Thread by @Marion436842126

1/8 Prior to the introduction of Statin drugs there were a number of studies done in which cholesterol was successfully lowered by other drugs, notably Fibrates. These drugs actually lowered cholesterol quite well.
If lowering cholesterol does in fact prevent
/2

2/8 heart disease or strokes, we should see a significant reduction in heart attacks and strokes anytime we successfully lower it, regardless of the particular drug or diet used to accomplish this. (agreed ??) Now get this: Investigations of the cholesterol lowering
/3

3/8 studies prior to mainstream use of Statins shows quite the opposite, and there is evidence, all catalogued and assembled in one place thanks to Russell Smith. Back in the 1980’s Russell Smith, PhD, an American experimental psychologist with a strong background in
/4

4/8 physiology, maths & engineering decided to write THE most comprehensive and critical review of the diet-heart disease literature yet seen. Published in 2 volumes containing 3,000 references it was entitled “Blood Cholesterol, and Coronary Heart Disease: A critical review /5

5/8 of the Literature." I have found a pdf link for Vol: 2. However in 1991 a summary of all this work was published in a book called “The Cholesterol Conspiracy”. Among other things, Smith reviewed all the cholesterol lowering trials done prior to 1991.
/6

6/8 The studies showed that using Statins to lower cholesterol was quite effective at lowering cholesterol. The problem being, Statins weren’t much good for anything else. In the vast majority of studies reviewed there was NO DIFFERENCE in the number of deaths between
/7

7/8 the groups that lowered cholesterol and the groups that didn’t. In fact, in a few cases, more people died in the cholesterol lowering group. I wonder Why ?🤔
/8

8/8 Is it possible that Hyperinsulinemia & Inflammation - Not CHOLESTEROL drive heart disease and that cholesterol lowering was responsible for deaths from other causes ?
(link) ⤵️
library.crossfit.com/free/pdf/Diet_…