Sunday, July 04, 2010

Cholesterol hypothesis in 2010 part 2

Brief news update, keep reading the discussion (pdf). Ridker vs de Lorgeril goes on. Jupiter is looking like a gift to truth. Has to happen at some stage! Another great link from O'Primitivo.

EDIT: Here and here are two copies of the original article, just pulled up from comments. One has some problem with a Japanese character set (probably the first).

Peter

BTW comment moderation is in place (sorry Ricardo) on older posts to keep the viagra spam under control. I'll get to genuine comments asap, which is not always that soon at the moment!

18 comments:

Charles R. said...

Can you provide the link to the first part of this article?

Neonomide said...

Thanks a lot - I enjoyed the first one. It seems though that the paper does not work for me - looks very small and I cannot zoom.

Charles, the first part is here:


http://michel.delorgeril.info/dwnl/wrnd/DisappointingCholDrugTrials_wrnd2009.pdf

Chris Kresser said...

As they say, you can't fight faith with facts!

O Primitivo said...

The Cholesterol Debate And Journal Disclosures
http://www.pharmalot.com/2010/06/the-cholesterol-debate-and-journal-disclosures/

O Primitivo said...

It looks like mainstream cholesterol "experts" are nervous about this "obscure, cult-like group of cholesterol skeptics"...

http://cardiobrief.org/2010/06/29/authors-of-jupiter-attack-are-members-of-obscure-anti-cholesterol-group/

Emily Deans, M.D. said...

But it it hardly fringe - I mean the scathing editorial of JUPITER was published in the Archives of Internal Medicne, for heaven's sake. That's huge.

Dr. B G said...

Thank you.

JUPITER and all statin/zetia trials are all BUSTED. Only the morons trust the trials...

Stephen said...

Why do Eskimos, who typically eat a diet loaded with animal fat, have very low rates of heart disease?
The answer is that high cholesterol isn’t the cause of heart disease - oxidised cholesterol is.
www.beatingcholesterol.com

Drs. Cynthia and David said...

And yet, following the link provided by O Primitivo leads to http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=22 where the faithful are busy criticizing all the "cholesterol deniers" as luddites and ignorant buffoons. Very depressing attacks. They are so sure they are right...

Cynthia

Peter said...

I think it is very difficult to appreciate quite how well accepted the lipid hypothesis by the mainstream in exactly the same way has it has become quite difficult to find it odd that I consume more than 75% of my calories as animal derived fats.

Personally I see the attacks as very welcome. de Lorgeril is calling Ridker a liar and suggesting essentially all of the cholesterol trials which produced a positive outcome are junk science. The messenger, especially as he is correct, is never likely to be popular under these circumstances!

No one attacks crystal therapy because the mainstream does not feel threatened by it. The cholesterol sceptics happen to be correct and the mainstream finds itself backed in to a corner. I'd be intensely disappointed if they were anything less than vituperative. They seem to be delivering.

Peter

O Primitivo said...

Dr. Lorgeril paper is getting high visibility in major publications & newspapers. This will raise doubts in the more minded people. If the article wasn't published in the AIM, perhaps nobody would hear about it. Also interesting is that, in this new information era, the NYT article includes direct links to the papers. Information is now more accessible to everyone ...to question it!

"New articles highlight rift over statins" (New York Times) - http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/29/science/la-sci-statins-20100629

Jack C said...

I think this is a balanced article on the subject:


http://www.medconnect.com.au/tabid/84/ct1/c337416/Two-Studies-Dispute-JUPITER-Findings-on-Statin-Benefits/Default.aspx

Ellen said...

Peter, ran across this paper today, and thought you might find it interesting, and maybe post your thoughts.. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/21/8665.full.pdf+html

Peter said...

Hi Ellen,

It's an interesting article...

Comment is here

Peter

Peter said...

Hi Jack,

Yes, seems reasonable. Jupiter is something of a gift to cholesterol sceptics.

Peter

O Primitivo said...

How is this possible?

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/195673.php
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20655105

Peter said...

Hi O'P,

Well trying to make anything out of JUPITER is always difficult. Generalising from people with pathologically low LDL-C and concurrently elevated hsCRP to the general population of statin fodder seems dubious at the best of times...

Peter

O Primitivo said...

Excelent cholesterol debunking talk by Dr. Chris Zaino: http://abundantlifechiro.blogspot.com/2008/07/cholesterol-myths_13.html