Heart disease, diet and drugs

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Conversation starter: this post about climate change by Andrew Winston, that made an analogy between global warming and heart disease...

Denying Climate Denial

Imagine your doctor tells you that you have dangerously high cholesterol and blocked arteries. She says you may drop dead soon. [Note: Based on comments/questions, I should clarify here. By “doctor”, I mean the entire medical establishment. So imagine you got not just a “second opinion,” but 100 opinions…and 97 say the same thing].
You might have four basic reactions based on two dimensions, belief (or doubt) in the basic facts/science, and whether you commit to action or delay.



1) Doubt AND inaction (simplistic denial): You say, “I don’t think the evidence is real — it’s a hoax.”
2) Acceptance but Inaction: “Yes, it’s happening, but I don’t think aggressive action is warranted yet. It may disrupt my life too much.”
3) Doubt but Action: “I’m not sure the doctor is right. But I’ll take the healthier path because the risk is too high, and it’s better for me anyway.”
4) Acceptance AND action: “I believe the doctor and the science and I think it’s urgent. So I’m dramatically changing my behavior, and doing it now.”
If option 1 seems silly to you — because, say, you’re having trouble climbing stairs without wheezing, so the evidence is already there — you’ve got three options left. You may choose path 4, where you realize that the problem is real and change your behavior accordingly. But since outcomes are all that matter, path 3 is nearly as good. Regardless of why, you could eat healthier, exercise more, and take a statin. You might see that the behavior change has many additional benefits — you feel better all the time, live longer, and be able to do more with your life.
But it’s path 2 — acknowledging the issue, but arguing for more discussion and delay — that must drive doctors crazy.
 
Last edited:

Ruby Gray

Member
These two articles by Andrew Winston seem apropos...
...
Imagine your doctor tells you that you have dangerously high cholesterol and blocked arteries. She says you may drop dead soon. [Note: Based on comments/questions, I should clarify here. By “doctor”, I mean the entire medical establishment. So imagine you got not just a “second opinion,” but 100 opinions…and 97 say the same thing].
You might have four basic reactions based on two dimensions, belief (or doubt) in the basic facts/science, and whether you commit to action or delay.



1) Doubt AND inaction (simplistic denial): You say, “I don’t think the evidence is real — it’s a hoax.”
2) Acceptance but Inaction: “Yes, it’s happening, but I don’t think aggressive action is warranted yet. It may disrupt my life too much.”
3) Doubt but Action: “I’m not sure the doctor is right. But I’ll take the healthier path because the risk is too high, and it’s better for me anyway.”
4) Acceptance AND action: “I believe the doctor and the science and I think it’s urgent. So I’m dramatically changing my behavior, and doing it now.”
If option 1 seems silly to you — because, say, you’re having trouble climbing stairs without wheezing, so the evidence is already there — you’ve got three options left. You may choose path 4, where you realize that the problem is real and change your behavior accordingly. But since outcomes are all that matter, path 3 is nearly as good. Regardless of why, you could eat healthier, exercise more, and take a statin. You might see that the behavior change has many additional benefits — you feel better all the time, live longer, and be able to do more with your life.
But it’s path 2 — acknowledging the issue, but arguing for more discussion and delay — that must drive doctors crazy.
Interesting that you should choose this particular analogy, Jerry! There is certainly a considerable similarity in their methodologies. The most intrinsically involved party, the pharmaceutical industry, performs vast studies "proving" its premise, that cholesterol is a dangerous fat which causes heart disease etc, DEDUCES that reduction of cholesterol will prevent huge numbers of deaths from these diseases, then recommends that virtually every person on earth should take statins from age 2 years to the grave, to prevent premature impending demise.
But there are many things wrong here.

Cholesterol is not a fat.
It has a chemical structure very different from fat.
It is not soluble in fat.
It does not build up inside the lumen of arteries as is supposed, blocking them.
Cholesterol is a macronutrient essential for integrity of every cell, and its presence inside the walls of arteries is the body's natural response to injury to those arteries, where cholesterol is utilised in the reparative process.

The statistics in fact prove that cholesterol is not a risk factor for females, only for a narrow window is it a risk factor for males (which is yet not proof that cholesterol is the demon it has been painted) and that as one ages, the lower his cholesterol, the closer he is to death. Older people with lower cholesterol die younger. Higher cholesterol is preventive in old age.

Cholesterol, being one of the essential building blocks of cells and the brain especially, is not the bad guy. Yet the public and even the majority of medical professionals, governments and scientists have been deceived by research and studies and statistics cunningly weighted to funnel billions of customers down the road of lifelong statin consumption.

The question "Qui bono?" should rightly be asked here, as well as in the CO2 "extinction rebellion" debate.

Who profits from the fearmongering that has been artificially created around that natural nutrient, cholesterol? The answer is obvious.

Statins are not the answer to living a long healthy life. They are capable of causing many complaints worse than those which they are touted to prevent. They interfere with energy production in muscles, and cause great pain in the large muscles of many who take them. This can even contribute to heart attacks, the heart being a muscle which cannot afford to get tired and take even a short rest. Statins can cause rhabdomyolysis, where the muscles waste away, and renal disease. Cholesterol is very low in violent criminals. Low cholesterol negatively affects mental health.

The straw man here is the fallacy that cholesterol is harmful.
Many honest researchers know that the currently accepted "science" is a dangerous scam.
Uffe Ravnskov's book "The Cholesterol Myths" can be downloaded free, and another of his books, "Fat and Cholesterol are GOOD for You!" continues the enlightenment.

Dr Malcolm Kendrick's highly readable book, "The Great Cholesterol Con" cuts through the flawed "science" which simplistically claims that cholesterol is bad therefore everybody needs to buy and consume statins forever to prevent death until they die, to reveal the truth in all its complexity, with his immensely incisive and intelligent wit.

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/

The CO2 debate is very like the cholesterol con. Dumbed down to a simplistic catch-cry echoed by the masses who cannot discern between disparate scientific and pseudoscientific conclusions for themselves.

"CO2 is a polluting poisonous gas and if we don't reduce its atmospheric concentration by political action and carbon taxes we are all going to die."

It is just not that simple. In fact, it is not true at all.

H2O and CO2, those deadly greenhouse gases that we have been told we must eliminate, are actually the building blocks of every living thing.

There are highly qualified scientists who expose the climate fallacies, such as Dr Judith Curry and Professor William Happer.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
AGAIN this bull of 97% !!!
It doesn't matter if the actual number is 97% or 80%. It depends on which scientists you include in the survey, and the exact questions being asked.

And it's beside the point for the purpose of the essay, which was to talk about the benefits of acting to build renewable energy technology.

I decided to delete the picture that was attached to Suchender's post, because of an unmistakeable tinge of bigoted anti-semitism.

...there are many things wrong here. Cholesterol is not a fat. ...
The quoted essay was making an analogy, and wasn't intended as a discourse on heart disease. So of course it presented an oversimplified picture. And I agree that the medical & pharmaceutical industry position about diet & heart disease is self-serving and incomplete.

Even conventional medical science now agrees that there's no simple relationship between total cholesterol (TC) vs. heart disease. LDL and triglycerides are considered more dangerous than HDL cholesterol, and the ratio between HDL/LDL ratio might be most predictive.

Adopting a low fat or vegan diet doesn't necessarily help. Sugars and carbohydrates are metabolized into fats and cholesterol. While a diet rich in polyunsaturated fats and omega-three essential fats (aka "mediterranean diet") might be the healthiest alternative. It's possible that grass-fed beef and free range poultry products contain more EFA's than standard feedlot products. At any rate, we include these homestead products in our diet, for better or worse.

Other risk factors are important. The Kendrick video mentions that Australian aboriginals have very high rates of heart disease, in spite of their low TC measure. Could this perhaps be related to low socio-economic status? Here's a link to a study showing that the aboriginals have problems with obesity and excess tobacco use, and they don't eat vegetables and fruits. All of which has got to be related to the challenges facing these aboriginals living in isolated, poverty stricken communities and largely deprived of their traditional ways of life.

Whether cholesterol is a "fat" depends on your definition of what a "fat" is. Cholesterol is a lipid that occurs in cell membranes.

I don't take statins and I'm not sure I would recommend them in preference to diet & lifestyle changes for people with heart & circulatory issues. And I do have some concerns: my HDL/LDL ratio is borderline and I have a touch of edema. So I'm interested in following this topic.

But also I don't see any obvious problems with this study:

https://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/id/eprint/3482760/1/Interpretation of the evidence_GREEN AAM.pdf

Interpretation of the evidence for the efficacy and safety of statin therapy

Large-scale randomized trial evidence shows that statin therapy reduces the risk of heart attacks, ischaemic strokes and coronary revascularization procedures (“major vascular events”) by about one quarter for each mmol/L reduction in low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol during each year (after the first) that it continues to be taken. The absolute benefits of statin therapy depend on an individual’s absolute risk of occlusive vascular events and the absolute reduction in LDL cholesterol that is achieved. For example, lowering LDL cholesterol by 2 mmol/L (77 mg/dL) with an effective low-cost statin regimen (e.g. atorvastatin 40 mg daily, costing about £2 per month) for 5 years in 10,000 patients would typically prevent major vascular events from occurring in about 1000 patients (i.e. 10% absolute benefit) with pre-existing occlusive vascular disease (“secondary prevention”) and in 500 patients (i.e. 5% absolute benefit) who are at increased risk but have not yet had a vascular event (“primary prevention”). Statin therapy has been shown to reduce vascular disease risk during each year it continues to be taken, so larger absolute benefits would accrue with more prolonged therapy, and these benefits persist long-term.
The only serious adverse events that have been shown by large-scale randomized trials to be caused by long-term statin therapy – that is, are adverse effects of the statin – are myopathy (defined as muscle pain or weakness combined with large increases in blood levels of creatine kinase), new onset diabetes mellitus and, probably, haemorrhagic stroke. Typically, treatment of 10,000 patients for 5 years with an effective regimen (e.g. atorvastatin 40 mg daily) would cause about 5 cases of myopathy (1 of which might progress, if the statin therapy is not stopped, to the more severe condition of rhabdomyolysis), 50-100 new cases of diabetes, and 5 haemorrhagic strokes. However, any adverse impact of these side-effects on major vascular events has already been taken into account in the estimates of the absolute benefits. Statin therapy may cause symptomatic adverse events (e.g. muscle pain or weakness) in up to about 50-100 (i.e. 0.5-1.0%) patients per 10,000 treated for 5 years. However, placebo-controlled randomized trials have shown definitively that almost all of the symptomatic adverse events that are attributed to statin therapy in routine practice are not actually caused by it (that is, they represent mis-attribution).
The available large-scale randomized trial evidence also indicates that it is unlikely that large absolute excesses in other serious adverse events still await discovery.

We should probably create a new thread for a more extended discussion about diet & heart disease, if there's any followup.
 

Ruby Gray

Member
I do agree Jerry, diet and heart disease is an excellent topic that deserves its own thread.
I didn't mean to derail this one with an off-topic essay.
But like you, I was making an analogy between the current climate debate, and the state of the diet-heart disease controversy.

In both cases, there is the majority of the scientific community's highly publicised research and conclusions on the malady and solution. Great emotional investment from the global public is engendered by alarmist propaganda. Politics weighs into the fray and enforces the scientific wisdom, true or not.

Most of us do not have access to the raw data, nor the expertise to evaluate it, but rely on the "experts" to tell us the truth. But do they?

Cholesterol is cholesteryl alcohol chemically, or a host of other synonyms.
Here is a technical paper on it, which does state that the science is not conclusive, but also regurgitates the saturated fat-CAD hypothesis.

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Cholesterol

Here is a paper by Dr Malcolm Kendrick, an expert who has done the hard graft of deciphering the science for the average reader. His logical conclusion from the chemistry and scientific research is that saturated fat has nothing to do with so-called "bad LDL cholesterol" and heart disease.

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2018/07/03/why-saturated-fat-cannot-raise-cholesterol-levels-ldl-levels/

My point is that science is in the business is of conducting research, studies and trials, (although in the case of climate science, trials are necessarily substituted by computer modelling), and funding for this is usually supplied by some entity with a vested interest in the outcome.

The pharmaceutical and medical industries benefit hugely from the received wisdom that almost everyone in the world needs to take statins forever. But people continue to die at 100% of the birth rate, regardless.

Who collects the 25 Euros per tonne carbon tax? I do not know, but some entity is benefiting enormously, and stands to do so to a much greater degree, yet for all the hype and the reductions in CO2 emissions by certain countries, CO2 levels continue to rise. Where have all those taxes gone? How much has already been collected? What have they achieved? Seems the untested, untestable science in this case is failing. But the scaremongering increases.

Dr Kendrick tells us that statistics show an increased life expectancy of FOUR DAYS for a patient who takes statins for 5 years. He points out that all-causes deaths are exactly the same in both the statinated and unstatinated sectors. What is theoretically gained on the roundabout is lost on the swings, with statins actually responsible for deaths from causes other than CAD. He assures us that whether or not you consume statins, the date on your death certificate will be exactly the same.

Just so, there are calm considered expert responses to the climate data. There are those who do not make the unwarranted leap of religious faith from the hard statistic of atmospheric CO2 having risen, to the untestable hypothesis that CO2 is evil, that Man caused this elevation, that we will all die if it is not reduced, and that Man has the power to adjust the cut of the emperor's new clothes.

Anyone who has ever applied for a bank loan knows how figures can be manipulated to give false impressions and steer the outcome in a desired direction.

Climate "science" has taken this fudging technique to levels that have dire, inescapable consequences for us all. I do not trust that we are being told the truth about MMGW.
 

Ruby Gray

Member
P.S.
Two of my friends who had taken statins for years, have suffered severe symptoms.
One has advanced rhabdomyolysis and can barely walk because of irreversible large muscle destruction. He suffered a heart attack after taking statins for some years.

The other has familial hypercholesterolaemia, with a very high cholesterol reading due to genetic factors. Statins did lower his cholesterol to very low levels, but it was after this that he suffered a stroke, a heart attack, and a cerebral haemorrhage, in his mid fifties. Statins are positively associated with increased haemorrhagic strokes.
His leg muscles also had wasted considerably, with extreme pain which has not yet completely resolved since jettisoning the statins 9 months ago.

They are representative of many who have been harmed, certainly not helped, by the fallacious diet-heart hypothesis which was even renounced by its founder, Ancel Keys. Yet the pharmaceutical bulldozer forges inexorably onwards.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Dr Kendrick tells us that statistics show an increased life expectancy of FOUR DAYS for a patient who takes statins for 5 years.
Interesting. The meta-study that I quoted above, didn't boil its figures down to a life expectancy difference. They did show a substantial reduction in "adverse events" but that's hard to translate to survival differences.

At least it's a positive difference, however small. Physician do no harm, at least on the average.

And it wouldn't surprise me if there's room for debate about Kendrick's figures... but I don't want to take on that task, along with everything else on my plate.

Two of my friends who had taken statins for years, have suffered severe symptoms.
Sorry to hear about your friends. Such a cluster would indeed be surprising, if the facts are as claimed in the meta-analysis.

I don't take statins (my doc has never even suggested it) and I rely on diet & exercise. And my diet includes plenty of carbs and all kinds of natural fats. So I'm basically in agreement with what you're saying here.
 

Ruby Gray

Member
I hope, even if you eschew the debate, that you at least find the time to read some of Dr Kendrick's books or blogs. Or take the easy option and watch the video "Statin Nation".
 

Ruby Gray

Member
Hello John, thanks, I read this article with interest.
He (apparently Grant Genereux, but I had to search the web to find his identity) pays lipservice to the fact that "high" cholesterol does not cause heart disease, as many with low cholesterol suffer heart attacks etc. He acknowledges that the decades of anti-cholesterol advice have proven to be counter-productive and even harmful.

But he then jumps to the conclusion that the liver creates cholesterol as a breakdown product of vitamin A, which he labels a dire toxin, and recommends that people adopt his horrendous sounding vitamin A-free diet, which largely consists of grains, grainfed beef, peeled white vegetables and water, which he claimed has halved his own cholesterol level.

This is more than curious. He has a rather limited understanding of the process by which the body heals its injured blood vessels, which is a very complex subject. So he still seems to blame cholesterol as the guilty party in this process, and claims that eliminating vitamin A is the solution.

Why would anyone want to lower their cholesterol? The body knows how much cholesterol it needs. If you don't eat enough, the liver will make up the deficit. Messing with this natural process, and avoiding all foods containing vitamin A or carotene, seems crazy to me.

Cows, sheep, pigs, chickens, goats, in fact all livestock, are healthiest when eating free range green vegetation, containing vast amounts of carotene. I used to breed free range pigs. The baby pigs would frequently be born in a green or orange amniotic sac, from the huge amount of carotene in grass, clover and carrots, eaten by the pregnant sows. But in a drought year with no green feed, I had piglets born with no eyes, or with anal atresia, developmental disorders due to vitamin A deficiency at critical times during gestation.

Seems Grant Genereux is an engineer with amateur leanings toward naturopathy. I will download his ebook vilifying vitamin A and read it, but prefer to get my advice from people with actual medical training, although not those under the thumb of the pharmaceutical industry.

And I have no intention of changing my diet top-heavy in colourful veggies, eggs, dairy, oily fish, grassfed meat, etc. I know that when I took high doses of NATURAL codliver oil with balanced vitamins A and D, my eyesight improved so much that the magnifying glasses I needed for reading, were no longer necessary. Certainly, artificial vitamins A and D, and an unbalanced ratio of them, is very bad. Vitamin D should be no more than 10% of A. Who knows what goes into "Vitamin fortified" processed foods. I don't know, I don't eat them.
 

John

New Member
Hi Ruby – a very interesting and multi-faceted response, thanks!

I’ve spent 2,000 hours on PubMed verifying the toxicity of the retinoid-family; from sub-clinical, to acute, to teratogenic, to a recently discussed (University of Wisconsin) hidden hypervitaminosis-a resulting from VA-interventions in many countries, including the USA (upwards of 40% of the children involved in these efforts).

While I see your point on cholesterol and Grant’s logic; I also realize that we’re in the infant-stage of knowledge concerning the interactions of these various biological molecules; VA, VD, Cholesterol, and more.

On top of that, it is likely that long-term avoidance of processed-foods will skew the results for any N=1 anecdotal; in that the fortification of dairy and other foods, beginning in 1973, has been mainly in the form of retinyl palmitate, which I think is a significant part of the toxicity-equation for the population-at-large and is likely responsible for the associated literal explosion of chronic and autoimmune disease-rates, increasingly in younger people who consume more processed-foods.

Genetics does not account for these rises; neither water, nor air. We’re looking at food as the only possible environmental factor that can account for 50-400X rates of diseases compared to lesser-developed nations. The epidemiology on this is striking. Human metabolism is well-adapted to deal with these retinoid-toxins, but not at the level most people in North America are consuming.

Few realize how easy it is to get to the 40,000 IU level described by the NIH as hepato-toxic over time. Fewer still are aware of sub-clinical toxicity accumulating over decades and damaging epithelial tissues systemically.

Grant may well be doing himself a disservice by continuing his almost zero-a diet. His Omega-6 to Omega-3 ratio is super-high and the low cholesterol numbers/low BP/resting heart rate are simply N=1 and a mere snapshot in one life. I don’t see any significant source of EPA/DHA either, so how and if he builds robust cell-membranes is a mystery and certainly open for debate.

He wants to prove that retinoids are only toxins and that the preponderance of medical-research is wrong; especially in its identification of retinoic acid as a necessary molecule for morphological processes via its purported role as a transcriptional agent. There is no doubt that it can be one, witness teratogenicity effects, but the literature would have us believe it is a super-man molecule as well. I read one study recently that had it transcribing over 6,000 genes. I joke that Heisenberg was probably involved in designing their inferential machines and indeed, for decades, researchers were inferring what was going on regarding RA. The dogma is really thick when you get deep into it. I don’t doubt that mammals and birds have evolved ways to use the retinoids as you note regarding pigs, and my experience raising chickens confirms on that, but this is more a question of dose.

One study I found from an endocrinology journal published in 2018 noted how a severe trauma can cause a 10X-spillage of unbound retinol from the liver, which may help explain the common occurrence whereby the onset of a variety of autoimmune conditions are preceded by trauma, either physical or emotional. Correlation is not causation, but this is only one brick in a growing wall of evidence.

Many of us who have read his books and participate on his blog are still consuming low-to-moderate levels of the retinoids and seeing positive results as our serum-a decreases to the lower-end of the reference range. Few of us see his restrictive diet as something sustainable or absolutely necessary to reduce our VA-loads, but I think he is pretty clear about his own experimentation and related advice.

I regard expert-consensus with a great deal of caution. Verifying that retinoic acid is right up there with Thalidomide on the list of teratogens, gives one pause to consider what amount might be OK. How is our understanding of cyanide and mercury any different? The body appears to have multiple-layers of protection in the form of what are described as retinoid binding-proteins for transport purposes, but which could be acting more in the manner of antibodies, since these proteins are produced in many organ cells, not just the liver, and apparently not just for transport purposes.

I can see both your points about cholesterol and Grant’s points about the root cause of CVD being RA-induced lesions. I don’t think they are necessarily exclusive or contradictory. The lesion-hypothesis goes back a long way, including the work of Linus Pauling and Matthias Rath. I have seen a good deal of evidence that Vitamin C may well counter VA in some way, and which could account for some of its debatable benefits. Studies designed to account for VA-status when looking at other nutrients like Vitamin C are not readily available.

As you can see, I’m not a ditto-head re: Grant’s work. He doesn’t have to be correct on all fronts, to appreciate the fact that he spotted something that the world of medicine has ignored, even though the evidence is readily available in its own research. I have binders full of smoking-gun papers and abstracts on this toxicity question.

All of the auto-immune diseases that I’ve studied are highly correlated with epithelial-tissue dysfunction, right down to the stem-cell, basal layer. This is where retinoic acid is most implicated in enraging the immune-system; a condition that can be seen as immune cells dealing with the cellular-effects of a toxin; one that acts like a phantom-pathogen in terms of immune-response. As cells die from RA-poisoning, they send out powerful-signals for replacement growth as well as for immune-assistance in their toxin-induced euthanasia and its after-effects. There may be a Goldilocks window, wherein one has just the right amount, but how does that vary by age, size of one’s liver, other factors like Vitamin D, etc? That’s what we’re delving into.

Many, if not most of our modern diseases were quite rare 100 years ago, in the days when infectious diseases were our main problems. What I have learned from the peer-reviewed literature is that almost no one is looking for actual cures for the 50-plus auto-immune diseases. Patentable therapies to interrupt the down-stream effects of the toxicity are where the money is. I went to the yearly research-update on Alzheimer’s at a U-M hosted event and found little to refute that observation. This is a gravy-train for medicine, law-firms, care-facilities and support-groups. We have over 180,000 diagnosed cases in Michigan alone, with a caregiver ratio above one. Pretty soon society will be training autistic youth to provide that care if we don’t hit medical bankruptcy first.

On a side-note, retinoic acid is used in chemotherapy for the very reason that it enrages the immune-system. It is not very effective in that it is such a systemic-poison. People that survive chemo, as my mother did, do so in spite of it imho.

I think it is fitting that an engineer recognized the very thing that was causing his eczema, chronic kidney disease, failing eyesight, painful joints, whitened hair and unexplained fatigue. And it didn’t take him very long to note the commonality between the food-triggers. He claims those conditions resolved in two years and has continued the diet for five, thus far.

So, while I don’t go along with some of what he’s saying, and that's a rather long discussion, I also understand that the experts can be very wrong, over long spans of time, as the work of Ellis reveals about ancient people being well-aware of a heliocentric solar-system and how the Catholic Church apparently buried that knowledge for centuries, for all intents and purposes.

I tend to think that Grant’s proposition of sub-clinical retinoid-toxicity may be analogous to Galileo in some respects. In the same sense that the Church likely had the ancient texts at its disposal, and operated with that knowledge, I’d love to know how many doctors take their own vaccinations, given the dangers of which they are well-aware. These are very similar things, as medicine becomes increasingly dogmatic and approximates a theology applicable for the masses, but laden with hypocrisy and deception. It’s hard to sort the truth, especially in light of what Marcia Angell said after leaving her position at the New England Journal of Medicine. She informed us that some large percentage of research was not scientific at all. I can even see it from a layman's perspective, after plowing through so many uncontrolled studies.

Grant does have a curious conspiracy-theory of sorts in his first book, which is a longer ramble than his second, but includes some very interesting nuggets of information. He hypothesized that SV-40, introduced in the polio vaccines of the 1950’s, was causing a major increase of cancer and that in a panic-move, the authorities were looking for something that might counter that. He proposes that the only thing on-the-shelf that they thought could do the job was retinol. We’ll probably never know, any more than the intricacies that led to the anti-cholesterol stance of modern medicine, partially-based on the misinterpreted Framingham fiasco. These things are very complicated and the people in-the-know die off.

That’s a wrap for now, but I’d love to hear your impressions after you’ve had a chance to read the chapters I noted, if not the whole book. The one about the botched animal experiments of the 1920’s is fascinating, as it locates the main branch-in-the-road.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Likely many of our modern ailments would 'vaporize' if we only made some simple changes ... that the priests of cookie-cutter, big pharma, medicine refuse to recognize. Such as eliminate and replace mercury amalgam fillings, return to consuming bone broths / collagen, and consuming optimal levels of magnesium, calcium, and potassium, and the right types of these.

The USA refuses to ban carageenan (aka agar, aka alginate), which causes intestinal ulcers and Crohn's symptoms (as it did for me). But this is big money for doctors, big pharma, and the food industry.

Regarding VA, I read that one should not consume either A, C, or E in isolation, as there is a metabolic circular cycle of regeneration of their metabolites. I wonder if most of the toxicity 'studies' on such as VA ignore such issues, as I know is frequently the case with 'debunking' studies, for instance where studies of VE, in 'reductionist' isolation, also use the worst possible metabolic form in the study?
 
Top