The Cholesterol Paradox

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Diarmid Logan, Dec 3, 2003.

  1. http://www.healthcentral.com/news/NewsFullText.cfm?id=516315

    The Cholesterol Paradox

    A study finds higher levels may actually benefit people with heart
    failure.

    By Andrew Conaway

    HealthDay Reporter

    TUESDAY, Dec. 2 (HealthDayNews) -- A new study turns common sense on its
    head by suggesting high cholesterol levels may actually help people with
    heart failure.

    Despite the fact that high blood cholesterol has been linked to
    increased risk for ailments such as coronary vascular disease and
    blocked arteries, especially in combination with other risk factors, the
    finding that higher levels may help this group have researchers
    scratching their heads.

    "On the face of it, the result seems quite surprising, given the strong
    association between cholesterol and vascular disease. However, we have
    been developing for some time the notion that heart failure is a
    metabolically stressful illness," says Dr. Andrew L. Clark of Castle
    Hill Hospital and the University of Hull in England. Clark is co-author
    of the study, which appears in the Dec. 3 issue of the Journal of the
    American College of Cardiology.

    "A high cholesterol level can be seen as good in that it indicates a
    greater reserve to deal with metabolic stresses. And this is supported
    by some of the other studies. . . showing a greater survival with
    increasing body weight in heart failure and following heart surgery,"
    Clark adds.

    Researchers from Castle Hill Hospital, along with colleagues in London
    and Berlin, studied 417 patients with chronic heart failure and found
    the chance of survival increased 25 percent for each
    39-milligram-per-deciliter (mg/dl) increment in total cholesterol.

    On average, patients with a total cholesterol level of 232 mg/dl had a
    25 percent higher survival rate than heart failure patients with a total
    cholesterol level of 193 mg/dl. Experts say a total cholesterol figure
    under 200 mg/dl is desirable.

    Although the results of this study go against the usual "lower
    cholesterol is better" advice, they reinforce findings in several
    previous studies that linked lower cholesterol with poorer prognosis in
    heart failure patients, the study says.

    Clark says two hypotheses may explain the paradoxical relationship.

    "Lipoproteins are good at absorbing bacterial endotoxin. An intriguing
    notion is that the reason for the immune system activation seen in heart
    failure patients is related to bowel wall edema, allowing bacterial
    translocation into the body. It may be that lipoproteins mediate a
    beneficial effect by mopping up any bacterial proteins before they cause
    immune system activation," he says. "I tend to like the lipoprotein
    idea."

    But he cautions on the use of cholesterol-lower statins for chronic
    heart failure patients.

    "If [health professionals] are using cholesterol-lowering statins, they
    are doing that without evidence that what they are doing is correct.
    What we say to them is get those patients, those with chronic heart
    failure, to clinical trials so it can be studied further," Clark says.

    However, some caution that lower cholesterol may not necessarily be the
    cause of the higher mortality in heart failure patients, but may be a
    indicator of other factors that might be linked.

    Dr. Robert Doughty, a research fellow at the University of Auckland in
    New Zealand, who was not connected with the study but reviewed the data,
    emphasized the results cannot determine that low cholesterol was the
    cause of worse outcomes in the heart failure patients.

    "We have to be careful about this data. Don't get me wrong, and it is
    very interesting data," Doughty says. "But we should not automatically
    extrapolate this group of patients who may be at the endgame of their
    disease, and don't forget -- chronic heart failure patients are at the
    end stages of their disease."

    "Just because there is association doesn't mean there is causality. This
    study is important, but there is more work needed to be done for that
    group which has progressed further along with heart failure due to
    coronary heart disease," he adds.




    --
    Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
     
    Tags:


  2. an exerpt from the illustrative reference...
    ~~
    Dr. Robert Doughty, a research fellow at the University of Auckland in New
    Zealand, who was not connected with the study but reviewed the data,
    emphasized the results cannot determine that low cholesterol was the cause
    of worse outcomes in the heart failure patients.

    "We have to be careful about this data. Don't get me wrong, and it is very
    interesting data," Doughty says. "But we should not automatically
    extrapolate this group of patients who may be at the endgame of their
    disease, and don't forget -- chronic heart failure patients are at the end
    stages of their disease."
    ~~

    I would tend to agree
    pb

    On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 17:49:00 +0000 (UTC), Diarmid Logan
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > http://www.healthcentral.com/news/NewsFullText.cfm?id=516315
    >
    > The Cholesterol Paradox
    >
    > A study finds higher levels may actually benefit people with heart
    > failure.
    >
    > By Andrew Conaway
    >
    > HealthDay Reporter
    >
    > TUESDAY, Dec. 2 (HealthDayNews) -- A new study turns common sense on its
    > head by suggesting high cholesterol levels may actually help people with
    > heart failure.
    >
    > Despite the fact that high blood cholesterol has been linked to
    > increased risk for ailments such as coronary vascular disease and
    > blocked arteries, especially in combination with other risk factors, the
    > finding that higher levels may help this group have researchers
    > scratching their heads.
    >
    > "On the face of it, the result seems quite surprising, given the strong
    > association between cholesterol and vascular disease. However, we have
    > been developing for some time the notion that heart failure is a
    > metabolically stressful illness," says Dr. Andrew L. Clark of Castle
    > Hill Hospital and the University of Hull in England. Clark is co-author
    > of the study, which appears in the Dec. 3 issue of the Journal of the
    > American College of Cardiology.
    >
    > "A high cholesterol level can be seen as good in that it indicates a
    > greater reserve to deal with metabolic stresses. And this is supported
    > by some of the other studies. . . showing a greater survival with
    > increasing body weight in heart failure and following heart surgery,"
    > Clark adds.
    >
    > Researchers from Castle Hill Hospital, along with colleagues in London
    > and Berlin, studied 417 patients with chronic heart failure and found
    > the chance of survival increased 25 percent for each
    > 39-milligram-per-deciliter (mg/dl) increment in total cholesterol.
    >
    > On average, patients with a total cholesterol level of 232 mg/dl had a
    > 25 percent higher survival rate than heart failure patients with a total
    > cholesterol level of 193 mg/dl. Experts say a total cholesterol figure
    > under 200 mg/dl is desirable.
    >
    > Although the results of this study go against the usual "lower
    > cholesterol is better" advice, they reinforce findings in several
    > previous studies that linked lower cholesterol with poorer prognosis in
    > heart failure patients, the study says.
    >
    > Clark says two hypotheses may explain the paradoxical relationship.
    >
    > "Lipoproteins are good at absorbing bacterial endotoxin. An intriguing
    > notion is that the reason for the immune system activation seen in heart
    > failure patients is related to bowel wall edema, allowing bacterial
    > translocation into the body. It may be that lipoproteins mediate a
    > beneficial effect by mopping up any bacterial proteins before they cause
    > immune system activation," he says. "I tend to like the lipoprotein
    > idea."
    >
    > But he cautions on the use of cholesterol-lower statins for chronic
    > heart failure patients.
    >
    > "If [health professionals] are using cholesterol-lowering statins, they
    > are doing that without evidence that what they are doing is correct.
    > What we say to them is get those patients, those with chronic heart
    > failure, to clinical trials so it can be studied further," Clark says.
    >
    > However, some caution that lower cholesterol may not necessarily be the
    > cause of the higher mortality in heart failure patients, but may be a
    > indicator of other factors that might be linked.
    >
    > Dr. Robert Doughty, a research fellow at the University of Auckland in
    > New Zealand, who was not connected with the study but reviewed the data,
    > emphasized the results cannot determine that low cholesterol was the
    > cause of worse outcomes in the heart failure patients.
    >
    > "We have to be careful about this data. Don't get me wrong, and it is
    > very interesting data," Doughty says. "But we should not automatically
    > extrapolate this group of patients who may be at the endgame of their
    > disease, and don't forget -- chronic heart failure patients are at the
    > end stages of their disease."
    >
    > "Just because there is association doesn't mean there is causality. This
    > study is important, but there is more work needed to be done for that
    > group which has progressed further along with heart failure due to
    > coronary heart disease," he adds.
    >
    >
    >
    >




    --
    ~~~
    Patrick Blanchard, M.D., A.B.F.P.
    Board Certified in Family Practice
    http://www.familydoctor.org/blanchard
    ~~~
    SonoScore
    Winning against heart attack and stroke
    http://www.sonoscore.com
     
  3. Robert

    Robert Guest

    "Diarmid Logan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > http://www.healthcentral.com/news/NewsFullText.cfm?id=516315
    >
    > The Cholesterol Paradox
    >
    > A study finds higher levels may actually benefit people with heart
    > failure.


    That's not what the study showed. It showed better outcomes in patients
    with higher cholesterol levels. The study did not show that high cholesterol
    levels benefit people with heart failure. You are already attaching
    causality to it.
    I would tend to go along with the notion that sick people in general will
    have lower cholesterol and thus the association of poor outcomes in whatever
    disease you are studying.
    Conversely, people who are eating well are the ones not experiencing a lot
    of severe symptoms and you would see higher cholesterol.
    Survey paper work research studies in which variables are not manipulated
    are of limited use. They only show associations but do nothing to prove
    causality.
    Cholesterol levels associated with coronary artery disease when used as a
    risk factor for CAD is valid only in the younger age group. I don't recall
    the cutoff but older individuals who do not have CAD and a high cholesterol
    actually are better off. This is another paradox and shows that cholesterol
    per say is not the sole factor in determining outcomes or risk factors.
     
  4. "Robert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]


    > "Diarmid Logan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > http://www.healthcentral.com/news/NewsFullText.cfm?id=516315


    > > The Cholesterol Paradox


    > > A study finds higher levels may actually benefit people with heart
    > > failure.


    > That's not what the study showed. It showed better outcomes in patients
    > with higher cholesterol levels. The study did not show that high cholesterol
    > levels benefit people with heart failure. You are already attaching
    > causality to it.



    I am attaching nothing to it. All I did was cut and paste an article. If
    you have problems with the article then I suggest that you contact the
    author.


    --
    Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
     
  5. On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 11:22:48 -0800, Robert <[email protected]> wrote:


    > Cholesterol levels associated with coronary artery disease when used as a
    > risk factor for CAD is valid only in the younger age group. I don't
    > recall
    > the cutoff but older individuals who do not have CAD and a high
    > cholesterol
    > actually are better off. This is another paradox and shows that
    > cholesterol
    > per say is not the sole factor in determining outcomes or risk factors.
    >
    >
    >

    I certainly agree that cholesterol is not the sole factor for disease.

    you must be cautious as to the definition of CAD however, and then ask
    yourself how you would prefer to be 'profiled'. many studies use a hard
    clinical event like heart attack or stroke as the measured outcome of the
    study. some use death. as we all know, these are late consequences of
    atherosclerosis and not the prefered 'profile' for ourselves. CAD, or
    atherosclerosis, or CVD, or cardiovascular disease, or hardening of the
    arteries? how is the disease measured? you can profile someone with risk
    assesment and 'suppose' they have atherosclerosis, or you can actually
    measure it.

    --
    ~~~
    Patrick Blanchard, M.D., A.B.F.P.
    Board Certified in Family Practice
    http://www.familydoctor.org/blanchard
    ~~~
    SonoScore
    Winning against heart attack and stroke
    http://www.sonoscore.com
     
  6. "Patrick Blanchard, M.D." wrote:

    > an exerpt from the illustrative reference...
    > ~~
    > Dr. Robert Doughty, a research fellow at the University of Auckland in New
    > Zealand, who was not connected with the study but reviewed the data,
    > emphasized the results cannot determine that low cholesterol was the cause
    > of worse outcomes in the heart failure patients.
    >
    > "We have to be careful about this data. Don't get me wrong, and it is very
    > interesting data," Doughty says. "But we should not automatically
    > extrapolate this group of patients who may be at the endgame of their
    > disease, and don't forget -- chronic heart failure patients are at the end
    > stages of their disease."
    > ~~
    >
    > I would tend to agree
    > pb


    As would I, Patrick.

    Humbly,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    http://www.heartmdphd.com/
     
  7. Robert

    Robert Guest

    "Patrick Blanchard, M.D." <[email protected]_nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:eek:[email protected]
    > On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 11:22:48 -0800, Robert <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    > > Cholesterol levels associated with coronary artery disease when used as

    a
    > > risk factor for CAD is valid only in the younger age group. I don't
    > > recall
    > > the cutoff but older individuals who do not have CAD and a high
    > > cholesterol
    > > actually are better off. This is another paradox and shows that
    > > cholesterol
    > > per say is not the sole factor in determining outcomes or risk factors.
    > >
    > >
    > >

    > I certainly agree that cholesterol is not the sole factor for disease.
    >
    > you must be cautious as to the definition of CAD however, and then ask
    > yourself how you would prefer to be 'profiled'. many studies use a hard
    > clinical event like heart attack or stroke as the measured outcome of the
    > study. some use death. as we all know, these are late consequences of
    > atherosclerosis and not the prefered 'profile' for ourselves. CAD, or
    > atherosclerosis, or CVD, or cardiovascular disease, or hardening of the
    > arteries? how is the disease measured? you can profile someone with risk
    > assesment and 'suppose' they have atherosclerosis, or you can actually
    > measure it.
    >
    > --
    > ~~~
    > Patrick Blanchard, M.D., A.B.F.P.
    > Board Certified in Family Practice
    > http://www.familydoctor.org/blanchard
    > ~~~
    > SonoScore
    > Winning against heart attack and stroke
    > http://www.sonoscore.com


    That is the problem that I was actually referring to in terms of sole
    determinant as their are a large group of conditions with a diverse group of
    contributing factors.
    Risk assessment in terms of pre-screening in symptomatic individuals goes on
    a very generalized lipid profile. As more is learned especially in the realm
    of genetics these individuals will be sorted out better and more specific
    modalities can thus be used and developed.
    It is always better to attack the initiator of the cascade rather than the
    end result.
     
  8. Robert

    Robert Guest

    "Diarmid Logan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "Robert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    >
    > > "Diarmid Logan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]
    > > > http://www.healthcentral.com/news/NewsFullText.cfm?id=516315

    >
    > > > The Cholesterol Paradox

    >
    > > > A study finds higher levels may actually benefit people with heart
    > > > failure.

    >
    > > That's not what the study showed. It showed better outcomes in patients
    > > with higher cholesterol levels. The study did not show that high

    cholesterol
    > > levels benefit people with heart failure. You are already attaching
    > > causality to it.

    >
    >
    > I am attaching nothing to it. All I did was cut and paste an article. If
    > you have problems with the article then I suggest that you contact the
    > author.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG


    I stand corrected. I was commenting on the article which you posted here
    and I was responding to it. I don't know why I would contact the author as
    he did not post it here.
     
  9. On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:22:38 -0800, Robert <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    > "Patrick Blanchard, M.D." <[email protected]_nospam.com> wrote in
    > message
    > news:eek:[email protected]
    >> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 11:22:48 -0800, Robert <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> > Cholesterol levels associated with coronary artery disease when used

    >> as

    > a
    >> > risk factor for CAD is valid only in the younger age group. I don't
    >> > recall
    >> > the cutoff but older individuals who do not have CAD and a high
    >> > cholesterol
    >> > actually are better off. This is another paradox and shows that
    >> > cholesterol
    >> > per say is not the sole factor in determining outcomes or risk

    >> factors.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >

    >> I certainly agree that cholesterol is not the sole factor for disease.
    >>
    >> you must be cautious as to the definition of CAD however, and then ask
    >> yourself how you would prefer to be 'profiled'. many studies use a hard
    >> clinical event like heart attack or stroke as the measured outcome of
    >> the
    >> study. some use death. as we all know, these are late consequences of
    >> atherosclerosis and not the prefered 'profile' for ourselves. CAD, or
    >> atherosclerosis, or CVD, or cardiovascular disease, or hardening of the
    >> arteries? how is the disease measured? you can profile someone with risk
    >> assesment and 'suppose' they have atherosclerosis, or you can actually
    >> measure it.
    >>
    >> -- ~~~
    >> Patrick Blanchard, M.D., A.B.F.P.
    >> Board Certified in Family Practice
    >> http://www.familydoctor.org/blanchard
    >> ~~~
    >> SonoScore
    >> Winning against heart attack and stroke
    >> http://www.sonoscore.com

    >
    > That is the problem that I was actually referring to in terms of sole
    > determinant as their are a large group of conditions with a diverse group
    > of
    > contributing factors.
    > Risk assessment in terms of pre-screening in symptomatic individuals goes
    > on
    > a very generalized lipid profile.


    yes, a size 9 shoe does not fit everyone. Some do better with a size
    7.89523 instead.

    this difference is the foundation of risk assesment vs actual measure of
    atherosclerosis. even NMR profiling of LDL-C subclasses is still considered
    risk assesment and not a measure of the disease itself.

    > As more is learned especially in the realm
    > of genetics these individuals will be sorted out better and more specific
    > modalities can thus be used and developed.
    > It is always better to attack the initiator of the cascade rather than
    > the
    > end result.
    >

    yes, I think gene therapy will drive treatment for those with advancing
    atherosclerosis in the future.


    --
    ~~~
    Patrick Blanchard, M.D., A.B.F.P.
    Board Certified in Family Practice
    http://www.familydoctor.org/blanchard
    ~~~
    SonoScore
    Winning against heart attack and stroke
    http://www.sonoscore.com
     
  10. "Robert" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > "Diarmid Logan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > "Robert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]
    > >
    > >
    > > > "Diarmid Logan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > news:[email protected]
    > > > > http://www.healthcentral.com/news/NewsFullText.cfm?id=516315

    >
    > > > > The Cholesterol Paradox

    >
    > > > > A study finds higher levels may actually benefit people with heart
    > > > > failure.

    >
    > > > That's not what the study showed. It showed better outcomes in patients
    > > > with higher cholesterol levels. The study did not show that high

    > cholesterol
    > > > levels benefit people with heart failure. You are already attaching
    > > > causality to it.

    > >
    > >
    > > I am attaching nothing to it. All I did was cut and paste an article. If
    > > you have problems with the article then I suggest that you contact the
    > > author.
    > >
    > >
    > > --
    > > Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

    >
    > I stand corrected. I was commenting on the article which you posted here
    > and I was responding to it. I don't know why I would contact the author as
    > he did not post it here.


    You would contact the author since you are apparently taking issue
    with something that he wrote.
     
  11. Robert

    Robert Guest

    "Diarmid Logan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > You would
    contact the author since you are apparently taking issue
    > with something that he wrote.


    So when someone posts an article such as you have then we should not respond
    to it here but contact the author privately about any objections.

    I wonder if everyone here knows that. Thank you for the clarification.
     
  12. "Robert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    >
    > "Diarmid Logan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > You would
    > contact the author since you are apparently taking issue
    > > with something that he wrote.

    >
    > So when someone posts an article such as you have then we should not respond
    > to it here but contact the author privately about any objections.
    >
    > I wonder if everyone here knows that. Thank you for the clarification.


    *Sigh* Please reread your original post to me. You made the mistake of
    thinking that I was saying something about the research when it was the
    author who had made the statement.


    --
    Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
     
  13. Van Bagnol

    Van Bagnol Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Robert" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Diarmid Logan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > You would
    > contact the author since you are apparently taking issue
    > > with something that he wrote.

    >
    > So when someone posts an article such as you have then we should not respond
    > to it here but contact the author privately about any objections.


    No, one should comment in the NG on the article _and_ optionally contact
    the author about any objections with the article, but one should not
    attribute its objectionable points to the poster of the article when the
    poster is clearly not the author.

    > I wonder if everyone here knows that.


    Perhaps they do now.

    Van

    --
    Van Bagnol / v a n at wco dot com / c r l at bagnol dot com
    ....enjoys - Theatre / Windsurfing / Skydiving / Mountain Biking
    ....feels - "Parang lumalakad ako sa loob ng paniginip"
    ....thinks - "An Error is Not a Mistake ... Unless You Refuse to Correct It"
     
  14. Once upon a time, our fellow Diarmid Logan
    rambled on about "Re: The Cholesterol Paradox."
    Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

    >All I did was cut and paste an article.


    Aaackk!

    Don't you know that cut & pasting an article is *not* permitted in a
    science forum?

    Besides, all learned people agree that it is 'cut & copy.'

    Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
     
  15. Robert

    Robert Guest

    "Van Bagnol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "Robert" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > "Diarmid Logan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > You would
    > > contact the author since you are apparently taking issue
    > > > with something that he wrote.

    > >
    > > So when someone posts an article such as you have then we should not

    respond
    > > to it here but contact the author privately about any objections.

    >
    > No, one should comment in the NG on the article _and_ optionally contact
    > the author about any objections with the article, but one should not
    > attribute its objectionable points to the poster of the article when the
    > poster is clearly not the author.


    I mistook the intro to the article as written by the poster. I commented
    that I stood corrected on that point and then it got into weidness.
    >
    > > I wonder if everyone here knows that.

    >
    > Perhaps they do now.
    >
    > Van
    >
    > --
    > Van Bagnol / v a n at wco dot com / c r l at bagnol dot com
    > ...enjoys - Theatre / Windsurfing / Skydiving / Mountain Biking
    > ...feels - "Parang lumalakad ako sa loob ng paniginip"
    > ...thinks - "An Error is Not a Mistake ... Unless You Refuse to Correct

    It"
     
  16. "Robert" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > "Van Bagnol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > In article <[email protected]>,
    > > "Robert" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > > "Diarmid Logan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > You would
    > > > contact the author since you are apparently taking issue
    > > > > with something that he wrote.
    > > >
    > > > So when someone posts an article such as you have then we should not

    > respond
    > > > to it here but contact the author privately about any objections.

    > >
    > > No, one should comment in the NG on the article _and_ optionally contact
    > > the author about any objections with the article, but one should not
    > > attribute its objectionable points to the poster of the article when the
    > > poster is clearly not the author.

    >
    > I mistook the intro to the article as written by the poster. I commented
    > that I stood corrected on that point and then it got into weidness.


    No, you are the one that made it "weird".
     
  17. John 'the Man' <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > Once upon a time, our fellow Diarmid Logan
    > rambled on about "Re: The Cholesterol Paradox."
    > Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
    >
    > >All I did was cut and paste an article.

    >
    > Aaackk!
    >
    > Don't you know that cut & pasting an article is *not* permitted in a
    > science forum?
    >
    > Besides, all learned people agree that it is 'cut & copy.'
    >
    > Ha, ... Hah, Ha!


    God, another fool who thinks that he is the Lord of the Internet!
     
  18. tcomeau

    tcomeau Guest

    [email protected] (Diarmid Logan) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > John 'the Man' <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > > Once upon a time, our fellow Diarmid Logan
    > > rambled on about "Re: The Cholesterol Paradox."
    > > Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
    > >
    > > >All I did was cut and paste an article.

    > >
    > > Aaackk!
    > >
    > > Don't you know that cut & pasting an article is *not* permitted in a
    > > science forum?
    > >
    > > Besides, all learned people agree that it is 'cut & copy.'
    > >
    > > Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

    >
    > God, another fool who thinks that he is the Lord of the Internet!


    Hey, hey, hey , HEY! He is not a fool. He is a mental defective.

    TC
     
  19. Doctors,

    You may be interested to check these links.
    http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/hd.html
    http://www.westonaprice.org/know_your_fats/fats_phony.html

    I hope that you don't recommend anymore to your patients to eat large
    quantity of margarine and to avoid butter. On a nutrition basis, the worst
    things for many diseases is hydrogenated vegetable oils, high consumption of
    cheap vegetable oils (rich in omega 6 fatty acids) combined with low
    consumption of long chain omega 3 fatty acids (EPA and DHA in fish oils
    only). The imbalance in the omega6:eek:mega3 ratio is a big problem today for
    almost everybody living in industrialised countries.

    Serge

    "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "Patrick Blanchard, M.D." wrote:
    >
    > > an exerpt from the illustrative reference...
    > > ~~
    > > Dr. Robert Doughty, a research fellow at the University of Auckland in

    New
    > > Zealand, who was not connected with the study but reviewed the data,
    > > emphasized the results cannot determine that low cholesterol was the

    cause
    > > of worse outcomes in the heart failure patients.
    > >
    > > "We have to be careful about this data. Don't get me wrong, and it is

    very
    > > interesting data," Doughty says. "But we should not automatically
    > > extrapolate this group of patients who may be at the endgame of their
    > > disease, and don't forget -- chronic heart failure patients are at the

    end
    > > stages of their disease."
    > > ~~
    > >
    > > I would tend to agree
    > > pb

    >
    > As would I, Patrick.
    >
    > Humbly,
    >
    > Andrew
    >
    > --
    > Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    > Board-Certified Cardiologist
    > http://www.heartmdphd.com/
    >
    >
     
Loading...