Free Cholesterol Lowering Starter Kit
228°Expired

Free Cholesterol Lowering Starter Kit

16
Found 10th Apr 2015
This has been posted before but I decided to repost it for those that missed it. The freebie is still active, you just need to fill out the details provided on the link and the cholesterol lowering starter kit is set out to your door

16 Comments

Not voting either way, but "lowering cholesterol" is really all about drug companies and fake food manufacturers making a lot of money: zoeharcombe.com/the…ng/

Banned

I like how mutinational companies make billions each year by manufacturing tablets that one must take for life and once you start them you cannot come off them.

Who is this actually benefiting?

iSceptic

mb1

Not voting either way, but "lowering cholesterol" is really all about … Not voting either way, but "lowering cholesterol" is really all about drug companies and fake food manufacturers making a lot of money: http://www.zoeharcombe.com/the-knowledge/we-have-got-cholesterol-completely-wrong/



I did read all of that article, and it is a shame that it is shows such a one-sided, bias view.

"
Fat and cholesterol are not water soluble so they need to be carried around the body in something to do their vital work. The carriers of such substances are called lipoproteins. We can think of lipoproteins as tiny ‘taxi cabs’ travelling round the blood stream acting as transporters. So, lipoproteins are carriers of cholesterol – oh – and triglyceride and phospholipids and protein"

High levels of LDL are bad for the body (atherosclerosis). Excess cholesterol produced by the liver needs high levels of VLDL/LDL to carry cholesterol around the body. Excess cholesterol is deposited into arteries / other blood vessels.
Statins reduce the levels of cholesterol that are produced by the body (via HMG CoA reductase) which is good for you.

"“Cholesterol in food has no impact on cholesterol in the blood and we’ve known that all along.”

Chylomicrons transport dietary cholesterol, and acts as another source of cholesterol. They act as a source of cholesterol for tissues, regardless of whether "they have an impact on cholesterol in the blood". Statins block the liver producing cholesterol, but dietary cholesterol acts as another source. So you shouldn't run out of the stuff, which they appear to infer from another one of their points.

---

It wouldn't be fair for me to comment on every claim as I am not certain about everything - but it very one-sided.

Anyway, it is good to be sceptical in life And there is profit to be made - but then every business does that. There is a lot of evidence from a variety of journals about the effectiveness of statins, which are well worth reading.
Edited by: "Firefly1" 14th Apr 2015

I followed guides like this starter kit and my total cholesterol went up. (I followed set by step guide even increased exercise) After it went up I chose my own diet reducing carbs and guess what it went down.

cholesterol numbers are made up even when you look into how nhs tests/works out what is classed as high is very wrong people produce 70/80% naturally so the rest is classed as diet/exercise (people that have high take those % off I bet you still have high total) and statins are very dangerous in fact blocking some good agents which help the body plus look at the proper research on the effects they have so taking them for life is madness and a giant scam.



morty

I followed guides like this starter kit and my total cholesterol went up. … I followed guides like this starter kit and my total cholesterol went up. (I followed set by step guide even increased exercise) After it went up I chose my own diet reducing carbs and guess what it went down.cholesterol numbers are made up even when you look into how nhs tests/works out what is classed as high is very wrong people produce 70/80% naturally so the rest is classed as diet/exercise (people that have high take those % off I bet you still have high total) and statins are very dangerous in fact blocking some good agents which help the body plus look at the proper research on the effects they have so taking them for life is madness and a giant scam.



ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub…597
INTERPRETATION:
Statin therapy can safely reduce the 5-year incidence of major coronary events, coronary revascularisation, and stroke by about one fifth per mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol, largely irrespective of the initial lipid profile or other presenting characteristics. The absolute benefit relates chiefly to an individual's absolute risk of such events and to the absolute reduction in LDL cholesterol achieved. These findings reinforce the need to consider prolonged statin treatment with substantial LDL cholesterol reductions in all patients at high risk of any type of major vascular event.



qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/con…109
In conclusion, statins play an important role in reducing clinically relevant cardiovascular outcomes, most likely due to reducing LDL-C levels. Current guidelines aim to establish target LDL-C reductions to improve a patients long-term reduction in clinical events. Given the clear benefits of statins, adherence to statin therapy should now be a major concern for physicians. Efforts to ensure adherence may be learned from other fields of chronic diseases health care, including reminder systems for patients and possibly even resource intensive strategies such as pill-counts and pharmacy refill assessments. There are few interventions in health care that offer such favorable outcomes and so improving access to treatment and adherence to therapy should be a prime concern for physicians and public health. As statin therapy moves into generic formulations, costs are reduced and this may open an opportunity to share these clinically important treatments with those who were previously excluded due to cost.


---

There are S/E as with all medication. But meta-analyses of over 100,000 patients (and I'm sure there are even bigger ones) show statins are effective for higher risk individuals.
Whether they should be prescribed to low-risk individuals is hotly debated. For high risk, the evidence is clear.
Edited by: "Firefly1" 15th Apr 2015



Zoe Harcombe? The "obesity researcher" with a Cambridge degree in......Maths/Economics. Has a diploma in diet and nutrition but doesn't mention where? Prefers to give talks rather than publish papers despite being a researcher? Author of several diet books? Sanctioned by the ASA for making false and misleading claims? Thinks people are obsese because of high amounts of yeast? Yeah, she's not in it for the money either.

Her recent meta review about saturated fats that generated a media frenzy had statisical errors, despite a statistical analysis reasonably pointless in the first place, even though she has a Cambridge degree in Maths/Economics? How did her co-authors and the peer review process in an open source journal where you pay £1700 to get published miss that? What about her claims that eating fruit and veg aren't beneficial? And don't get me started on Candida. I honestly thought that fad had died out years ago.

Sorry mini rant mode. X) Stick with actual advice based on facts on evidence from the WHO, NHS etc. High cholesterol increases your risk of heart disease.



Who else will make these drugs? Should these companies do it for free when it costs millions of pounds and several years to a decade to develop a single new drug? Supplement companies make millions too peddling stuff that don't do anything.

Plus you don't have to start taking them. Of course you can get off them but your blood cholesterol will increase which increases your risk to cardiovascular disease. If you have a decent diet and are active enough then unless you have a genetic risk, you won't even need to ever have them in the first place.


mb1

Not voting either way, but "lowering cholesterol" is really all about … Not voting either way, but "lowering cholesterol" is really all about drug companies and fake food manufacturers making a lot of money: http://www.zoeharcombe.com/the-knowledge/we-have-got-cholesterol-completely-wrong/

iDracula

I like how mutinational companies make billions each year by … I like how mutinational companies make billions each year by manufacturing tablets that one must take for life and once you start them you cannot come off them. Who is this actually benefiting?iSceptic

mb1

Not voting either way, but "lowering cholesterol" is really all about … Not voting either way, but "lowering cholesterol" is really all about drug companies and fake food manufacturers making a lot of money: http://www.zoeharcombe.com/the-knowledge/we-have-got-cholesterol-completely-wrong/



We know cholesterol increases as a result of diet, the link between increasing blood cholesterol and excess saturated fats is undeniable yet she states it isn't. I'm sure she will make many wrong claims or simply give misinformation provided with cherry picked evidence. This woman is about getting attention so she gets paid for giving conference talks and selling her diet books.

Despite the evidence to the contrary, I have ordered this for my dad. its so difficult to judge with all the 'experts'.

Firefly1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16214597INTERPRETATION:Statin therapy … http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16214597INTERPRETATION:Statin therapy can safely reduce the 5-year incidence of major coronary events, coronary revascularisation, and stroke by about one fifth per mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol, largely irrespective of the initial lipid profile or other presenting characteristics. The absolute benefit relates chiefly to an individual's absolute risk of such events and to the absolute reduction in LDL cholesterol achieved. These findings reinforce the need to consider prolonged statin treatment with substantial LDL cholesterol reductions in all patients at high risk of any type of major vascular event.http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/104/2/109In conclusion, statins play an important role in reducing clinically relevant cardiovascular outcomes, most likely due to reducing LDL-C levels. Current guidelines aim to establish target LDL-C reductions to improve a patients long-term reduction in clinical events. Given the clear benefits of statins, adherence to statin therapy should now be a major concern for physicians. Efforts to ensure adherence may be learned from other fields of chronic diseases health care, including reminder systems for patients and possibly even resource intensive strategies such as pill-counts and pharmacy refill assessments. There are few interventions in health care that offer such favorable outcomes and so improving access to treatment and adherence to therapy should be a prime concern for physicians and public health. As statin therapy moves into generic formulations, costs are reduced and this may open an opportunity to share these clinically important treatments with those who were previously excluded due to cost.---There are S/E as with all medication. But meta-analyses of over 100,000 patients (and I'm sure there are even bigger ones) show statins are effective for higher risk individuals. Whether they should be prescribed to low-risk individuals is hotly debated. For high risk, the evidence is clear.




That is complete rubbish and outdated research it has been proven there is no link with high cholesterol causing these so called things like heart disease in fact statins block agents produced by the body to prevent these.

You sound like a silly doctor who just follows what they have been told in booklets with the all things have side effects does this make it right so you are trading one problem for another how is that a good thing (look into real effects of statins they are known to cause problems a lot of problems not what the nhs pushes that they may have uncommon side effects real figures show 50% increase in diabetes)


Thank you.

mb1

Not voting either way, but "lowering cholesterol" is really all about … Not voting either way, but "lowering cholesterol" is really all about drug companies and fake food manufacturers making a lot of money: http://www.zoeharcombe.com/the-knowledge/we-have-got-cholesterol-completely-wrong/



Please don't take your info from that charlatan. It's the same person who says eating fruit and veg doesn't help prevent cancer. You listen to her advice you might end up dead sooner than you think.
Edited by: "dz1" 16th Apr 2015

morty

That is complete rubbish and outdated research it has been proven there … That is complete rubbish and outdated research it has been proven there is no link with high cholesterol causing these so called things like heart disease in fact statins block agents produced by the body to prevent these.You sound like a silly doctor who just follows what they have been told in booklets with the all things have side effects does this make it right so you are trading one problem for another how is that a good thing (look into real effects of statins they are known to cause problems a lot of problems not what the nhs pushes that they may have uncommon side effects real figures show 50% increase in diabetes)



It's complete rubbish yet you don't link to any evidence that shows otherwise for any of your claims?

It has been proven there is no link between cholesterol and heart disease when, how and by whom? Unless you are a cholesterol denier, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that there is a link between your risk of cardiovascular disease and increased levels of cholesterol. Note that this is not the same as saying high cholesterol causes cardiovascular disease, just that it increases your risk of getting CVD.

"So called things like heart disease"?! Are you denying the existence of heart attacks too? oO I seriously hope I have misunderstood you there.

Statins block agents (an enzyme) in your liver that produces cholesterol so you're also saying that the body's own cholesterol homeostatic mechanism is essentially flawless and that intervention is never necessary? What sources do you have for these claims?

There is a list of all known side effects of statins. You claim real figures show a 50% increase in diabetes is absolute rubbish. What you mean is you have cherry picked a news article showing a study that is contradicted by the consensus. The study involved 9000 people and has been criticised for several limiting factors such as not being an randomised controlled trial and not taking into account confounding factors and other things like diet.

How about the larger studies which found a 12% increase in risk? This risk is significantly outweighed by the benefits of reducing your risk of cardiovascular disease. The diabetes risk can be further offset by excercising more, losing weight if necessary (the main cause of diabetes is obesity after all) and a good diet.

Another large study showed that a lot of side effects are just down to a nocebo effect. Only a small incidence of side effects were actually down to the statins themselves.

All drugs have side effects of course, no one is arguing that but the point is would you rather have a high risk of having a heart attack instead? Unless people have a significant risk that is out of their control like genetics, then there is no reason why people can't limit alcohol, excercise more and eat a decent diet so as to decrease their chances of ever being in a situation to be offered statins.
Edited by: "yrreb88" 15th Apr 2015

yrreb88

It's complete rubbish yet you don't link to any evidence that shows … It's complete rubbish yet you don't link to any evidence that shows otherwise for any of your claims? It has been proven there is no link between cholesterol and heart disease when, how and by whom? Unless you are a cholesterol denier, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that there is a link between your risk of cardiovascular disease and increased levels of cholesterol. Note that this is not the same as saying high cholesterol causes cardiovascular disease, just that it increases your risk of getting CVD."So called things like heart disease"?! Are you denying the existence of heart attacks too? oO I seriously hope I have misunderstood you there.Statins block agents (an enzyme) in your liver that produces cholesterol so you're also saying that the body's own cholesterol homeostatic mechanism is essentially flawless and that intervention is never necessary? What sources do you have for these claims?There is a list of all known side effects of statins. You claim real figures show a 50% increase in diabetes is absolute rubbish. What you mean is you have cherry picked a news article showing a study that is contradicted by the consensus. The study involved 9000 people and has been criticised for several limiting factors such as not being an randomised controlled trial and not taking into account confounding factors and other things like diet. How about the larger studies which found a 12% increase in risk? This risk is significantly outweighed by the benefits of reducing your risk of cardiovascular disease. The diabetes risk can be further offset by excercising more, losing weight if necessary (the main cause of diabetes is obesity after all) and a good diet. Another large study showed that a lot of side effects are just down to a nocebo effect. Only a small incidence of side effects were actually down to the statins themselves.All drugs have side effects of course, no one is arguing that but the point is would you rather have a high risk of having a heart attack instead? Unless people have a significant risk that is out of their control like genetics, then there is no reason why people can't limit alcohol, excercise more and eat a decent diet so as to decrease their chances of ever being in a situation to be offered statins.



thecholesteroltruth.com/

morty

http://www.thecholesteroltruth.com/



Yeah counter all my points with a link to a random, insignificant website. You sir, are very gullible, please stop taking everything you see on the internet as truth. That website is run by Agora Health Ltd which has a broken website and is a subsidery of Agora Inc. The other subsideries basically promote get rich quick schemes and offer "insider trading tips" to guarantee 100% profit every week. In short, you can not find anything honest or positive about this company or any of its many subsideries. How can you rely on anything like that?

yrreb88

Yeah counter all my points with a link to a random, insignificant … Yeah counter all my points with a link to a random, insignificant website. You sir, are very gullible, please stop taking everything you see on the internet as truth. That website is run by Agora Health Ltd which has a broken website and is a subsidery of Agora Inc. The other subsideries basically promote get rich quick schemes and offer "insider trading tips" to guarantee 100% profit every week. In short, you can not find anything honest or positive about this company or any of its many subsideries. How can you rely on anything like that?




You are a Muppet so pharm companies do not pay or give incentives to doctors/researchers well not in your fantasy world i guess they don't.

That website was an example that anyone can jump on the web like you did and pull articles about this stuff.

It's the stories from real people that are important and I have seen many people have lifes destroyed by taking statins not being fully warned that they can do serious harm.

A quote from someone who has experience Former GP and deputy chairman of the British Medical Association Dr Kailash Chand has first-hand experience of the side effects of statins.

"A few years ago I started taking statins knowing that it has all the benefits and after perhaps a few weeks I started having muscle aches, sleep disturbance."

He says much of the data that the new NICE recommendations are based on comes from pharmaceutical companies that make statins, which, arguably, have a vested interest in the drugs' success.

If they was so harmless then why are they not sold over the counter at pharmacies this is what the pharm companies would love but real world data is a lot different to these so called small trials




morty

You are a Muppet so pharm companies do not pay or give incentives to … You are a Muppet so pharm companies do not pay or give incentives to doctors/researchers well not in your fantasy world i guess they don't.That website was an example that anyone can jump on the web like you did and pull articles about this stuff.It's the stories from real people that are important and I have seen many people have lifes destroyed by taking statins not being fully warned that they can do serious harm.A quote from someone who has experience Former GP and deputy chairman of the British Medical Association Dr Kailash Chand has first-hand experience of the side effects of statins."A few years ago I started taking statins knowing that it has all the benefits and after perhaps a few weeks I started having muscle aches, sleep disturbance."He says much of the data that the new NICE recommendations are based on comes from pharmaceutical companies that make statins, which, arguably, have a vested interest in the drugs' success. If they was so harmless then why are they not sold over the counter at pharmacies this is what the pharm companies would love but real world data is a lot different to these so called small trials



Opening with an ad hominem is always a winner. Of course researchers are funded by the industry however that is declared and funds their research i.e. it isn't a financial incentive, there aren't exactly scientists running around in ferraris.

That website was an example but not a real example and it showed a financial incentive to bad mouth statins. Do you not see the irony in linking that when you're trying to show a financial incentive to push statins by big pharma?

Real stories from people don't matter at all in terms of real scientific evidence, that is simply anecdotal evidence filled with bias and a hundred other factors. If you cared to check one of the studies I linked, you would see that a large study established that statins have a very noticable nocebo effect. And before you cry "industry funded rubbish" or something, it was a 84,000 strong study co-authored by Ben Goldacre, a very anti-pharma researcher.

So you ignore Doctors, researchersand experts/specialists in their fields because they are all apparently funded by industry but you make an exception to trust one that speaks out against statins? You deny any research supporting the benefits statins but cite a Dr speaking out as evidence they are dangerous and just pushed to benefit drugs companies? As a scientist, he should know that he cannot simpy attribute his symptoms immediately to statins and stories from real people are not evidence to the effect of something. He sounds like a politician in the US who is concerned about vaccines and autism, they have heard hundreds of stories from real mothers and are concerned about the obvious and real dangers of vaccines. Not only do we have randomised controlled trials but we have the yellow card scheme which is designed for everybody to report all adverse effects to the medicines watchdog.

You also still deny, and have yet to provide evidence disproving, the link between cholesterol and risk of cardiovascular disease which is a well established consensus worldwide.

Your last point makes no sense. Why on earth should statins be available to anyone who wants them? Morphine is safe so shall we let that be served over the counter to anyone who wants some? These small trials involve hundreds of thousands of people. You should look up drug development, Phase IV clinical trials is the continued study of a drug after it has been approved for sale for safety. You linked a study with 9,000 subjects to prove the danger of statins, you are simply cherry picking now, picking evidence that suits your argument, despite arguing against researchers and "small trials".

TLDR - You probably think I am closed minded for believing all this but I look at all evidence with skepticism and criticism and make my own choices and I suggest you do the same. You seem to dismiss all positive evidence crying conspiracy unless it supports you own views i.e. confirmation bias so I would argue that, if anyone, it is you that is closed minded. I am never going to deny statins have side effects and the current question is whether they are suitable for low risk groups. At the moment however, the benefits to high risk groups clearly outweigh any negatives and all concerned about receiving statins should discuss it with their GP. There are alternatives but sometimes diet and excercise aren't enough.

yrreb88

Opening with an ad hominem is always a winner. Of course researchers are … Opening with an ad hominem is always a winner. Of course researchers are funded by the industry however that is declared and funds their research i.e. it isn't a financial incentive, there aren't exactly scientists running around in ferraris. That website was an example but not a real example and it showed a financial incentive to bad mouth statins. Do you not see the irony in linking that when you're trying to show a financial incentive to push statins by big pharma?Real stories from people don't matter at all in terms of real scientific evidence, that is simply anecdotal evidence filled with bias and a hundred other factors. If you cared to check one of the studies I linked, you would see that a large study established that statins have a very noticable nocebo effect. And before you cry "industry funded rubbish" or something, it was a 84,000 strong study co-authored by Ben Goldacre, a very anti-pharma researcher. So you ignore Doctors, researchersand experts/specialists in their fields because they are all apparently funded by industry but you make an exception to trust one that speaks out against statins? You deny any research supporting the benefits statins but cite a Dr speaking out as evidence they are dangerous and just pushed to benefit drugs companies? As a scientist, he should know that he cannot simpy attribute his symptoms immediately to statins and stories from real people are not evidence to the effect of something. He sounds like a politician in the US who is concerned about vaccines and autism, they have heard hundreds of stories from real mothers and are concerned about the obvious and real dangers of vaccines. Not only do we have randomised controlled trials but we have the yellow card scheme which is designed for everybody to report all adverse effects to the medicines watchdog. You also still deny, and have yet to provide evidence disproving, the link between cholesterol and risk of cardiovascular disease which is a well established consensus worldwide. Your last point makes no sense. Why on earth should statins be available to anyone who wants them? Morphine is safe so shall we let that be served over the counter to anyone who wants some? These small trials involve hundreds of thousands of people. You should look up drug development, Phase IV clinical trials is the continued study of a drug after it has been approved for sale for safety. You linked a study with 9,000 subjects to prove the danger of statins, you are simply cherry picking now, picking evidence that suits your argument, despite arguing against researchers and "small trials".TLDR - You probably think I am closed minded for believing all this but I look at all evidence with skepticism and criticism and make my own choices and I suggest you do the same. You seem to dismiss all positive evidence crying conspiracy unless it supports you own views i.e. confirmation bias so I would argue that, if anyone, it is you that is closed minded. I am never going to deny statins have side effects and the current question is whether they are suitable for low risk groups. At the moment however, the benefits to high risk groups clearly outweigh any negatives and all concerned about receiving statins should discuss it with their GP. There are alternatives but sometimes diet and excercise aren't enough.




As I said before you are clearly a muppet it shows it with every post.

Morphine is safe o my you really don't have a clue and I have been on morphine liquid/patches for 5+ years they cause a lot of problems in fact that stuff can kill you in an instant I didn't really have an option this was last resort for myself plus morphine is class A drug but i guess that means nothing because it's 100% safe right like statins are.

You do not look at legit evidence you look at so called research which is funded by pharm companies that was done years ago and I want you to provide evidence to show true facts that cholesterol causes cardiovascular disease (you can't because there isn't any)

Stating that real world stories are bogus really sums up as well how closed minded you are this is how to get real facts doing controlled trial for say 1000 over 1 month doesn't show anything it needs years in real world.

check out the book Cholesterol Clarity very good read but i already know you are going to make up some excuse about it's not real research blah blah.

this is my last post on this
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text