect the washout might be about a week? So check her lipids after two weeks off. With clean as a whistle carotids she’s not likely to clag up in a couple of weeks. If her lipid levels rise dramatically, fine. She needs the drug. But if they stay within reason, she could stay off longer and see if her state of mind improves. At 83, I think it comes down to a choice between a clear mind off the drug or possibly living a month or so longer if she takes the drug. Isn’t it supposed to be all about risk assessment for the individual these days?

:)

buffy said:

>>Maybe…it says in cases such as mumsy here, that statins are needed regardless of levels.<<

I’m on the wireless dongle, so I’ll have to wait until I get home tonight. I don’t understand the difficulty of a trial off the drug. All her GP needs to do is monitor her. I suspect the washout might be about a week? So check her lipids after two weeks off. With clean as a whistle carotids she’s not likely to clag up in a couple of weeks. If her lipid levels rise dramatically, fine. She needs the drug. But if they stay within reason, she could stay off longer and see if her state of mind improves. At 83, I think it comes down to a choice between a clear mind off the drug or possibly living a month or so longer if she takes the drug. Isn’t it supposed to be all about risk assessment for the individual these days?

:)

Methinks that despite the ability to use other parts of the body.. a clear mind would be the most precious?

buffy said:

>>Maybe…it says in cases such as mumsy here, that statins are needed regardless of levels.<<

I’m on the wireless dongle, so I’ll have to wait until I get home tonight. I don’t understand the difficulty of a trial off the drug. All her GP needs to do is monitor her. I suspect the washout might be about a week? So check her lipids after two weeks off. With clean as a whistle carotids she’s not likely to clag up in a couple of weeks. If her lipid levels rise dramatically, fine. She needs the drug. But if they stay within reason, she could stay off longer and see if her state of mind improves. At 83, I think it comes down to a choice between a clear mind off the drug or possibly living a month or so longer if she takes the drug. Isn’t it supposed to be all about risk assessment for the individual these days?

:)

Yea. High risk of heart attack/stroke in first month or two after ceasing, it’s not just about the levels. But, it should be her decision I’d say.

Why not try a dose reduction first?

poikilotherm said:

Why not try a dose reduction first?

nothing wrong with weaning off. It works elsewhere.

Those links are hellishly complicated poik! I’m thinking I’ll just make up a sheet of The Good Bits (ie genetics of longevity in the women in both sides of her family, low present cholesterol readings, clear brain scans, clear carotids etc) and The Bad Bits (ie her diagnosis of diabetes, um…..not sure what else). And then a sheet asking her to consider what it most important to her….having a clear mind and maybe dying a few months earlier, or living longer in a befuddled state. At least a trial of off, or as you suggest reduced dose, might give her some better idea of whether the drug actually is the problem.

buffy said:

Those links are hellishly complicated poik! I’m thinking I’ll just make up a sheet of The Good Bits (ie genetics of longevity in the women in both sides of her family, low present cholesterol readings, clear brain scans, clear carotids etc) and The Bad Bits (ie her diagnosis of diabetes, um…..not sure what else). And then a sheet asking her to consider what it most important to her….having a clear mind and maybe dying a few months earlier, or living longer in a befuddled state. At least a trial of off, or as you suggest reduced dose, might give her some better idea of whether the drug actually is the problem.

Age goes in bad, elevated Blood Pressure goes in bad (if elevated or on treatment for).