|
| :: Previous topic :: Next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fintan
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 6105
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:56 am Post subject: We Have Been Conned About Cholesterol |
  |
|
Here's the damming proof, summarized in the mainstream
Daily Mail. Big Pharma and the medical establishment are
gonna suffer, because they have made doctors look stupid.
Doctors are gonna suffer 'cos patients will be scratching their
heads and trying to figure how the docs got it so wrong.
Good. 
| Quote: | Have we been conned about cholesterol?
by MALCOLM KENDRICK -
Conventional medical wisdom about cholesterol — and the role of statins — is now being challenged by a small, but growing number of health professionals. Among them is Dr Malcolm Kendrick. A GP for 25 years, he has also worked with the European Society of Cardiology, and writes for leading medical magazines.
When it comes to heart disease, we have been sold a pup. A rather large pup.
Actually, it's more of a full-grown blue whale. We've all been conned.
If you've got a raised risk of heart disease, the standard medical advice is to take a cholesterol-lowering statin drug to cut your chances of having a heart attack — because, as we all know, cholesterol is a killer.
Indeed, many of you already believe that you should take statins for the rest of your natural lifespan.
Nearly everybody is in agreement about the need to lower your cholesterol level. The NHS spends nearly £1 billion a year on prescriptions for statins and possibly the same amount administering the cholesterol tests, surgery visits and the rest.
But is it all worth it? According to an article being published in the medical journal The Lancet this week, the answer is probably no.
A leading researcher at Harvard Medical School has found that women don't benefit from taking statins at all, nor do men over 69 who haven't already had a heart attack.
There is a very faint benefit if you are a younger man who also hasn't had a heart attack - out of 50 men who take the drug for five years, one will benefit.
Nor is this the first study to suggest that fighting cholesterol with statins is bunk. Indeed, there are hundreds of doctors and researchers who agree that the cholesterol hypothesis itself is nonsense.
What their work shows, and what your doctor should be saying, is the following:
• A high diet, saturated or otherwise, does not affect blood cholesterol levels.
• High cholesterol levels don't cause heart disease.
• Statins do not protect against heart disease by lowering cholesterol - when they do work, they do so in another way.
• The protection provided by statins is so small as to be not worth bothering about for most people (and all women). The reality is that the benefits have been hyped beyond belief.
• Statins have many more unpleasant side effects than has been admitted, while experts in this area should be treated with healthy scepticism because they are almost universally paid large sums by statin manufacturers to sing loudly from their hymn sheet.
So how can I say saturated fat doesn't matter when everyone knows it is a killer? Could all those millions who have been putting skinless chicken and one per cent fat yoghurts into their trolleys really have been wasting their time?
The experts are so busy urging you to consume less fat and more statins that you are never warned about the contradictions and lack of evidence behind the cholesterol con.
In fact, what many major studies show is that as far as protecting your heart goes, cutting back on saturated fats makes no difference and, in fact, is more likely to do harm.
So how did fat and cholesterol get such a bad name? It all began about 100 years ago, when a researcher found feeding rabbits (vegetarians) a high cholesterol carnivore diet blocked their arteries with plaque.
But it took off in the Fifties with the Seven Countries study by Ancel Keys, which showed that the higher the saturated fat intake in a country, the higher the cholesterol levels and the higher the rate of heart disease.
The countries he chose included Italy, Greece, the USA and the Netherlands. But why these particular ones?
Recently I did my own 14 countries study using figures from the World Health Organisation, and found the opposite.
Countries with the highest saturated fat consumption — Austria, France, Finland and Belgium — had the lowest rate of deaths from heart disease, while those with the lowest consumption — Georgia, Ukraine and Croatia — had the highest mortality rate from heart disease.
Added to this, the biggest ever trial on dietary modification put 50 million people on a low saturated fat diet for 14 years.
Sausages, eggs, cheese, bacon and milk were restricted. Fruit and fish, however, were freely available. I’m talking about rationing in Britain during and after World War Two. In that time, deaths from heart disease more than doubled.
Even more damning is what happened in 1988. The Surgeon General's office in the US decided to gather all evidence linking saturated fat to heart disease, silencing any nay-sayers for ever.
Eleven years later, however, the project was killed. The letter announcing this stated that the office "did not anticipate fully the magnitude of the additional expertise and staff resources that would be needed".
After eleven years, they needed additional expertise and staff resources? What had they been doing? If they'd found a scrap of evidence, you would never have heard the last of it.
Major trials since have been no more successful. One involved nearly 30,000 middle-aged men and women in Sweden, followed for six years.
The conclusion? "Saturated fat showed no relationship with cardiovascular disease in men. Among the women, cardiovascular mortality showed a downward trend with increasing saturated fat intake." (In other words, the more saturated fat, the less chance of dying from heart disease).
Even stronger evidence of the benefits of increased fat and cholesterol in the diet comes from Japan. Between 1958 and 1999, the Japanese doubled their protein intake, ate 400 per cent more fat and their cholesterol levels went up by 20 per cent.
Did they drop like flies? No. Their stroke rate, which had been the highest in the world, was seven times lower, while deaths from heart attacks, already low, fell by 50 per cent.
It's a bit of a paradox, isn’t it? That's one of the features of the dietary hypothesis - it involves a lot of paradoxes.
The most famous is the French Paradox. They eat more saturated fat than we do in Britain; they smoke more, take less exercise, have the same cholesterol/LDL levels, they also have the same average blood pressure and the same rate of obesity.
And you know what? They have one quarter the rate of heart disease we do.
The official explanation is that the French are protected from heart disease by drinking red wine, eating lightly cooked vegetables and eating garlic.
But there is no evidence that any of these three factors are actually protective. None. By evidence, I mean a randomised, controlled clinical study.
Every time a population is found that doesn't fit the saturated fat/cholestrol hypothesis - the Masai living on blood and milk with no heart disease, the Inuit living on blubber with low heart disease - something is always found to explain it.
One research paper published more than 20 years ago found 246 factors that could protect against heart disease or promote it. By now there must be more than a thousand.
The closer you look the more you find that the cholestrol hypothesis is an amazing beast. It is in a process of constant adaptation in order to encompass all contradictory data without keeling over and expiring.
But you don't need to look at foreign countries to find paradoxes - the biggest one is right here at home. Women are about 300 per cent less likely to suffer heart disease than men, even though on average they have higher cholesterol levels.
For years there was an ad hoc hypothesis to explain this apparent contradiction - women were protected by female sex hormones.
In fact, there has never been a study showing that these hormones protect against heart disease in humans.
But by the Nineties, millions of women were being prescribed HRT to stave off heart disease.
Then came the HERS trial to test the notion. It found HRT increased the risk of heart disease.
So what to do? Put them on statins; bring their cholesterol level down — below 5.0 mmol is the official advice.
But, as The Lancet article emphasises, women do not benefit from statins. The phrase "Statins do not save lives in women" should be hung in every doctor's surgery.
But it's not just hugely wasteful handing out statins to women and men who are never going to benefit; it also exposes them to the risk of totally unnecessary side effects.
These include muscle weakness (myopathy) and mental and neurological problems such as severe irritability and memory loss.
How common are they? Very rare, say experts, but one trial found that 90 per cent of those on statins complained of side effects, half of them serious.
Only last week, a study reported a link between low LDL cholesterol and developing Parkinson's disease.
Statins are designed to lower LDL. In the face of anticholesterol propaganda, it is easy to forget cholesterol is vital for our bodies to function.
Why do you think an egg yolk is full of cholesterol? Because it takes a lot of cholesterol to build a healthy chicken.
It also takes a hell of a lot to build and maintain a healthy human being.
In fact, cholesterol is so vital that almost all cells can manufacture cholesterol; one of the key functions of the liver is to synthesise cholesterol.
It's vital for the proper functioning of the brain and it's the building bock for most sex hormones.
So it should not be such a surprise to learn that lowering cholesterol can increase death rates.
Woman with a cholesterol level of five or even six have a lower risk of dying than those with a level below four.
The Lancet reported that statins didn't benefit anyone over 69, not even men; in fact, there's good evidence that they may hasten your death.
The Framingham study in the US found that people whose cholesterol levels fell were at a 14 per cent increased risk of death from heart disease for every 1mg/dl.
Set up in 1948, the study screened the whole population of Framingham near Boston for factors that might be involved in heart disease and then followed them to see what happened to them.
It is still going today, making it the longest running and most often quoted study in heart-disease research.
A massive long-term study that looked specifically at cholesterol levels and mortality in older people in Honolulu, published in The Lancet, found that having low cholesterol concentration for a long time increases the risk of death.
This may be because cholesterol is needed to fight off infections or there may be other reasons — but many other studies have found exactly the same thing.
Low cholesterol levels greatly increase your risk of dying younger. So the cholesterol hypothesis looks something like this:
There is no evidence that saturated fat is bad - and there are lots of 'paradoxes' where countries with a high cholesterol intake don't have a higher death rate from heart disease.
But there is an even more fundamental problem. The theory claims fat and cholesterol do things in the body that just don't make sense.
To begin with, saturated fat and cholesterol are talked of as if they are strongly connected. A low-fat diet lowers cholesterol; a high-fat diet raises it.
What is never explained is how this works. This isn't surprising because saturated fat doesn't raise cholesterol. There is no biochemical connection between the two substances, which may explain all those negative findings.
It's true that foods containing cholesterol also tend to contain saturated fats because both usually come from animals.
It's also true that neither dissolve in water, so in order to travel along the bloodstream they have to be transported in a type of molecule known as a lipoprotein - such as LDLs (low-density lipoproteins) and HDLs (high-density lipoproteins).
But being travelling companions is as close as fats and cholesterol get. Once in the body, most fat from our diet is transported to the fat cells in a lipoprotein called a chylomicron.
Meanwhile, cholesterol is produced in the liver by way of an incredibly complicated 13-step process; the one that statins interfere with.
No biochemist has been able to explain to me why eating saturated fat should have any impact on this cholesterol production line in the liver.
On the other hand, the liver does make fat - lots of it. All the excess carbohydrate that we eat is turned first into glucose and then into fat in the liver.
And what sort of fat does the liver make? Saturated fat; obviously the body doesn't regard it as harmful at all.
Recently, attention has been shifting from the dangers of saturated fat and LDL "bad" cholesterol to the benefits of HDL "good" cholesterol, and new drugs that are going to boost it.
But the idea that more HDLs are going to fight off heart disease is built on equally shaky foundations.
These lipoproteins seem to be cholesterol "scavengers", sucking up the cholesterol that is released when a cell dies and then passing it on to other lipoproteins, which return it to the liver.
Interestingly, the "bad" LDL lipoproteins are involved in the relay. The idea seems to be that HDLs can also get the cholesterol out of the plaques that are blocking arteries.
However, there is a huge difference between absorbing free-floating cholesterol and sucking it out of an atherosclerotic plaque which is covered by an impermeable cap.
• Extracted from The Great Cholesterol Lie by Malcolm Kendrick, published by John Blake.
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2007/01/24/cholesterol_scam_exposed_throw_away_your_statins.htm
Original Daily Mail article
|
| Quote: | Reader Comments in the Daily Mail
30 people have commented on this story so far.
Tell us what you think below.
Having a family history of heart disease I was prescribed statin drugs in my late 40s. Imperceptibly over the next few years I developed increasing muscle weakness, as well as severe muscle cramps. As an ex Physical Education teacher, State hockey player, tennis player and active person, I naturally became concerned. During a holiday in the USA in my mid 50s I saw the side effects of statin drugs, shown on television after an ad for a particular brand of the drug. I was shocked. The side effects had never been explained to me. After considerable research on various websites (none sponsored by drug companies) I told my doctor I had stopped taking the drug. From that moment on I felt I had reclaimed my life. It was as dramatic as that. Once again I was able to go for long energetic walks, something I had been unable to do for years, and as a result I have managed to lose 10kg, which had crept on over the years. Thank you for your article. It should be headlined worldwide!
- Jill Norris, Brisbane, Australia
This was a great article and a belief that I have long held. I would not let my doctor put me on statins because as a woman I did not believe it would help me.
My question though is this, what IS the reason we get heart disease; strokes and heart attacks, etc.?
- Dee, San Leandro, CA United States
What's going to be funny is when it gets out that the anti-smoker propaganda is all a scam.
- Thomas Graves, Edmond, OK, USA
Could this hypothesis be remotely valid? If so, what does that say about the true purpose of organized health care? What about the competence or even the honesty of health care professionals?
- Peter, USA
Fascinating! My mother is on statins - however we both agree stress is the real killer.
Incidentally, don't try and lower your cholesterol levels to practically zero - low cholesterol diets can cause psychosis. Perhaps this is one reason why schizophrenia rates are sky high after famines in the third world, as well as the trauma and the lack of essential vitamin E. All things in moderation, for both physical and mental health, I reckon!
- Cate G, E Anglia
Well, that was interesting. Now what do I do?
- Terry, Los Lunas, NM, USA
Let's put this into some perspective, you have good and bad cholestrol, and too much bad, LDLs (low-density lipoproteins) and HDLs (high-density lipoproteins)and you start to be on the ladder to a heart attack. How do I know this, well for the last 200 years, heart attacks have killed off more of our family than any thing else. Had you have seen the large build up of fats under the skin of my mother, it was not a pretty sight. Before she passed on, you were just beginning to get low fat food in the markets. She lived on fresh veg and fish, white meats and the like, but the first drugs came to late for her. For me, I also started to get the lumps, and tests showed that my Cholestrol was far too high. So I was asked to go on a controlled drugs trial, that was in 1979/80, within 2 years and a number of different drugs, the lumps were going, the cholestrol came down, and I am now well over the average age of those in the family that passed on all thoses years ago. Thanks to Hammersmith.
- Redsands, Saffron Walden
This is excellent stuff! At last a truth is being told. I've done extensive research on this myself and these findings are excellent news. One hopes this article will generate proper scientific argument instead of 'junk' science. Well done for publishing it.
- Phred, Colorado
A very interesting article, yet another example of medical spin. I have always believed and practised in eating what I want when I want and I'm a healthy 38 year old male.
Look forward to reading the book once it's on sale.
- Dennis Markham, Tenerife, Spain
I am female age 72 eating a "healthy diet". Three years ago my chlorestrial was measured at 9.4. It was presumed that in my case it was an inherited condition and I was prescribed Statins which did help to bring the level down to 5.6. However, little did I know that my peripheral arteries were continuing to block which resulted in angioplasty and stent insertion two months ago. Statins didn't appear to have helped much in my case, did they?
- Brenda Gibbons, Dorset
It would not be the first time the doctors got it wrong. They change their opinions like changeing underwear and bury their mistakes. Don't trust them.
- Ryk, UK
I am female and have very high cholesterol. I am at the moment taking a daily dosage of silk worm enzyme to see if it will eat away the plaque as advertised! I do not want to go on statins and my doctor has agreed that we leave things as they are for another six months and another cholesterol test done then. He agrees that at the moment, although I am 67, cholesterol is the only bad brick in my wall - my weight is healthy, my blood pressure good, I don't smoke and drink little. I have heard of the side effects of statins and will do my utmost to keep off them.
- Rita, UK
"High cholesterol levels don't cause heart disease"
Certainly this is a very controversial statement as the arterial plaques that cause heart attacks are full of cholesterol derived from fats in the blood. Experimental animals fed on diets high in cholesterol develop arterial plaques. Genetic disorders that lead to high cholesterol levels can result in heart attacks in childhood. Statins used in this group reduce the chance of a heart attack.
What is more difficult to be sure about is the level at which cholesterol may be harmful and at what level it is right to prescribe statins.
Don't forget all the other risk factors for heart disease (high blood pressure, obesity, family history and smoking) that complicate doctors decisions about how to treat high cholesterol and complicate the interpretation of research findings.
- Colin Clelland, Oxford, UK
I'm old enough to have seen one diet fad after another turned on its head - today's healthy food is tomorrow's poison. Several years ago a supposedly healthy diet caused me two years of ill health, and I put on some 30 pounds, while eating hardly any fat or red meat. Returning to my childhood diet of meat and potatoes, two veg and lashings of gravy, plus pudding, saw my health improve, and I've lost nearly 50 pounds since.
Today I don't believe a word they say about diets - my mother lived to 84 without diets, and my father lived to 75 still eating dripping on toast. Dietary advice seems to be mostly humbug.
- Roy, Southend, UK
Sorry, Colin from Oxford - you're just plain wrong!
- Nick, Eastbourne
I've been waiting for ages for some brave soul to come out with this. If you do a simple bit of research you'll find out that it's all a con and has been for years. Why? The big bucks that Pharma and Government makes from it, plus the hype, another way to keep the peasants in their place, apart from terrorising them. Well done.
- Paul Downes, Milton Keynes, Bucks
We have been conned about everything at the moment.
- Jacqui Weems, Southampton
At last the truth about cholesterol and the truth about statins. Cholesterol is an essential repairer of cells and is produced in reaction to some kind of damage be it inflammation, damage or disease. It doesn't CAUSE heart disease, it is made in response to it in order to try and repair it. Doctors have had it about face for decades but now at last they might see the error of their ways. Without cholesterol the human race would die out and the doctors' obsession with getting our cholesterol levels right down will lead to sicker and sicker people.
- Julia, Dundee
Dear Mr. Kendrick:
Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the Western world. High blood cholesterol (and more specifically, high LDL cholesterol) is unquestionably a major risk factor for the development of this disease. In fact, the scientific consensus is crystal clear, high LDL kills. Lower your LDL and you decrease your risk of heart attack and stroke. The mountain of research is so strong showing that lowering LDL saves lives that the US government quickly came out and revised downward the LDL goals to reflect these latest findings. Furthermore, much of what you state regarding saturated fat, low LDL levels, and HDL cholesterol is completely and utterly false.
I am saddened by your article as it does a disservice to humankind by disseminating false information to millions of people that could very well jeopardize the lives of many of your readers should they choose to follow your advice.
--Dr. Janet Brill, USA
Author of Cholesterol Down (Crown, 2006)
- Dr. Janet Brill, Coral Springs, Florida
His title is Dr. Kendrick, Dr. Brill and his professional opinion differs from yours.
- Paul, USA
I felt the need to respond to Janet Brill (It's Dr Kendrick by the way). I will respond only to one point, or else this e-mail will get far too long. The US Government did not revise the LDL guidelines downwards. The group that 'responded' were the National Cholesterol Education Panel (NCEP), part of the National Insitutes of Health (NIH). The NCEP had nine members on it. Only one had no connection with the pharamceutical industry. To quote the Washington Times on the matter. 'Of the nine members of the panel that wrote the guidelines, six had each received research grants, speaking honoraria or consulting fees from at least three and in some cases all five of the manufacturers of statins; only one had no financial links at all.' Not quite the US Government, I don't think.
As for your other comments. Please read the book when it comes out next week.
- Dr Malcolm Kendrick, Macclesfield UK
In my opinion: eat what you want when you want it, as Dennis Markham mentions above. Don't eat too much of any one thing, keep the veges up and do a bit of exercise. If you want a steak with all the fat, have it; but don't do it every day. This all sound reasonable to me. My father ate like this all his life (war-time excepted, of course) and he died recently as an eighty-seven year-old. My great aunt, who had similar dietary views, and drank and smoked, died at ninety four. I'm sure that if we were to look into all the things that doctors have been keen to tell us over the years about what is and isn't good for us, we would go mad with their contradictions and caveats. Just one more thing: many, many years ago (I was but a very young child at the time), when my great aunt developed bronchitis, her doctor told her to smoke more as this would break up the phlegm and make breathing easier! My mother told me this story when I was about twenty. So you see....
- Space Station 1, UK
Dear Dr. Kendrick:
In fact, the group that responded was the US government! The National Cholesterol Education PROGRAM (not panel) is part of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), a division of the NIH which is part of the US Department of Health and Human Services, the primary federal agency responsible for medical research. (The NHLBI launched the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) in November 1985.)
Please read my book (Cholesterol Down/Crown, December 2006) for the truth regarding cholesterol and cardiovascular disease.
- Dr.Janet Brill, Coral Springs, Florida
I agree Statins made me very ill and I won't be taking any more.
- Eileen Kimberley, Mansfield Nottinghamshire
In 2002, I was prescribed statins (60 mg Lipitor) among other things. In 2006 I received 3 stents to unblock two arteries - a third artery was closed completely. An internist recently put me on 80 mg Lipitor daily. I have some of the side effects of statins, muscle pain, weakness, nerve pain all confused with arthritis and kidney problems. I am convinced that statins are the culprit for a lot of my problems. I now have to convince the doctors, I have already mentioned it to three different ones with no response. I am undergoing kidney surgery next week, I needed the stents in order to survive the trauma.
- Bill Webb, Mississauga, Canada
Finally, an article that states what I have believed all along. Everyone should print this out and give it to their doctor(s)to inform them about this. I'm so tired of being prescribed medicine that have more harmful attributes and don't help you, even if it's proven that you need help. Maybe we don't!
- Ann Taylor, Jacksonville, USA
I've had high cholesterol all my life and still alive and kicking (and running marathons) at 46 years of age. I know of plenty of other people the same age who have had heart attacks with normal levels of cholesterol. I have tried all the statins and have had terrible side affects from all of them. I believe the whole statin thing just a money-making scam created by the drug companies. And these same drug companies are producing all the "studies" that are supposed to be proving all the benefits of these drugs. I think governments and insurance companies should stop compensating people for these ridiculously expensive drugs that probably do more harm than good. If someone wants to take statins, let them pay for them themselves!
- Pb, Europe
Took statins by recommendations from my doctor. Suffered loss of memory, loss of balance (could not stand on one leg) and disjointed conversation. Muscle aching (hurting), absolutely vile temper tantrums that disappeared as fast as they came. After two years read article in Daily Mail (similar complaint) and stopped taking them. All symptons except muscle aching have gone. Told my doctor who just casually said write a letter to the drug Company - which I did describing all symptons. Result - no reply!
- Kenneth R.P. Beecham, UK
Finally, what I have been saying for some years, and what many suffering the side-effects of cholesterol lowering medications have confirmed by their personal comments is coming out: Statins are a scam, and a dangerous one at that.
Throw away your statins.
Tell your doctor to get with it.
- Sepp Hasslberger, Rome, Italy
I am confused, please help me out.
My Mum at 54 is on statins.
In the article yesterday it said that you were at a lower risk of a heart attack if you had levels of 6, rather than 4, I thought it was the other way around? I also thought that the less saturated fat you had the better, is this not true?
I want to understand properly, as my Mum has had various health problems since.
- Claire Griffiths, Bedfordshire, UK
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
MichaelC
Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 1968
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've known this for some time.
That's why I eat plenty of eggs, cheese, etc.
What IS harmful is refined sugar and I have basically eliminated this for years(except on the weekends I can't resist a chocolate muffin or a dame blanche).
Also, don't the 'cholestoral lowering' drugs work by fucking with the liver?
I shouldn't say this since I own some pharma stock(Roche, a real baddy I know. maybe i should sell it) and so does my client. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
puffdaddy
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 506
Location: Northern California
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:44 pm Post subject: We Have Been Conned About Cholesterol |
|
|
| I have suspected the cholesterol con for years for several reasons. The studies indicate that people on statins die at the same rate as those not on them but from other illnesses and the drug companies are making huge money off them. Doctor's are being conned and prescribe them like holy water to those with coronary artery disease. One study showed that people who have a positive outlook on life and know beyond a shadow of a doubt that their spouse loves and adores them very rarely die from heart disease no matter how high their cholesterol is. Cholesterol is produced in the liver so there has to some sort of evolutionary advantage to having it. I agree that refined sugar is really bad for us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rumpl4skn
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2849
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Very interesting timing, because just this week I saw a commercial for a new drug - a cholesterol anti-absorption drug called Zetia.
The commercial starts with a woman recalling talking to her doctor about her cholesterol levels being too high. She relates that "statins, of course" are "always a good choice", but now there is a new drug that blocks LDL absorption.
Simultaneously, there are articles all over the internet about this "new concept." http://www.google.com/search?q=cholesterol+absorption+drug&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-49,GGLD:en&start=0&sa=N
Could this be WHY we are suddenly allowing this con job to surface? because the old drugs have run their course, and it's time to sell new ones?
_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeroen
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What the article doesn't mention is that the probable cause (and remedy) for heart disease has been known for 50 years! Atherosclerosis is a repair mechanism, that's why it is found in arteries under stress (eg the arteries supplying the heart muscle). The weakening of the arteries is caused by a lack of vitamin c; heart disease can be thought of as a chronic form of scurvy. Most animals make their own vitamin c--that's why they don't get hear attacks, but most apes, including man, and the guinea pig (!) cannot because of a genetic defect. In the fifties it was shown that atherosclerosis can be formed by a lack of vitamin c, and reduced by the intake of vitamin c, in guinea pigs ( http://vitamincfoundation.org/pdfs/WillisAthero.pdf ) as well as in man ( "Preliminary results of ascorbic asic therapy in human atherosclerosis are encouraging": http://vitamincfoundation.org/pdfs/WillisSerial.pdf )
In the late eighties this theory was promoted by "the father of molecular biology" and two times nobel laureate Linus Pauling. Together with Matthias Rath he has written several scientific articles that can be found here: http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/About_Dr_Matthias_Rath/scientific_publications.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
indigitydogdignation
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 313
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not as versed in the history of medical industry bullshit as I should be, but I know enough to have commited myself years ago to avoiding medical prefossionals as much as possible. The findings reported in this article don't surprise me at all.
I've had one epidosde of fibrilation that lasted about seven hours but no problems since, thanks in part to half an aspirin per day. (?) (Or is that a myth too? Somehow I doubt it.)
My family has a history of heart trouble, my parents turned vegetarian at age 65 or thereabouts and seemed to have benefited. Looking at the issue in a slightly different way, it seems to me that the 'corelation' between animal fats and problems commonly associated with obesity have given the saturated fat----->cholesterol----->heart disease hype an incredible boost. Point being, if they crunch their data in the right ways they'll still be able to show a somewhat co-incident correlation between the consumption of saturated fats and heart disease. Lord knows, we have no shortage of problems with obesity these days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Markattack
Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 45
Location: Vancouver, BC
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:06 pm Post subject: So what does cause heart disease? |
|
|
Hello, my first post here at BFN, although I have been reading here for some time.
Anyway, I came across this article linking chlorinated drinking water to heart disease after reading the article in this thread. Looks like this has been known for a long time. Hmmm
| Quote: | CHLORINATED WATER & HEART DISEASE (Nexus magazine Vol2 –1)
Over twenty years ago Dr Joseph M Price demonstrated the undeniable connection between the practice of chlorinating water supplies and arteriosclerosis, in which a plaque composed mainly of cholesterol builds up inside arteries, resulting eventually in heart attacks and strokes.
Cholesterol is a lipid (fatty) substance present in all animal cells and essential to life; it's a precursor for many common bio chemical compounds. But when excess chlorine has been absorbed from drinking chlorinated water, it reacts 'with some of the cholesterol in the blood, forming the yellowish fatty deposits that accumulate along artery walls, narrowing and hardening them, and often causing ruptures.
The fact that the buildup is mostly cholesterol has led to the common assumption that the amount of cholesterol consumed is what determines susceptibility to heart disease. But while reducing cholesterol intake can tower risk somewhat, the theory that cholesterol is the sole cause of heart attacks has serious flaws.
It ignores the fact that heart attacks were virtually unknown until this century, when chlorination of water began, and they remain quite rare in places such as China as long as the practice is not adopted. It also does not explain how people such as eskimos with massive cholesterol intakes remain free of heart disease. .
Nor does it account for the buildup of a chemically similar deposit on inorganic surfaces where chlorine and cholesterol come in contact, such as in containers and hoses which are washed in chlorinated water, then used in dairies for handling milk, which of course is full of cholesterol. This and much related evidence is detailed in Dr Price's 1969 book, "Coronaries, Cholesterol, Chlorine" (Jove Books, NY, USA).
Chlorine in water also reacts with other substances present to form such carcinogens as chloroform and assorted organic halides. Chlorine, fluorine, iodine and bromine are known as halogens ('salt formers'). These all have seven electrons in the outer orbits, so to fill in the eighth they readily latch on to electrons in other atoms. Since they seldom part with electrons, they and their compounds tend to be very non-conductive, so their roles in our conductive processes come to a grinding halt. Their relative scarcity is a lucky break for life in general.
The effectiveness of H2O2 or ozone in reversing arteriosclerosis is due to the scouring effect of the active single oxygen released, which oxidises the accumulated lipids from arterial walls, restoring the arteries flexibility and capacity.
http://www.whale.to/w/chlorine.html
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atlien
Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 92
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I had no idea on this one. I've always believed, not actively as in making decisions based on it, in the cholesterol con.
One of those things that I never really put a lot of thought into not understanding the science, being young, thinking I'm gonna live forever, etc..
This is interesting stuff though. I'd like to hear the rebuttals. Also, in regards to big pharma and they're scams, there is a good documentary that just came out from the Media Education Foundation. It's called Big Pharma Big Bucks. It brings up the Disease Mongering of big pharma which the cholesterol hype sounds like it is a part of. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeroen
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wrote:
That should be: In the fifties it was shown that atherosclerosis can be induced and resorbed in guinea pigs with, respectively, the abcense and presence of vitamin c in their diet ( http://vitamincfoundation.org/pdfs/WillisAthero.pdf ), and reduced in man with the intake of (large doses of) vitamin c ( "Preliminary results of ascorbic asic therapy in human atherosclerosis are encouraging": http://vitamincfoundation.org/pdfs/WillisSerial.pdf )
indigitydogdignation wrote:
| Quote: | | I've had one epidosde of fibrilation that lasted about seven hours but no problems since, thanks in part to half an aspirin per day. (?) (Or is that a myth too? |
Matthias Rath (see my first post) writes that:
| Quote: | Aspirin is mass-marketed under the false pretense of preventing heart attacks and strokes, whilst long-term use of this drug is known to cause an destroy collagen and therefore gradually increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes as well as other diseases such as stomach ulcers and gastrointestinal bleeding.
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/The_Hague/complaint/complaint03.htm |
The more vitamin C, the more collagen, the more stability for blood vessel walls and the less heart attacks. The UK Food Standards Agency says that:
This 40 mg is far too little. You should take a few grams a day. The worst that can happen to you, is to get into a situation with no toilet nearby. So, whether you quit the aspirin or not, I'd say run to the drug store and get yourself some vitamin c pills.
***
If the inability to produce vitamin c is indeed a "genetic defect", then you may wonder how this came about. The chemical engineer Irwin Stone, who introduced Linus Pauling to the subject of vitamin c, writes:
| Quote: | Russell and Tucker14 in 1971 suggested that a nearby supernovae explosion, with its liberation and absorption by the earth’s atmosphere of large fluxes of cosmic rays gamma rays and x-rays, might have produced climatic effects so drastic as to have caused the extinction of many animals including the cold-blooded dinosaurs. If such an astronomical event occurred, then the random absorption of some of this high energy radiation may have been instrumental in mutating the primate gene for the synthesis of the enzyme protein, L-gulonolactone oxidase, resulting in an inactive enzyme.
http://www.seanet.com/~alexs/ascorbate/197x/stone-i-orthomol_psych-1972-v1-n2-3-p82.htm |
As far as I'm aware, the cause for a mutation resulting in an important change is usually not part of the explanation for how this change has come to persist. Stone seems to suggest that many of our ancestors *at the same time* underwent the *same* mutation. He goes on:
So it wasn't so bad, but why didn't any of our ancestors survive *without* this mutation? According to the theory of natural selection, organisms with *favorable* traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with *unfavorable* traits, and the "destruction of so vital a biochemical process" doesn't seem favorable. Says Stone:
Looks like this doesn't sound convincing to Stone. In a paper with the somewhat immodest title "Puzzle of Human Evolution Solved" Matthias Rath writes that
Apparently Matthias can't explain either why this trait was selected. I think I may have found a reasonable explanation. Stone writes that
There is a direct link between stress and agression:
| Quote: | Scientists may be learning why it’s so hard to stop the cycle of violence. The answer may lie in the nervous system. There appears to be a fast, mutual, positive feedback loop between stress hormones and a brain-based aggression-control center in rats, whose neurophysiology is similar to ours. It may explain why, under stress, humans are so quick to lash out and find it hard to cool down.
http://www.apa.org/releases/feedbackcycle.html |
This "cycle of violence" can be broken with vitamin c:
The explanation lies in the fact that
And perhaps our stressed ancestors were also somewhat genocidal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atm
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3578
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, you don't have to look far, do you, to find a die-e-tary paradox (geddit  ?).
Paradoxically our (my) own backyard will do (via San Francisco):
| Quote: |
For Thais, palm oil always has been a good thing
Olivia Wu, Chronicle Staff Writer [Is her first name an omen or what ]
Wednesday, March 12, 2003
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/03/12/FD191844.DTL
When Kasma Loha-unchit recently saw a can of palm oil labeled as "organic shortening" on the shelf of her local natural foods store, she didn't know whether to laugh or to cry.
The irony cut deeper when she read the second line. "Trans fat free."
The contents? One hundred percent palm oil.
Loha-unchit of Oakland, a 30-year transplant from Thailand who teaches Thai cooking, might well have vented by picking up her cleaver to thwack open some coconuts and cook a traditional Thai meal with the fatty coconut milk. The coconut and palm oils in her kitchen were always organic, pure and trans fat free.
She felt vindicated. In 20 years, with the kind of lightning speed that defines a lifetime in America, coconut and palm oils have come full circle, from full embrace to vilification to comeback.
BIRTH OF A PARADOX
If Loha-unchit discovered irony in America, Western scientists in Thailand in the 1950s were even more perplexed. Scientists from Cornell recorded a diet based almost exclusively on saturated palm oils (coconut is a palm) and rendered pork fat, often in what they considered to be in enormous percentages.
Yet the incidence of heart disease among Thais is small. Scientists named the phenomenon the Thai Paradox.
It wasn't such a paradox to Loha-unchit, even though for years in the United States she'd run into a wall of disbelief whenever she mentioned that she cooked almost exclusively with tropical oils.
When she took the annual health tests offered by her corporate employer, her profile was a model of restraint in all the parameters -- weight, cholesterol and blood pressure. When the health workers asked her how she maintained that profile, and she replied that she ate coconut and palm oil, "They went, 'no, no, no, don't eat that stuff. It's bad for you,' " said Loha- unchit.
Tropical oils are highly saturated fats, and as anyone who knew anything about health and nutrition in the '80s and '90s could recite, saturated fats meant cholesterol, cholesterol meant heart disease and heart disease meant death.
COOKING AGAINST THE TIDE
All the while, Loha-unchit continued unperturbed, stir-frying with palm oil,
stewing the slow-cooked soups and curries in rich coconut milk, and making desserts from coconut cream. When she occasionally deep-fried foods, she used peanut oil, an oil high in monounsaturated fat, a concession to her students who would have balked if she used rendered pork fat, the preferred fat for deep frying in Thailand, or large quantities of the white, shortening-like palm oil.
"I knew that in Asia they've been eating coconuts for centuries and they don't have any heart disease," she says.
Eventually, she and her husband, Michael Babcock, happened on research about tropical oils that explained much of her own continued good health.
One lipid scientist, Mary Enig of the University of Maryland, says,
"The bottom line is that the saturated fat issue is phony. We've been misled about what's right and what's wrong."
Enig emphasizes the need to consume saturated fats because they contain micronutrients and vitamins that are vital to metabolism, growth and immunity.
Even mainstream scientists are coming around to the benefits of tropical oils. A recent edition of the Wellness Letter, published by the School of Public Health at UC Berkeley, argues that studies linking coconut oil to heart attacks were flawed. The report goes on to say that the lauric acid in coconut oil likely protects against liver damage and stops inflammation.
SATURATED BUT UNIQUE
While tropical oils are saturated, they are unique in that they are composed of medium-chain fatty acids.
These travel directly through the liver into the bloodstream and are used for energy nearly as quickly as sugars, and are not stored as fat -- two reasons why they are formulated into some sports drinks.
More important, more than half of the fats in coconut oil are made up of lauric acid, which is also found in breast milk.
Lauric acid, as well as another fatty acid, capric acid, have antiviral, anti-fungal and anti- microbial characteristics, says Enig. Enig's abstract "Coconut: In Support of Good Health in the 21st Century" cites research from as early as the 1960s to back the claim that coconut fats "destroy lipid-coated viruses such as HIV, herpes, cytomegalovirus, influenza, various pathogenic bacteria . . . and protozoa such as giardia lamblia."
Coconut plays a role in traditional Thai medicine and in Ayurvedic medicine tradition from India. Some nutraceutical proponents cite anecdote after anecdote of coconut fat-consuming patients who lose weight and fight chronic illnesses.
Babcock has suffered from chronic fatigue syndrome since 1987. During a recent trip to Thailand, he drank a daily dose of fresh coconut juice because he realized that the lauric acid in coconut was similar to one of his prescribed medicines, a drug named Lauricidin. When he stayed with his coconut regime, he felt better and his immune system worked better -- no "turista" on that trip, he says.
Like most Asians, Loha-unchit eats rice as the foundation of her meals. She also makes plenty of Thai desserts, which, she likes to point out, are based on coconut cream and sweetened with small amounts of unrefined palm or coconut sugar -- never as intensely sweet as most Western sweets.
"The Thai diet is a beautiful diet," says Sally Fallon, co-author with Enig of "Nourishing Traditions" (New Trends Publishing, 1999). "It has fish, vegetables and fruit, and they cook with coconut oil and pork fat," she says. "They eat insects and larvae, all great sources of protein and fat."
[Oh, gawd, I won't eat bugs or bug larvae and thats final. Black pudding yes, but...]
This traditional diet, a diverse one that uses tropical oils and lard as the exclusive sources of fat, is ideal, she says. And she theorizes that lauric acid protects Thais from natural bacteria and other microbes in their equatorial environment.
The only weak link in the Thai diet is the consumption of white rice, a highly refined carbohydrate, which lacks the critical omega-3 fatty acids embedded in rice bran, she says. Still, Thai villagers feed rice bran to their chickens and then eat the eggs and meat, getting omega-3s that way, she says.
[Yep, as truthseeker knows, no brown rice here, just jasmine  .]
Enig encourages individuals to eat according to their biological and cultural heritage, the way people ate before the advent of processing.
And that's exactly what Loha-unchit tries to do.
How much to eat? "Until you're full," says Fallon, who adds that you reach satiety quickly and naturally when you consume saturated fat along with unprocessed foods.
Which seems to be Loha-unchit's mantra. "When I need to lose weight, I just eat less. I skip the seconds," she says. Which is as simple as it used to be in the days when eating was simple as well. No fear. No irony.
And no paradox.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PARADOX FAT
How many dietary paradoxes are there? In science, when one paradox presents itself, it should cause a re-thinking of the hypothesis. In the case of fats making you fat, and of saturated fats causing heart disease, there are, in fact, several paradoxes, some known to food scientists and epidemiologists since the 1950s and '60s.
Here are some of them:
-- The French Paradox: The French consume a diet higher in fats than Americans, and especially in saturated fats from dairy products, but do not have as high an incidence of heart disease.
The Finnish Paradox: Lumberjacks in Finland consume a diet with up to 50 percent of its calories from saturated fat, but are not obese.
The Israeli Paradox: Israelis live on a diet that most closely resembles the American diet. They consume a higher amount of polyunsaturated fats and they have a higher rate of coronary heart disease than Americans.
The Thai Paradox: The traditional Thai consumption of fats comes from palm or palm kernel oil and coconut products, and a smaller amount of rendered pork, all high in saturated fat, but the incidence of heart disease is low.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEAFY GREENS COOKED IN COCONUT MILK WITH SHRIMP (PAK DTOM GKATI)
Recipes from Kasma Loha-unchit.
Ingredients:
1 bunch kale, collard greens, green chard or similar leafy green, cut in 1- inch lengths
2 cups (or 1 can) unsweetened coconut milk (Mae Ploy or Chaokoh brand)
3 small shallots, peeled and crushed
1 teaspoon natural sea salt, or to taste
1/2 to 1 teaspoon palm sugar, to taste
1/2 pound medium-size shrimp, shelled and butterflied
INSTRUCTIONS:
Rinse the greens well and drain.
Heat the coconut milk in a saucepan over medium heat until it comes to a boil. Add the shallots and greens and cook at a gentle simmer, uncovered, until the greens are tender (15 to 20 minutes for kale, less for other greens).
Season with salt and palm sugar.
Increase heat to high and add the shrimp. Cook 1/2 to 1 minute longer, or until the shrimp turn pink.
Ladle into a tureen and take to the table.
Serves 6 to 8 with other dishes and rice
PER SERVING:
160 calories, 7 g protein, 7 g carbohydrate, 13 g fat (11 g saturated), 35 mg cholesterol, 342 mg sodium, 1 g fiber. .
CHICKEN-COCONUT SOUP WITH GALANGAL & OYSTER MUSHROOMS (DTOM KAH GKAI)
Ingredients:
4 cups unsalted chicken broth or water
2- to 3-inch section fresh galangal, thinly sliced, or 6 to 8 dried pieces
2 stalks lemongrass, trimmed, cut into 1-inch lengths and crushed
1 pound boneless, skinless chicken thighs, cut into bite-size pieces
4 small, whole shallots, peeled and crushed
10 to 15 Thai chiles, stemmed and crushed, or 4 to 6 serrano peppers, sliced with seeds
6 fresh kaffir lime leaves, torn to small pieces
1/2 pound fresh oyster mushrooms, cut in half if stems are large
2 cups (or 1 can) unsweetened coconut milk (preferably Mae Ploy brand)
4 to 6 tablespoons fish sauce, to desired saltiness
1/8 teaspoon freshly ground white pepper
Juice of 2 or more limes
1 to 2 tablespoons palm sugar
Cilantro leaves or short sprigs, for garnish
INSTRUCTIONS:
Bring broth to a boil in a medium-size pot. Add galangal and lemongrass, return to a boil, then reduce heat, cover and simmer for 20 minutes.
Bring broth back to a rolling boil; stir in chicken and shallots. Return to a boil and simmer until chicken has lost its raw pink color. Add chiles and lime leaves. Cook another 1 to 2 minutes, then stir in mushrooms.
Increase heat to high. Add the coconut milk, stirring until it becomes well blended with broth and is warmed through. Canned coconut cream can curdle when boiled too long and at a high temperature. Heat just enough to dissolve the coagulated pieces and blend smoothly with the rest of the broth.
Reduce heat to a gentle simmer and season to taste with fish sauce. Add white pepper and lime juice. Balance sharp sour of lime juice with enough palm sugar so the coconut milk comes through. Ladle into serving bowls. Top with cilantro.
Serves 8 to 10 with other dishes and rice in a shared family-style meal
PER SERVING:
195 calories, 12 g protein, 7 g carbohydrate, 12 g fat (9 g saturated), 38 mg cholesterol, 606 mg sodium, 1 g fiber.
E-mail Olivia Wu at owu@sfchronicle.com.
|
My God, how misled the least read and least travelled are.
Now, where did I leave my Flora? Ah, there it is.
In the bin 
Who makes Flora margarine? Take a look:
http://www.unilever.co.uk/ourbrands/foods/Flora.asp
Terry Wogan has a lot of blood on his hands [he used to do the voiceover for Flora margarine television adverts tothosethatdon'tknow.].
The next link is a bit off-beat (these awful puns have GOT to stop) but it's on-topic nonetheless:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furry_Dance
Ah, Tezza, shure yr sucha man o' da ppl aren'tchanow :roll: .
atm  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atm
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3578
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Whilst surfing the MSM I happened across this at MSN:
[Edited because comment previously here was, in hindsight, contradictary  ]
| Quote: |
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16712281/wid/11915773?GT1=8921
[Low] Cholesterol levels may predict dementia
A decline [in cholesterol level] can precede diagnosis of the mental condition [dementia] by 15 years
A decline in total cholesterol levels may precede the diagnosis of dementia by at least 15 years, according to a study reported in the Archives of Neurology.
“Studies like this are extremely valuable because they can provide a 'window' on to processes going on early in dementia, allowing researchers to look back in time at people’s health and other characteristics and compare these between people who develop dementia and those who do not,” Dr. Robert Stewart from King’s College London, told Reuters Health.
Stewart and colleagues used data from the Honolulu-Asia Aging Study to compare the natural history of changes in cholesterol levels over a 26-year period among 56 men who had dementia at examination three years after the last cholesterol measurement, and 971 men who did not have dementia.
Total cholesterol levels at the beginning of the study did not differ by later dementia status, the authors report, but the decline in subsequent cholesterol levels was significantly steeper among men who went on to develop dementia.
Adjustment for potential confounding factors strengthened the association between cholesterol level decline and the development of dementia, the results indicate.
General health might decline with cholesterol levels
The cholesterol level decline was most marked in men with dementia and the APOE gene mutation — a marker of Alzheimer’s syndrome — and in those with dementia and worse self-reported general health at the final cholesterol measurement, the researchers note.
“The observed associations may not represent direct causal pathways,” the investigators say.
[Nicely inserted MSM backtrack.]
“Hypocholesterolemia (low cholesterol) is recognized to be associated with frailty and poor general health. It also has been found to be specifically associated with inflammatory markers and poor nutritional status.”
Rather, they suggest, “It is possible that the decline in cholesterol levels is a marker for early processes that reflect neurodegenerative changes and also lead to a decline in general health status.”
The drop in cholesterol was not a result of medication.
“Very few of the participants in this study were receiving cholesterol-lowering treatment at the time the decline in cholesterol levels was observed (there were few cholesterol lowering medications around at that time in the 1970s), so medication was not responsible for this,” Stewart explained.
“The drop in cholesterol was instead probably caused by some other event and was a ’marker’ of risk rather than actually increasing the risk itself,” he concluded.
Copyright 2007 Reuters Limited. All rights unreserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.
Current rating: 3.5 by 666 users
|
[Other contradictory comment edited out by me as, um, contradictory in hindsight.]
BTW love the Satanic numerology, Gatesy .
atm
Last edited by atm on Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:20 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bornfree
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 509
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:31 pm Post subject: We, the Meat Eaters? |
|
|
| I'm just now listening to the audio and hearing about eating meat. Could this be how we advanced beyond the Neanderthal, we were able to trap and eat meat while Neanderthals had no meat or very little meat in their diet? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kathy
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Posts: 685
Location: Surfing The Waves
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I'm just now listening to the audio and hearing about eating meat. Could this be how we advanced beyond the Neanderthal, we were able to trap and eat meat while Neanderthals had no meat or very little meat in their diet? |
The Neanderthal according to this wiki report they did eat meat, they had access to Bison and any other animals who roamed freely around, according to this BBC report they were skilled hunters.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bornfree
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 509
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kathy wrote: | | Quote: | | I'm just now listening to the audio and hearing about eating meat. Could this be how we advanced beyond the Neanderthal, we were able to trap and eat meat while Neanderthals had no meat or very little meat in their diet? |
The Neanderthal according to this wiki report they did eat meat, they had access to Bison and any other animals who roamed freely around, according to this BBC report they were skilled hunters.
|
Thanks for the links Kathy. Very interesting. I didn't think GWBush ate meat. I guess he does. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fintan
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 6105
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I found very interesting the issue of WHY we lost the ability to
make Vitamin C as detailed in Jeroen's post above.
This is intriguing.
Also worth taking note of is Markattack's post on Chlorine and
the development of heart disease.
I think the jury is still out on all this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
