Blog powered by Typepad

« A needless, nationwide bed bug epidemic | Main | Just how clean is clean enough? »

January 21, 2011


Ernest N. Curtis, MD

Michael--Here's more fuel for the fire:

"Did you know that more than 80% of the people who have had heart attacks have high cholesterol?"

Of course this is nonsense since heart attacks are evenly distributed throughout the entire range of cholesterol levels. You can run that number up to anything you like by changing the definition of "high cholesterol." The anti-cholesterol crowd has repeatedly ratcheted down the "normal" cholesterol level to suit their own purposes. Set it low enough and we can probably get to 100%.

"For 2 out of 3 people, diet and exercise may not be enough."

Actually it will never be enough for 3 out of 3 because diet and exercise really don't affect cholesterol levels that much. I'm sure Pfizer knows this and this is just their insincere genuflection to non-pharmacolgic therapy. "Try this first (wink, wink), then take our pills when that fails." Of course this begs the entire question of enough to do what. My contention and that of others critical of the cholesterol theory is that cholesterol has nothing to do with the development of atherosclerosis and its subsequent complications (primarily heart attacks and strokes) and therefore, the whole question is irrelevant.

"Along with diet, Lipitor has been shown to reduce bad cholesterol......."

Again, your discussion is on the mark. In my book I point out that in all the large studies of statin drugs the very tiny degree of protection afforded by the statins shows a lack of normal exposure-response.

What this means is that the degree of protection from heart attack was the same whether the initial cholesterol level was high or low and was completely unrelated to the degree of cholesterol lowering. That is, the degree of protection was the same for those whose cholesterol was lowered a lot as those whose level was hardly lowered at all.

Whenever a study shows this sort of exposure-response disconnection it means that the factor under investigation is not the true cause of the disorder. The sentence I most enjoyed writing: "What a delicious irony that the final proof that cholesterol has nothing to do with CHD (coronary heart disease) would come from trials of drugs specifically designed to lower cholesterol."

I go on to point out that the statin drugs have a mild inhibitory effect on blood clotting and that it is no coincidence that trials using aspirin and other blood clot inhibitors show the same degree of protection from heart attack as the statins.

The behavior of the pharmaceutical companies is even more nefarious. A number of them had their own employees intimately involved with the planning and execution of some of these trials. And of course it is now well known that many of the more prominent investigators and proponents of the cholesterol theory are virtual paid whores of the drug companies.

It doesn't take much bias or fudging of the data to bring about the very small differences seen in these studies. But these outfits have evolved an even better way. Run several trials at once which will give small differences in outcome both ways due to chance. Then select and publish the one that suits your purpose and make sure the others never see the light of day.

Interested readers can obtain my book, The Cholesterol Delusion, from

I've written about the Fat not being a disease.
"The hypothesis that obesity is detrimental to the health.

It doesn’t take much reading to discover this to be completely false but nevertheless time and time again we are brainwashed that we must be slim, be sportive, eat healthy.

So how is it nevertheless possible that we’re brainwashed to believe so, to go so far as to take cholesterol lowering medication, whose dangerous side effects far outweigh the benefits (if any) whereas there only is a correlation between CVD, but no causal relation has ever been proven.

The complete Fat is unhealthy tale started with the discovery of a remote village where the inhabitants suffered less frequently CVD then average for the rest of the, population. After much research a correlation was found:
The majority of the inhabitants had a genetic condition causing low cholesterol levels."

Interested readers can read it for free ;)

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)