Yes it does SunnyExpat. I watched the Statins 2 video last night and was intrigued by the Japanese Prof summarising the analysis of several in depth cholesterol RCTs, where the total mortality rate for low cholesterol was in every instance higher than the high cholesterol sufferers. Really quite interesting.
The danger with that is the making of the assumption it's the cholesterol that kills you.
It could be equally valid to go with the popular premise that too high cholesterol leads to death.
And many, many people have high cholesterol, so the aim of the game is to reduce that number to a normal figure.
Unfortunately, many seem to assume because HCP's like to decrease the high figure, (to a normal reading), it's then acceptable to quote studies where cholesterol is too low, and show that is bad, and make a leap that HCP's want to reduce the cholesterol to as low as possible. (They don't, guidelines have a clear minimum figure)
So, if we dismiss that there is no bottom limit in the HCP's guidelines, clearly too low is indeed bad.
So statins, diet, any control comes with guides to high, and low numbers.
It's not the free for all some would claim.
But, low cholesterol?
Two things to consider there.
A much smaller number of people have lower, rather than higher cholesterol.
So it's not a major killer, and won't attract the resource needed to save a much lower amount of lives.
And what if the mechanism is entirely different?
We all agree cholesterol is required, at a target number.
So, instead, what if the patient has an illness, that is causing them to die, and one of the symptoms of that illness is lowering cholesterol?
Rather than low cholesterol is the illness?
So, effectively, high cholesterol kills you.
But the other side of the coin, whatever kills, you, lowers cholesterol beyond a survivable point?
