In the following article you can see that a committee was formed from high ranking doctors. Some of them held prestigious positions in different hospitals and organizations. They could not agree on the input of data in the study. They argued that if they didn’t ignore some kind of data, the outcome of the study might be different. Well, I just remembered right now, that there is a large number of studies out there published in various esteemed industry publications that have to do with cholesterol, good and bad, statin medication etc, and still people suffer from high cholesterol consequences. The doctors that insert stents to open up the arteries- still make a lot of money.
Well, my dear readers, as we all know everything that we eat goes through our liver- to use an everyday language: This organ produces good and bad cholesterol depending on what we eat. And right here I want to share with you a question that I asked a cardiologist. The question was “Doctor, how can we cleanse our liver?” His answer was simple and clear and made a lot sense to me. “You the Greeks, he said, are very familiar with the Mediterranean diet. A big part of this diet is vegetables, and that’s the way to cleanse your liver.” Of course the “naysayers” and the pharmaceutical companies would jump in and say “Diet and exercise is not working always.” So, what would you believe the rule or the exemption?? As you can see in my book “A Unique Documentary of Health through Nutrition”, I lowered my cholesterol with diet and exercise. So, you have a choice, expensive statin medications with horrible side effects or diet and exercise. You make the choice. Personally, I strongly recommend the second- diet and exercise.
Heart and stroke study hit by a wave of criticism
Doctors question call to cease some cholesterol testing, other finding
By: Gina Kolata
It was supposed to be a moment of triumph. An august committee had for the first time relied only on the most rigorous scientific evidence to formulate guidelines to prevent heart attacks and strokes, which kill one out of every three Americans. This group had worked for five years, unpaid, to develop them. Then, at the annual meeting of the American Heart Association, it all went horribly awry.
Leading cardiologists say the credibility of the guidelines, released Nov. 14, is shattered. And the effort to devise the guidelines has raised questions about what kind of evidence should be used to direst medical practice, how changes should be introduced and even which guidelines to believe. “This was a catastrophic misunderstanding of how you go about this sort of huge change in public policy,” said Dr. Steven Nissen, a Cleveland Clinic cardiologist who is a past president of the American College of Cardiology. “There will be a large backlash.”
What went wrong? Some critics say the drafting committee mistakenly relied only on randomized controlled clinical trials, the gold standard of medical evidence, but ignored other strong data that would have led to different conclusions. The group’s effort were severely underfunded. And it announced fundamental changes in medical practices without allowing a public debate before its guidelines were completed.
“A lot of people expect they can come up with guidelines as a pure scientific discourse and present them to the public,” said Dr. J. Sanford Schwartz, a committee member and University of Pennsylvania professor. “That’s what we did here, but the world has changed.”
When the new guidelines were released, many doctors were shocked that they were suddenly being told to stop their decades-long practice of monitoring levels of LDL cholesterol, the kind that increases the risk of heart attacks and strokes, after patients begin taking statin medicines.
Others were stunned when a pair of Harvard medical professors offered evidence within days of the guidelines’ release that its new online risk calculator greatly overestimated a person’s chance of having a heart attack or stroke.
The committee writing the guidelines made a critical, early decision to consider only evidence from clinical trials, a marked departure from how previous guidelines were made. Some independent experts provided with an advance draft of the guidelines, including Dr. Roger S. Blumenthal of Johns Hopkins and Dr. Antonio M. Gott Jr., a former president of the heart association, objected. They said a wealth of genetic and population data indicated that lower cholesterol levels are better, especially for high-risk patients. The same critique would loom large after the guidelines were released.
Committee members also said they struggled with inadequate financial support. They originally formulated 18 important questions they would seek to answer. But it was soon apparent that they had overreached and did not have nearly enough money from the National Institutes of Health for such an ambitious effort.
The money dwindled after the National Institutes of Health underwent budget cuts. Every time the agency got hit, so did the support for the committee, said Dr. Elizabeth G. Nabel, director of the heart institute for much of the time.
But there were signs, even before the guidelines were made public, that trouble lay ahead. The National Lipid Association, which represents specialists in lipid disorders like high cholesterol, initially worked with the sponsors of the guidelines but pulled out before the guidelines were released, saying it could not endorse them. It disagreed with the abandonment of LDL cholesterol targets once patients begin taking statins.