Why do doctors have such an obsession with cholestorol counts?

Question

It's been proven over and over again to be a poor predictor of heart disease. Other markers such as C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, homocystine and lipoprotein are given more weight by some physicians but they are shouted down by the crowd. Why?

Answer 1

Because The SCIENTIFICALLY UNFOUNDED Cholesterol Theory of Coronary Heart Disease is HUGELY PROFITEABLE, POLITICALLY CORRECT, and researchers HARM THEIR livelihoods when they speak out against it. (like Kilmer Mc Cully) SOME doctors know FULL WELL that they are LYING, while others are just misinformed by the massive cholesterol PROPAGANDA campaign.

THE RESEARCH IS ALL AVAILABLE AT A MEDICAL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY. THE PROBLEM IS JANE AVERAGE DOES NOT LOOK FOR IT.

COLPO DUG IT ALL UP AND THOROUGHLY

It amazes me how most persons just do not realize that CLINICAL Dietary Intervention Trials for the last 50 years have found NO REDUCTION AT ALL in Coronary Heart Disease mortality from replacing animal fat with polyunsaturated fat.


In FACT JUST THE OPPOSITE. In MANY of these 18 CLINICAL Dietary Intervention Trials to date the persons randomzied to POLYUNSATURATED FAT HAD SIGNIFICANT INCREASES IN CORONARY HEART DISEASE MORTALITY. despite "lowering their cholesterol" a good 23 ml below the persons randomized to animal fats


This fact was CONVIENENTLY MENTIONED IN A THROW AWAY LINE, instead the authors made notes of the "impressive cholesterol reduction " DESPITE THE FACT THEY HAD 9 DEATHS FROM CORONARY HEART DISEASE IN THE PERSONS RANDOMIZED TO POLYUNSATURATED FAT, while the persons randomized to animal fats had NO DEATHS FROM CORONARY HEART DISEASE.

THIS TRIAL WAS THE ANTI-CORONARY CLUB 1966 , ONE OF THE 18 ALL DETAILED IN COLPOS BOOK RESULTS AND ALL

THE PUBLIC CAN NOT BE LIED TO ANYMORE!!!!!!!!


IT IS ALL IN COLPOS BOOK A MUST READ - ALL SCIENCE, NO OPINIONS

Anthony Colpo has THROUGHLY DEBUNKED THIS COMPLETE SHAM BY PRINTING OUT ALL THE EVIDENCE

ALL 18 CLINICAL and ALL 26 Prospective Trials for EVERYONE TO SEE. There really is no other book that has ever done this


The Cholesterol Theory of Coronary Heart Disease is suitable for a CHILDREN'S FAIRY TALE STORY


www.thegreatcholesterolcon.com

www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm


ANTHONY COLPO AND DR. UFFE RAVNSKOV - HEROES TO MANKIND

CONFRONT your doctor TODAY with COLPO'S BOOK IN HAND.

Answer 2

Oh You asked it. Anything more than a required quantity will convert finally into an obsession. There is nothing called a Healthy Obsession, being all type of obsessions are unhealthy.

Answer 3

I believe they are so set on it because it was driven into their heads in med school. Also, the drug reps are constantly visiting their offices and pushing their cholesterol lowering medications. At my last doctor's visit I was excited that my total cholesterol was down to 167. When the doctor ever told me I need to be on Lipitor because my LDL was 124 I was shocked. After seeing 3 drug reps in his office that day I undestood the reasoning and I will be looking for a new doctor because of this.

I think today we have to be our own health advocate and do research. With the internet it is a lot easier to find info on conditions and medications. I found so many reasons online why I should not use a cholesterol medication. It's up to us to research and then say no to meds that we think we do not need.

Answer 4

I applaud your question and I am in agreement although I would not have worded things quite so sharply. I have no interest in total cholesterol. Historically this was the first lipid value that could be reliably tested for and when it was all that we had it was not such a bad predictor of cardiovascular events. Later the total cholesterol was measured along with HDL cholesterol so that we could calculate LDL cholesterol. At that time I would report the LDL and HDL to patients and try to keep the total cholesterol to myself but most people asked. For the past decade however I have been directly measuring LDL so the total cholesterol is of absolutely no value to me. A modern lipid profile contains VLDL, triglycerides, LDL, IDL, HDL, and particle sub-types. For instance is the LDL and or HDL dense or bouyant. I do not routinely measure other markers such as apo proteins, CRP, homocysteine, and fibrinogen (among others) as we are not able to influence them (except perhaps homocysteine). Fibrinogen correlates better with cardiovascular risk than any of the lipid parameters but again I do not measure it as I am not able to modify it. You are correct when you suggest that the approach to lipids in this country is shamefully out of date and at least ten years behind the times. This is not restricted to lipids however as the quality of medical care in America has declined precipitously since 1985. At present we rank a dismal 30th in the world and you literally risk your life when you seek the advice of a physician. Thank you for your question. I wish you the very best of health.

Answer 5

WRONG!

The Framingham Heart Study BACKFIRED IN THEIR FACES!

READ THE RESERACH.

After age 50, 11 % OVERALL and 14 % CVD DEATH RATE INCREASE PER 1 ml DROP, DROP IN CHOLESTEROL" www.ravnskov.nu/myth8.htm


After age 50 is when 95 % of all heart attacks events happen.


NO RANDOMIZED TIGHTLY CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL HAS EVER, EVER DEMONSTRATED THAT LOWERING LDL LOWERS CORONARY HEART DISEASE MORTALITY.

THE TRIALS FOR STATINS THAT WERE SOMEWHAT SUCCESSFUL IN LOWERING CVD MORTALITY NEVER, EVER DEMONSTARTED THAT LDL REDUCTION WAS THE RESPONSIBLE FACTOR!!!!!!!!



STATINS HAVE A PLETHORA OF EFFECTS MOST NOTABLY ANTI INFLAMATORY AND ANTI CLOTTING. UNTIL ONE CAN SAY THAT LDL REDUCTION WAS INDEED THE RESPONSIBLE FACTOR ONE HAS NO BUSINESS IN TRYING TO CLAIM LOWER LDL IS BETTER UNLESS OF COURSE ONE HAS A PET THEORY TO DEFEND

IN FACT ONE OF THE STATIN TRIALS PROSPER, AND A LARGE JAPANESE OBSERVATIONAL STUDY J-LIT SHOWED L- O- W- E- R CVD RISK AT H I G H E R LDL AND TOTAL CHOLESTEROL LEVELS.



ALL OF THE STATIN TRIALS TO DATE ARE ALL PRINTED OUT AND EXPLAINED IN COLOS BOOK. THE PUBLIC CAN NOT BE LIED TO ABOUT THIS EITHER.

A L L OF THE STATIN TRIALS .



READ ANTHONY COLPOS FORUM T H O R O U G H LY THE ARTICLE THAT SAYS " CORDAINS LDL ARTICLE"

READ IT T H O R O U G H L Y !
EVERYONE HONESTLY READ IT THOROUGHLY !

READ THE "CORDAIN'S LDL ARTICLE" ON DIET RESEARCH AND MEDIA FORUM OF ANTHONY COLPOS FORUM
www.lowcarbmuscle.com


AND THE ABOVE "C SAKAL" READ IT
T H O R O U G H L Y FOOL,


T H O R O U G H L Y!!!!!!!!



"Cordain's LDL Article" on the research part of COLPOS FORUM asked by Razzi




P.S. FRAMINGHAM DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CHOLESTEROL THEORY AT ALL POOR, POOR CHOICE AND MORE IMPORTANTLY THAN FRAMINGHAM RESERACH IS THAT

********RANDOMIZED DOUBLE BLINDED CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS HAVE NEVER DEMONSTRATED ANY BENEFICIAL EFFECT TO SATURATED FAT RESTRICTION OR CHOLESTEROL LOWERING


I DIRECTLY CHALLENGE C SAKAL TO PRODUCE ONE JUST ONE C L I N I C A L TRIAL THAT HAS EVER SHOWN ANY REDUCTION AT ALL IN CORONARY HEART DISEASE MORTALITY FROM SATURATED FAT RESTRICTION.

IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK, ACTUALLY IT IS BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXIST.

COLPO KNOWS IT DOES NOT EXIST AND WILL SHUT HIS SITE DOWN IF YOU CAN PRODUCE EVEN ONE.

Answer 6

Ok, we, as doctors, are interested in cholesterol counts because they have been shown, time and time again, to correlate with rates of cardiovascular disease, including heart attacks, hospitalization, and mortality rates. Not only that, but it's been shown in large, controlled trials that lowering levels of LDL cholesterol can reduce cardiac events and mortality.
It's really just that simple, we want to know cholesterol levels because it helps us treat patients better, and hopefully, keep people alive and healthy longer. And the evidence backs that up.
Cholesterol levels can be used with framingham study data (which is essentially the foundation of all risk estimation for cardiac events today) to help predict mortality (usually 5 or 10 year mortality).
If you don't believe me (and I don't get a penny from the pharmaceutical companies who make statins, though I do prescribe them with some frequency to patients who do not meet goals for LDL levels), just look it up on medline, you will pull up literally thousands of papers on every aspect of cholesterol, cardiac disease risk, and the effect of various reduction studies - more information than you will ever be able to sort through.
There are, of course, other markers, though the most important ones you haven't mentioned. Things like smoking history, and family history. Homocysteine has fallen out of favor due to many causes, first it's difficult and costly to measure, but mostly because although there is evidence that shows that it does correlate to elevated CVD risk, there is not a shred of evidence that I am aware of that suggests that taking action to lower it decreases the risk, making it far less useful than cholesterol.
CRP is another marker that has been shown to be correlated with CVD risk, and has prognostic value in certain settings, but it's unclear what interventions can be taken to lower it and whether that would make any difference. CRP, by the way, is also very nonspecific, it's a general marker of inflammation, and may be elevated for many reasons.
There are several lipoproteins that have been looked at as potential markers, but none have really panned out (yet) as reliable, practical markers, research is ongoing, but I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to when you say lipoprotein.