However, shortly into the interview there is a piece on FH, so after listening to it I thought it might interest the community with FH here and thought I post it.
I went home and went to Amazon to download the book. As usual I clicked on the review section. There was only one and I was surprised when I read it. Again it will interest those with FH.
I have been on the THINCS website before, so I took another look. There is much of interest on there, I particularly enjoyed the discussion on low doses of statins as this applies to me. Unfortunately, it was dated 2003, but this led me on to the TNT trials which measured the outcomes between low and high doses. However this trial was for people with already established heart disease i.e sedcondary prevention.
My main point is that it is impossible to make sweeping generalisations about statins and heart disease as there are so many variables , primary or secondary prevention, age, gender, family history, diabetes, hypertension, raised CRP etc etc. Why for example, do some people with FH have massive coronary events in their 20's and others with the same gene live until their 80's.?
Even Dr Malcolm Kendrick says " statins definitely reduce overall mortality in men with existing heart disease." page 191 in my well thumbed and annotated copy of the "Great Cholesterol Con."
I was originally going to reply to your comment with something like 'Saturated Fat Is Good For You' or something similarly snappy and simplistic and leave it at that. However, on reflection I think it deserves a little more.
Anyone reading my posts knows where I stand on the current mantra of diet, heart disease, and the wonder drug. I know it irritates those here who are comfortable with their regime; that is unfortunate, but a sad reality.
I am an intelligent man with a curious mind and am driven to seek the truth. That might sound a little high minded, but I look around me with something akin to despair at the results of the advice people are following. One only has to look at the woes and bewilderment of people posting here to realise something is broken and needs fixing. I know exactly what Heart UK, Diabetes UK etc advocate to lead a long and healthy life and I don't buy it. Having said that, if someone can show me the science and prove me wrong I will change my stance in a heartbeat. It never comes to that though - at best any refutation of the information I offer is an attack the person writing it or their credentials, rather than the science. I look carefully at what the authors I espouse write and often see flaws in their argument. For instance Kendrick is wrong in his assertion that a low carbohydrate diet does not increase cholesterol (especiallyLDL) and there is a glaring error on page 192 of '29 $Billion Reasons to Lie About Cholesterol' which the author acknowledges (it's 'HealthUnlocked' by the way). This in no way diminishes the bigger picture, but shows how careful we need to be on what is a vast and hugely important topic.
I spend an enormous amount of time researching and writing, and to the best of my ability I am as truthful and as accurate as possible; however I am human and subject mistake and prejudice. If anyone point to errors or omissions to anything I offer I will gratefully acknowledge them.
I buy many, many books, read dozens of articles and listen to hour on hour of podcasts knowing what the basic message will be, but there's always another nugget to be mined. Alliwally and I may not agree, but at she has read at least one of the books I prescribe and that's to her credit. I am assuming your comment was not a genuine request, but if that's wrong then I apologise. I have not read Ravenskov's book yet, but if you have not done so already perhaps you might like to read it as well and we may expand the argument by discussing it's contents together - it's only a fiver downloaded from Amazon.
Yes, I will read Ravenskov's book as well. I also spend time researching and reading, but my interests lie more towards the use of statins and drug trials. I agree with Mike about being open minded and nothing annoys me more than the patronising, paternalistic attitude of some doctors who think that patients haven't got a grey cell in their head or it disappears when they get in the consulting room.
If I had to sum up Dr Malcolm Kendrick's book it would be "Statins cost the NHS a lot of money and probably don't help 90% of the people who take them"...that is his view, not necessarily mine.
As someone who is determined not to take any prescribed drug unless it is a life or death situation, I applaud anyone who questions any dictat from drug companies or Drs who have ulterior motives regarding the issue of "pills". There is now awareness that statins for women are of no real use yet there is still an underlying surge to prescribe statins to everyone as they are seen as some sort of cureall. I am appalled by this. You cannot give out medication like sweets to all and sundry without a full and detailed study of each and every patient.
When there is such conflicting evidence for and against chloresterol, statins, diet and heaven knows what I think the best thing to do as patients is that we must go by our own intelligence. We may make mistakes, perhaps choose unwisely, but we must remain in command of our own bodies and make our own choices accordingly.
I have, and I am pleased with my choices, and strangely, feel happier and healthier for that.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
DR ELLIE CANNON: Is my GP on the level about cholesterol?
Statins -should I have accepted when offered? What would others do?
Beware Statin side effects may be masking more serious conditions