I must give you huge praise for making clear where you stand and drawing attention to the strength of countervailing "noise" I find it hard to get clear in my mind what constitutes dangerously high or low levels and ratios are. I keep coming back to this thread like wobbling a loose tooth or picking a scab but thanks. Hopefully this will be more like the grit that makes a pearl than anything else. Right now, colour me totally crosswaffledI guess I should add here as a proviso that these reports and videos all of course are supportive of what I think about cholesterol and seem to me to make an extremely strong case against statins. There will of course be an equal number of reports and studies out there that report exactly the opposite (although I think a lot probably pre date the 2005 cut-off that changed the way studies were reported). So as always its up to you guys what you choose to do with the info.
As I make clear at the start of the thread there's no way that I would take them ever and the stuff I have published here is very supportive of that perspective.
I guess I should add here as a proviso that these reports and videos all of course are supportive of what I think about cholesterol and seem to me to make an extremely strong case against statins. There will of course be an equal number of reports and studies out there that report exactly the opposite (although I think a lot probably pre date the 2005 cut-off that changed the way studies were reported). So as always its up to you guys what you choose to do with the info.
As I make clear at the start of the thread there's no way that I would take them ever and the stuff I have published here is very supportive of that perspective.
One from the great Uffe Ravnskov (specially for @Guzzler )
http://www.ravnskov.nu/2015/12/27/myth-9/
Link to the main site too
http://www.ravnskov.nu
The more I read the more I realise that most people (HCP's) are simply looking at the wrong thing in the wrong way.. The early trial data seems flaky and seems to have never been released for full public scrutiny.. the "experts" who have been in the field for a while have a very defined set of beliefs and pour scorn on anyone who comes up with alternate hypotheses which explain some of the paradoxes that the "experts" have found. The engineers who are used to examining things in minute detail are the one's who seem to beI must give you huge praise for making clear where you stand and drawing attention to the strength of countervailing "noise" I find it hard to get clear in my mind what constitutes dangerously high or low levels and ratios are. I keep coming back to this thread like wobbling a loose tooth or picking a scab but thanks. Hopefully this will be more like the grit that makes a pearl than anything else. Right now, colour me totally crosswaffled
Thanks for that - I think. Right now all I feel is very confused and vaguely stupid for wandering into this thread. I want to arrive at a point where I feel I am following a course I have plotted myself having made sense of the case on both sides. Right now I feel whatever I do will be be what is best for someone other than me. Anyhow, thanks for the thread and that last post.The more I read the more I realise that most people (HCP's) are simply looking at the wrong thing in the wrong way.. The early trial data seems flaky and seems to have never been released for full public scrutiny.. the "experts" who have been in the field for a while have a very defined set of beliefs and pour scorn on anyone who comes up with alternate hypotheses which explain some of the paradoxes that the "experts" have found. The engineers who are used to examining things in minute detail are the one's who seem to be
1. Doing the best job of explaining how it all works
2. Including convincing explanations for the "paradoxes" that the self proclaimed "experts" can't explain
3. Challenge the experts to prove them wrong.. so far no-one has managed
4. Actively encourage others to come up with testable alternate hypotheses so they can verify their theories.
I hope that one day we'll see people like Dave Feldman and Ivor Cummins winning Nobels for their pioneering work especially as they are coming from a totally different field yet apply engineering logic to metabolic problems.
One from the great Uffe Ravnskov (specially for @Guzzler )
http://www.ravnskov.nu/2015/12/27/myth-9/
Link to the main site too
http://www.ravnskov.nu
I've been out all day so haven't had time to watch it myself..feel free to put up a link.@bulkbiker Are you doing the honours and putting up Diamond's lecture from Houston? It is worth posting esp wrt the list of side effects he cites which is even longer and scarier than I thought.
Interesting tweet by George Henderson in response to the Guardian article that seems appropriate to post here:
View attachment 29253
My pleasure and quite fun digging up all this stuff.This is an amazing thread, thanks so much again @bulkbiker for all the effort you have put in.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?