For preview only. Get it at Amazon.com.

Statin Nation: The Great Cholesterol Cover-Up

,    »  -   97 Comments
850
7.06
12345678910
Ratings: 7.06/10 from 48 users.

Storyline

Statin Nation: The Great Cholesterol Cover-Up

We are told that cholesterol is a major cause of heart disease. At least 40 million people are currently taking cholesterol-lowering medications, known as statins, and millions more people are avoiding foods that contain saturated fat and cholesterol.

The basic idea is that dietary saturated fat raises cholesterol levels, and these two substances somehow clog-up our arteries, causing a heart attack.

This idea is often referred to as the diet-heart hypothesis. However, a numbers of doctors and researchers have been challenging this hypothesis for decades, and the latest heart disease statistics reveal some alarming facts.

Cholesterol-lowering has become a huge global industry, generating at least $29 billion each year. Have the facts about heart disease, cholesterol and cholesterol medications been distorted by pharmaceutical companies and food manufacturers keen to increase their profits?

More great documentaries

97 Comments / User Reviews

  1. calblue61

    to answer the last question...you better believe it. When a 30 second commercial tells you in a few seconds what the drug is for and spends the rest of the 25+ seconds telling you with ultra fast speed-talking why and how it may kill you if you take it...the big pharma "cartel" can keep it's drugs. It is scary what these greedy bastards get away with...

  2. Björn Lundberg

    Says video is private .. can't watch it :(

  3. bringmeredwine

    Thanks for the link!
    I'm urging my parents to watch this doc, too.

  4. bburke

    The drug industry has created more diseases than it has ever cured. There is no money in curing, only in the ongoing treatment of a disease that was sold to the public by advertising. I think they discover these drugs by accident then come up with a disease for them to treat

  5. rudeboi

    The way I see it is we should just eat. All the worrying is probably just as bad as that double cheeseburger.

  6. pwndecaf

    Thanks! Did they mention a side affect of wanting to smack someone in the drug industry? I'm feeling that right now about my statin consumption.

    I have another condition (anxiety disorder) successfully treated by drugs that I have attributed some side effects to as the cause. Since I *KNOW* it is treating that anxiety, I happily made the trade-off.

    Now I wonder. Perhaps it is the statin causing the side effects instead and no trade-off is really necessary.

  7. Paul Gloor

    I guess its as the saying goes "Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be they food" I'm getting to the point where I want to drop all this processed crap and start growing all my own food. I bet a lot of the stress damage is caused by food additives. It almost seems as if "do no harm" has been completely forgotten in lieu of "what's our bottom line ?"

  8. 1concept1

    yes and no

  9. rudeboi

    OR!!! you could ruminate and just starve. Life is just too short for any of this and not sweet enough to live too long. As I see it.

  10. a_no_n

    Smallpox and Rinderpest have been eradicated by modern medecine. Polio is on the way out, HIV/AIDS is no longer an instant death sentence, neither are a lot of cancers.

    Your children can be vaccinated against whooping cough, measles, rhubella, and lots of other diseases.

    We can cure cataract problems, we can even stitch a pair of donor arms onto an amputee.

    So...yeah, what about all of that?

  11. a_no_n

    i think maybe your doctor would be a better person to consult about that than the internet!

  12. a_no_n

    the reason they do that is because the drug companies are required BY LAW to list all possible side effects recorded during the clinical testing.
    What, would you rather they kept it all secret or something?
    If you think there's a medecine out there that will cure anything without any side effects, then you need to go out and discover it i'm afraid because 10,000 years of people searching haven't found it yet.

  13. a_no_n

    this documentary was brought to you by the Dairy farmers society of America lol.

    Generally, when people are challenging a hypothesis for decades, it's because they can't prove what they are saying!

  14. calblue61

    I wonder what made you think I didn't know they are required by law to disclose potentially FATAL problems. You completely missed my point, that is, the poison will kill you and you are paying for it. Thank God we STILL have that law on the books.... but don't worry, it will disappear if it would cut into the profit margin...

  15. Imightberiding

    I have been on blood thinners for the past few years & also have extremely high cholesterol. Maybe it's not a real health issue but I can tell all of you from experience that several members of my family have passed away prematurely from stroke related issues. For me, this is a very real concern & health problem. I don't know if the giant pharma companies are perpetuating a myth. Of course they want the largest profit they can achieve but perhaps they really are helping us to live longer & better. I honestly don't know.

    It is very easy to comment & have an opinion when one is in good health & does not have the ever-present burden of a stroke or DVT looming over them.

    The answer is much easier to come by when you are not the guinea pig. Can someone afflicted with these real health issues stop their medication without ill effects? Is high cholesterol really nothing to be worried about? Maybe, maybe not. Who are you going to believe when it's your life at risk?

  16. pwndecaf

    I was thinking along similar lines.

  17. Tmfo

    High Cholesterol has never been proven to cause heart disease. What is likely happening is that a poor diet of processed foods packed with sugar and free radicals is causing damage to the arterial walls and cholesterol is deposited there as white blood cells try to heal it. Watch the documentary called Fathead for a much better explanation than i an give :)

  18. Tmfo

    Actually there is! It's called food. Give the body what it needs and it can heal itself. With the exception of trauma, in which case then you really do want a medical doctor. Otherwise just educate yourself about nutrition and you won't have to bother with big pharma.

  19. MalOdour

    Vaccines are the next big thing for Big Pharma giving kids all sort of problems like ADHD Autism etc all to help big companies make money selling more drugs.

  20. Dr.Shaban

    I work in one of big pharma, and I can tell you that big pharma make money from blockbuster medication that scientifically proven to be beneficial for Human health with less side effect and clear difference from Placebo. Statin is in all cases healthy for you not only for lowering cholesterol bu also studies showed lowering risk of Alzheimer. In drug discovery you will see different opinions from different scientist however all claims can be tested and at the end the truth is the most reproducible results from different labs. and all results from different independent research group showed that statin is beneficial.

  21. Suzy Spellcheck

    have a cure for hep c? the usual course of drugs is what was used for cancer prior to the discovery of chemo and radiation and I don't have cancer. just yet. after i do labs this month i will know if milk thistle is protecting non infected tissues for a 2nd 6 month period. but damage is still be doing done. i know of no other supplement that there is some science behind for hep. there has been clinical trials with milk thistle although substandard in procedures.

  22. Suzy Spellcheck

    proof no wait don't bother because your statement is a bold face lie.

  23. Christopher John Walters

    Chemical soup for Breakfast Dinner and Tea ? Fluoride in the Water, Antibiotics in Dairy and Meat, Insecticides on our Fruit and Veg and Big Farma filling us with Drugs which either don't work or endanger our lives and mental health.. It is ALL a scandal..

  24. Yamaan Farhat

    Let me remind you that the vaccine for small pox was founded BEFORE companies like Big Pharma ever came into the mix. Chew on that one. Yes HIV is no longer a death sentence because you must take drugs for the rest of your life costing around 2000-5000 dollars a month so yea you will live longer but go bankrupt in the process, effectively dying sad and miserable. We're talking about the mainstream diseases that are generating billions of dollars for big pharma, like all the autoimmune problems (eczema), cancer, AIDS, Heart disease, High blood pressure, asthma, and so on.

  25. Yamaan Farhat

    There are many cures for cancer, if you know where to look. Ozone therapy would be a start.

  26. a_no_n

    So if you suddenly develop an anurism, or a spot of neumonia, would you call for an ambulance or a burger van?

  27. a_no_n

    Um...it does cut into the profit margins!
    Testing is an expensive and thorough procedure that costs money.
    I don't disagree with you, pharmacutical companies are capitalist corporations...they're supposed to be big and evil, that's how they survive. let's just not go lumping all the scientists in with the businessmen eh?

  28. a_no_n

    If you're an American, what you need to do is support Socialised medecine.
    I live in the UK, so we have a slightly different argument about it than you lot do. It's possible to have Aids or Cancer in the UK without having to go bankrupt for it.

  29. Sivan Nair

    It is interesting to read differing opinions of so many of you. Let me also contribute my two-cent worth. First let me apologize for side tracking a bit from the subject matter and also for being long winded. . The first thing doctors do is to ask you for your history to find out if any of your parents, grandparents have suffered from heart ailments. To this, from personal experience, I can say it is a complete waste of time. I had a heart attack when I was 46 (I am now 68). There is no record of any of my parents or grandparents having such a problem. Secondly the medical fraternity once thought if you had any pain in your chest, especially on the left, it was sure sign of heart problem. As in my case, I had pain in my arms and jaw. A physician friend rushed to my house and gave me patherdine jab and the pain went away. He asked me to be admitted to the hospital for a thorough check which I did. They ran all sorts of tests including xray, treadmill and ECG. The physician (the term cardiology was just being introduced at that time) swore on his profession that the pain I had experienced had nothing to do with my heart. Some six months later I had pain in similar places but this time it was more severe. I was admitted to the ICU but because of lack facilities I was referred to a private hospital in Kuala Lumpur (incidentally I am from Malaysia), about a 1000 miles away from where I was. I was airlifted to Kuala Lumpur. The professor who carried out the angiogram procedure confirmed that I had a 75% blockage in my LAD and did an angioplasty. This time the ECG showed I had a mild heart attack. I gave up smoking.

    Here I must mention that my cholesterol level was very low, my weight was 65kg and my height is 5ft 9in. I maintained my weight by walking 5km everyday. Going by medical theory that usually a obese person who is bound to have high level of cholesterol is the one who is likely tol get heart attack, should not apply to me!! The clever drug companies take control of your life from the moment you have a heart problem. I had been on statin ever since. Not only that they keep adding new drugs ever so often and doctors readily fall for their tricks. Pharmaceutical companies can vehemently deny but I can vouch that their initial drugs give rise to various other diseases. Now I suffer from diabetes, high blood pressure and flatulence for which I take more drugs!!

    My woes did not end with my first angioplasty. Three months later I developed more pain in the chest. This time I went to the National Heart Institute in Kuala Lumpur. Dr Robaayah, a cardiologist who works closely with Stanford University in the USA discovered more blocks in the same artery. She suggested putting in a stent, a new invention. I was the sixth patient in the country to have stent put in. Since then I went in and out of hospital. I have lost count of the number of stents in my chest. I think there are some10 to 12 of them!!!

    It is universally known that there is a tussle between cardiologists and thoracic surgeons (TS) all because of money. If a cardiologist doesn't refer a patient to a TS he has no income. On the one hand pharmaceutical companies fleece you and on the other doctors fight over who should deal with you. You are at their mercy.

    After the facts we all tend to become cleverer. From experience I can say it is easy to take care of our bodies. The major cause of heart problem is failure to check your stress and anxiety level. It is not so much as to what you eat or how hard you work. I am a typical example of a Type A type of person. I do not tolerate many things. You get your adrenaline overworking which naturally affects you general well being. If you realize this early in life you would do a world of good to yourself and keep the pharmaceutical companies off your turf. You have to eat sensibly and the best way to do that is to avoid fast food outlets. Do regular exercise, better still if you can include yoga in the scheme. You may appear on the outside a calm and collected person. People like these find it difficult to handle stress and anxiety. Again I am a fine example of this.

  30. oQ

    Where are you guys (blind) supporters of the medical and pharmaceutical field when such a doc comes top of the list?
    1i
    edited

  31. wald0

    Vaccines do not cause autism, you are spreading a dangerous lie. But, lets say that just as the original bogus claim asserted one in one thousand children got autism from vaccination. The fact that vaccines have ended diseases such as polio and others that killed or maimed many, many more than one in a thousand children means we would still be much better off using the vaccinations. Take the time to do your own research and understand the issues at hand, stop just repeating what you have heard. THINK!!

  32. Suzy Spellcheck

    i see no peer review medical articles on ozone therapy. it appears to be yet another fraud.

  33. a_no_n

    your fruit, veg, breakfast and tea aren't in the jurisdiction of 'big pharma' so blaming them for that is a bit...misguided...As for the insecticides, GM crops would be an answer for that (but lo and behold the paranoid anti-science crowd have invented a conspiracy about that as well).
    And Drugs that don't work, don't get through testing...so you're wrong there as well.

  34. a_no_n

    I'm going to presume that mess of a comment is asking where the defenders of science are?

    As i said earlier, when somebody spends decades trying to prove a theory, that's normallty because they don't have any actual hard evidence of what they claim.

    Unfortunatly one can take up any anti-science position and have dozens of paranoid conspiracy theorists flock to your cause, because most conspiracy theorists don't need evidence to support their claims, which is why most of them pat each other on the back even when their own conspiracy theories actually clash and contradict one another...which is why a lot of the time, pro-science people can't really be bothered correcting the misinformation because there is just too much of it out there.

  35. a_no_n

    You don't trust drug companies (evcen though modern drugs have let you live to an age your great great grandfather would have been lucky to reach)
    you try to stay away from GMO's (even though there is literally no evidence that they do any sort of harm).

    Out of interest, what are your sources for your information?

  36. a_no_n

    "Why would people just make up this conspiracy?"

    Why would people make up conspiracies about Sandy Hook, or 9/11, or anything.

    Some people make up conspiracies because it's possible to become a millionaire by doing so (Alex Jones)

    Some people do it because they have been paid to do it (Andrew Wakefield).

    And a lot more people do it because they are attention seekers, and are desperate to feel like they belong to something.

    The rest do it out of a quite justified sense of estrangement from society.

    there are lots of reasons, and not all of them are sinister, but all of them have sinister effects.

  37. a_no_n

    do you have any actual evidence for what you claim? as in a peer reviewed study?

    I saw a youtube video the other day about magical unicorns that can talk and have adventures...If youtube videos are admissable as evidence does that mean the magic unicorns are real too?

  38. pwndecaf

    A Monsanto lover, in defense of science.

    The reason their science works is the crops grow despite being blasted by RoundUp (Monsanto). The plants don't keep bugs away on their own.

  39. oQ

    No, i am not talking about defenders of science, i am talking about those who trust the medical and pharmaceutical association blindly.
    As for science, it cannot be stopped and should not in any fields.
    1i

  40. thinkagainagain

    Dr. Kendrick is a quack. How's that.

  41. Wayne Siemund

    Ask any drug dealer and they will say the more trendy the drug, the more beneficial it is to the seller, not the user. When medical drugs are advertised on TV like food and candy, a red flag should pop up in your mind to be very skeptical. After all, they are trying to sell you an idea you are not qualified to judge, and they are not informed enough to prescribe.

  42. Yohann Therrien

    The increased consomation of sugar and modified sugar is the guilible,someting like 1/4 get directly converted to fat without giving you the chance to burn it right off,plus many oner things,

  43. Yohann Therrien

    both sides cant proove anything. eat what you want,live good,die happy.

  44. Yohann Therrien

    These people need to be very careful. With drug addiction, your body can build a dependence on a drug. I imagine the same is true for prescriptions as well, and dropping cold-turkey could be harmful to your health.

  45. Sivan Nair

    Hahahaha you are absolutely right. We are at their mercy and will always be a victim.

  46. Kateye70

    This is purely anecdotal, so take it fwiw.

    I have had, all my life, high cholesterol. My doctor decided I should be on statins, when they became popular to prescribe. The lower dose wasn't working; he upped it. In about a month I was so depressed I was becoming suicidal. I caught myself on the way to work thinking about what might be the most painless way to kill myself, because I no longer wanted to live. I'm not sure what prompted me to start researching the drugs I was on, but I came across a website--not run by pharma, but moderated by a former NASA scientist--that was dedicated to the admittedly anecdotal evidence that statins can cause depression in some people.

    That made me start rethinking my drugs. I stopped taking the statin and within a couple of weeks the depression began lifting. I was still depressed, but it was due to life issues I was struggling with, and I was no longer heading down the path to suicidal tendencies.

    I had been taking blood pressure medicine, but when I stopped taking my daily allergy medicine (I ran out, didn't seem to need it), I started getting light-headed and dizzy. So I stopped taking the blood pressure medicine and my dizziness stopped. Now I control my *tendency* toward high blood pressure by watching my salt and caffeine intake.

    The thing is, I watched my mother spend the last 30 years of her life taking more and more different drugs. They interact and no one can predict the results for individuals. I know that a normal dose of just about any drug can be two or three times too high for my body. As people age, drug tolerance levels decrease, and yet doctors don't decrease dosages. At one point we had to take her off everything, let her readjust, and then start over with what she *really* needed to take.

    I understand the benefits of modern medicine, and happily avail myself if necessary, but the number of drugs that people are told to take as a 'preventative' worries me now.

    I'm erring on the side of caution. Oh, and now that I've completely been off antihistamines for several years, my seasonal allergies are much less than they used to be. Go figure.

  47. Kateye70

    The problem isn't so much the benefits of particular drugs as their undisclosed or ignored risks. I was pushed to take statins, and ended up nearly suicidal. I stopped taking them, and those thoughts went away. This all happened in a few weeks. I was still depressed later, but not suicidal. Statins were *not* healthy for me. Anecdotal evidence, yes. But I'm not the only one.

  48. pwndecaf

    Thanks for telling your story. I will be asking my Dr if I can stop taking the statin. If he says no, well...we'll see.

  49. Samuel Morrissey

    Good to have a voice from the inside for a change. As a firm supporter of medical science, may I ask what job you do?

    A small point I would like to make regarding large scale prescriptions of new drugs, is that in my opinion GPs tend to over diagnose conditions that there is a verified effective treatment for, a sort of confirmation bias behavior that is subtly reinforced by the glossy media, and is at the very least undesirable. Do you agree?

    Statins are a case in point - the media have practically been saying that everyone should take them to lower cholesterol, whether they are ill or not. Other recent examples include anti depressants like Paroxetine, whose occasionally severe side effects and/or withdrawal symptoms were not well understood until a populace sized group of people were put on it. Crucially this was after the marketing+media hype had been done - invalidating several of the claims made during marketing. We can also go further back and look at Thalidomide etc.

    Of course, had such large scale prescriptions of these drugs not occurred, we might never have discovered the more serious risks to particular individuals. Perhaps it is even necessary to further our understanding. My (small) point of contention is that media hype, combined with GPs fallibility makes for a very suspicious patient. Unfortunately this is exacerbated by the conspiracy theorists who are given much of their ammunition by sometimes clearly unethical business practices, like the marketing of drugs as completely safe when in reality - the jury is still out.

  50. a_no_n

    That's where you're wrong because actually all medicine has to prove it's effectual by scientific peer review...so there is evidence on one side, quite a bit!

  51. a_no_n

    but i don't trust the medical establishment blindly...that's why i vote for left wing parties that support the idea of socialised medecine, and take a lot of the power away from the pharmaceuticals industry through regulation.

  52. pwndecaf

    Totally non-responsive. You seem to love to stand up for science (good for you) but you use it like it is the only tool in your bag.

    Is there any government or business or institution you won't shill for?

  53. a_no_n

    By 'non responsive' I take it you mean you have no counter for the perfectly reasonable points i made! lol of course...there's no possible chance that i'm just another human being with a differing opinion...you're so omnipotent that any critics could only possible be a paid shill...as if "Big pharma" has nothing better to do with it's money than pay me to come here to the arse end of the internet and disagree with you.
    I suppose calling me names is easier than addressing what i'm saying.

  54. Guest

    says the guy who posts a blog as evidence.

    I literally have no words for how ironic that is.

  55. a_no_n

    that study is about roundup...a pesticide.

    We're talking about GM foods.

    Did you even read that before you posted it or did you just see that it vaguely said something bad about Monsanto and decided that was all the looking you need to do?

  56. pwndecaf

    Just click on your name and read your own posts. Might as well read government or corporate press releases.

    I said shill, not paid shill. I did learn more about you from comments made on The New Statesman. I do agree with you on trickle down being a farce and am sorry you have too much time on your hands. I've been pretty lucky my whole life and hope to retire in 5-6 years.

    So, now that I'm seeing you more as a person, I will just say I agree on some things but not others. Not everything is proper science on one side and tin foil hatters on the other.

    Galileo, often considered the father of modern science, was a tin foil hatter in his day. Just sayin'.

    As for addressing what you were saying - yeah, cars got faster, something about GM foods that went nowhere, and computers got smaller. Okay, I agree on 2 and don't know what the 3rd one is saying. Point?

  57. calblue61

    I did not post the article as evidence...only tried to point out how all these issues are related.... never mind, eat your crap and try to cure it with big pharma's concoctions...knock yourself out.

  58. a_no_n

    I see...so you're just going to change the words meaning to better suit your needs when challenged on it...Again, more insults where a point should be.
    That wasn't addressing my point, that was vaguely referencing it.

    To clear up your misconceptions about Galileo, i suggest you Google "Galileo logical fallacy"
    It's a typical logical fallacy trotted out by true believers. (The big difference that they and you tend to not realise is that Gallileo had EVIDENCE to support his claims.

    My point was how do you expect technology to develop if you aren't going to give it time?

  59. pwndecaf

    So you accept EVIDENCE that you find worthy and dismiss the rest. I understand. And an argument is only fallacious if it uses poor reasoning - it has nothing to do with right or wrong.

    For you to sit there and claim science is on your side all the time is lazy. Not very convincing, either. You might even say "fallacious."

  60. a_no_n

    Still avoiding addressing my point i see.

    I don't claim science is on my side, i'm on sciences side.

    If evidence can be proved true,m then it's evidence, if it can't then it isn't.

    rather than spending all your time trying to figure out what name to call me next, why don't you indulge in a little bit of critical thinking?

  61. pwndecaf

    Good luck finding any "side" I took. I remember saying I was going to ask my doctor about my statin prescription and musing about whether the statin gave me the side effects I experience or what I had originally attributed them to.

    I do have a problem with Monsanto's ethics. I'm hardly alone in that.

    What have you brought to the table? And what names are you talking about? I really don't see a reason for either one of us to respond to the other. I've made my point (your lazy arguments - I think others agree) and I'm moving on, so take your best shot. I care not.

  62. a_no_n

    And the distraction continues, you've still managed to completly avoid addressing anything i've brought up because you can't and you know it...instead you're trying to disguise the fact that you can't by trying to brush them away by pretending i haven't said anything, like a child with it's fingers mashed into it's ears going "nyah nyah can't hear you"...it's pathetic and i'm glad you're taking your childishness somewhere else.

    I don't think anyone likes Monsanto's ethics...nowhere will you see me saying they are a nice bunch of people!
    I just realize that there's a difference between the businessmen and the scientists!

  63. pwndecaf

    If you would have a point, they might be addressed. Read your posts again and show me a point. In fact, list them. I cant see them. I supplied mine.

    Nice adult argument - lol. Oooh, that really hurts, and will for a long, long time.

  64. a_no_n

    I explained why your expectations for the science were unrealistic and asked how you expected the science to suddenly develop overnight.
    Ready to take the plunge and stop distracting now?
    oh and i just pointed out that there's a difference between the businessmen and the scientists. (since you need reminding of every point i make i'll start by reminding you of that one now)

  65. pwndecaf

    1. So experimenting on the public with what - undeveloped science? - is okay by you. Got it. Thanks for clarifying.

    2. There's a difference between business and science. Umm...okay, should we take business reviews of their products and allow them on the market or only after they are actually reviewed by the correct government agencies, or better yet, actual impartial scientists? I agree.

    Your two "points" seem to be at odds with each other.

  66. a_no_n

    congratulations, you've managed to avoid the point again...I asked you how you expect science to develop without being given any time or resources to develop and you distracted away from that question by asking me a rhetorical question based on a purposeful misinterpretation of what i said...tedious, very tedious. Please address the point i'm fed up of your diversions.

  67. pwndecaf

    I'm sorry. If you can't make a point clear enough when I ask you directly for it, you might try English as a second language classes.

  68. a_no_n

    asking a question to avoid a question is a distraction...or had you forgotten that i'm still waiting for an answer to the question i asked you some six odd posts ago?
    Insulting me again to try and cover up the fact you've got nothing to say?

    look...can we stop this pointless willy bashing contest you're trying to start and just argue on the subject at hand? I'm so bored of your distractions and would like to actually argue about something that matters...do you think you can manage that?

  69. pwndecaf

    Why do you keep replying?

    You called me a horrid little troll, now since edited out, so you could complain again that I'm calling you names.

    Go away.

  70. pwndecaf

    Look who has thumbs up at the beginning and who has none.

    It appears I've made points that people not only understand but also can agree with. You? Not so much.

  71. a_no_n

    not being religeously minded, i am prone to changing my mind about stuff.
    i lost my rag and called you a troll, then dispite how troll like you are being i regretted it and edited it out...but in your endless crusade to score points no matter what you've failed to recognise that.
    Considering i made that edit within five minutes of the initial post i hardly think it's a crime.

  72. a_no_n

    yeah, the lowest common denominator normally gets the highest approval.
    Science will keep being science, and facts will keep being facts, no matter how popular the anti-science agenda is.

  73. oQ

    You seem to ignore that (what was considered) anti-science has (often) been what pushes science further or onto a new platform.
    1i

  74. pwndecaf

    "Endless crusade" - how dramatic.

    Show me something I said that is wrong, according to you, and I'll examine it.

    To those that did give me a thumbs up - this other fellow says we are the lowest common denominator. I guess that is an insult, but I doubt he knows how to find it mathematically, which is actually useful in real life.

  75. pwndecaf

    Pretty easy to vote left wing when you are 28 and working part-time.

  76. pwndecaf

    tinyurl dot com / ptfeu78

    2 million march in 52 countries against Monsanto.

  77. a_no_n

    You're missing the fact that EVIDENCE was involved all those other times!

  78. a_no_n

    Millions of people watch Fox News...doesn't make what they say right does it?
    Millions of people support the Catholic church...something tells me Jesus isn't going to be showing up any time soon.

    Reality is unmoved by popular opinion!

  79. a_no_n

    52 countrys and all you could manage was 2 million?

    considering the population of the earth is in the billions, two million people is hardly a drop in the ocean...try googling basic statistics :)

  80. a_no_n

    what's that even supposed to mean?
    (forgive me if i don't comment on your own political leanings...i don't really care)

  81. pwndecaf

    What is this? Even though I agree, I don't see how it is relevant to anything here. I certainly never said anything related to those things. If you think I did, show me the quotes! You know you can't.

  82. pwndecaf

    Bozo comment. That worldwide rally was started by one lady, I believe on Facebook.

    What did you do today that made a difference?

  83. pwndecaf

    You don't recognize yourself? Look in the mirror.

  84. pwndecaf

    The offer still stands. Show me something I said that you think is wrong and I'll examine it.

    Quote me though, don't make stuff up.

  85. terrasodium

    "Reality is unmoved by popular opinion!" How do You explain peer review? Falsifiability requires skeptics, Is science the same as technology?Was Henry fFord aware of Monoxide poisoning of large production quantities(did public opinion over-ride the slowing of production)? Is the law of unintended consequences important to science?

  86. hernandayoleary

    So if bad food doesn't cause high cholesterol what does?

  87. Julian

    Poor doc the end of big pharma is near and you can sense it do not be afraid we people of the world will help you find another job. I have 8 children age 9 to 22 not a single visit to a doctor in more than six years, two cousins and two uncles are doctor. I found the secret pills weaken the immune system and make the body sick all the time.

  88. Julian

    And oh yes cholesterol if only one will use common sense then it becomes evident that the children do not get high blood because their nerves is soft and pliable any cholesterol can pass thru with ease. The cause therefor is hardening of nerves cause by chemicals that slowly kill and harden the nerves as one gets older and there is lots of bad chemicals in the body. chemtrails monsanto etc.

  89. randomguy

    High cholesterol may indicate an inflammation.

  90. hernandayoleary

    So than what causes high cholesterol

  91. a_no_n

    um...peer review is the process of repeating a scientific study independently and replicating the results...It's not a bunch of old boys sat around the fire agreeing and harrumphing each other!

  92. terrasodium

    So the DSM-5 is independently replicated? I could mention others, stick to the Bunsen burner, test tube and microscope views of science if you must, it only serves to narrow your comprehensions of what the methodology is in reality.

  93. a_no_n

    if you don't believe me then google it for yourself, or look in the dictionary you're thumbing through.

  94. terrasodium

    You really need to renew your library card, you're stuck in a looped Google bubble< google that.
    edit; AKA "filter bubble"

  95. terrasodium

    just something for your open minded consideration.

    The New Yorker highlights the following issues with the scientific method.

    Replicating an experiment and getting the exact same findings is
    difficult. Why? Regression to the mean. As an experiment is repeated
    statistical flukes get tossed out.

    The peer review process is flawed. Peer review is ultimately tilted to positive results.

    Publication bias. Journals and scientists aim for being
    statistically significant and this leads everyone aiming for positive
    results. We don’t want to see a null result. Researchers are
    “significance chasing,” or interpreting data so it passes the
    statistical test of significance.

    Money. For instance, pharmaceutical companies have little interest
    in publishing results that aren’t favorable. Validating a hypothesis is
    all the more gratifying if there’s financial gain to be made.

    Selective reporting. The New Yorker notes that selective reporting
    isn’t fraud, it’s just that researchers may make subtle omissions and
    misperceptions as they try and explain their results. One example cited
    was the testing of acupuncture. In the West, acupuncture effectiveness
    is questioned. Not surprisingly, studies so acupuncture’s effectiveness
    isn’t all that great. In the East, the effectiveness is deemed higher.
    Scientists look for ways to confirm their preferred hypothesis.

  96. Johannes Bjarmarsson

    Every cell in our body is made of Cholesterol, our brain is 80% Cholesterol ... what we have got here is a classic case of Genocide

  97. Bret The Hitman

    The main source of cholesterol in the body is that produced by our very own vital organ the liver. High carb diets (advocated by USDA) and hyperglycemia (high sugar in the bloodstream) contribute to inflammation and cell damage. Each cell membrane is made structurally sound by cholesterol. When high sugar intake inflicts membrane damage, the liver releases LDL cholesterol into the blood with the intention of membrane repair (of the cells lining the blood vessels of the cardiovascular system). Likewise, when a cell is weak or dies, cholesterol remnants are transported back to the liver via HDL. That's right, HDL carries this ghastly molecule right back to our very own vital organ. OMG. Why? For recycling.

    Dietary cholesterol makes up merely a minute portion of total body cholesterol. If blood cholesterol is high, that is a sign our liver is distressed and our hepatocytes (liver cells) are working hard to produce and release cholesterol to damaged cells. Elevated levels of cholesterol in the blood come from within and serve a healing purpose.

    So if we care about the health of our hearts and the integrity of the cholesterol dense membranes of the cells lining our blood vessels, instead of avoiding dietary cholesterol and saturated fat, we should think more about significantly reducing carb intake (no whole grains, no refined grains, no pastas, no breads, no sugar, no corn syrup, no high fructose corn syrup). No species has evolved with a vital organ that daily produces significant amounts of a lethal molecule detrimental to the organism, that includes homo sapien with cholesterol recycling liver.

Leave a comment / review: