JustinSmith

????, I have been crystal clear right from the outset. Your accusations about commercial gain have been a total fabrication. I have already stated that the seminar will be free, or at the cost of the room. I am now here officially stating that any profit that I make from my book (or anything else that you imagine that I will make money from) as a result of posts on this forum or as a result of the seminar will be donated to charity. I am already trying to arrange a donation of a number of my books to a particular charity that I have in mind. It is a small orphanage in India that wishes to build an extention to take in more children. And before you start, I will find a way to provide evidence that this has been done on my website and on this forum. If anyone has bought my book as a result of this thread please let me know where you bought it from and I will donate any profit I get from this to the same charity. You seem slightly obsessed with '????' if I may say so and your suspicion in this case is misplaced. Justin Smith

In April 2004, the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK introduced the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). This is a kind of performance related pay and is applied to every general practitioner medical practice. QOF contains a number quality indicators which doctors have to report on. The better the practice does in terms of these indicators, the more money it will get from the NHS. Around half of the potential revenue from QOF is associated with indicators of clinical quality. Specific indicators have been identified for a range of common conditions. For example, a list of indicators has been identified for diabetes. These include body mass index (BMI) and blood glucose levels. The more diabetic patients that have a BMI and blood glucose level below a specified value, the more money the doctor will get from the NHS. One of the problems with QOF is that many of the indicators are based on risk factors for disease rather than disease itself and targets are set without regard to how they are achieved. There are performance measures, or targets, set for cholesterol. If a patient has heart disease, diabetes, or if they have had a stroke, doctors are expected to lower their cholesterol so that it is below 5mmol/l. For example, if 40% of a doctors diabetic patients have a cholesterol level below 5mmol/l, the doctor will be paid less than if 50% of diabetic patients have a cholesterol level below 5mmol/l. In summary, there is a financial incentive for doctors to lower the cholesterol levels of certain patients. Since the majority of people in the UK happen to naturally have (and have always had) a cholesterol level above 5mmol/l, the doctor has little choice but to put more people onto statins. Especially given the fact that doctors have a heavy workload and do not have sufficient time to work through lifestyle changes. An article published in the New England Journal of Medicine describes the problems associated with performance measures being based on risk factors for disease. This paper cites a number of examples where the focus on the risk factor has actually caused more harm and increased the number of deaths. References: Gravelle, H, Sutton, M and Ma, A ?Doctor Behaviour under a Pay for Performance Contract: Evidence from the Quality and Outcomes Framework? CHE Research Paper 28. University of York and University of Aberdeen. May 2007. Krumholz, HM and Lee, TH ?Redefining Quality ? Implications of Recent Clinical Trials? New England Journal of Medicine 2008; 358:2537-2539 Justin Smith

No, I strongly disagree with you that this is a fundamental principle of research - it very much depends on what you are trying to predict, what models you are using, and if the models have been verified to be accurate. I have seen your exact comment before on random websites that try to dismiss scientific argument about climate change. "Seasonal forecasts attempt to predict what the weather is likely to bring in terms of temperatures and precipitation over a three-month period. They are inherently less reliable than the short and medium-range weather forecasts that cover two to three days and three to 15 days respectively." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/met-office-admits-weve-got-it-wrong-1570694.html Your assumption that longer-term modelling is always easier is utter nonsense.

I'll add... If we cannot accurately predict the weather or temperature for the next few weeks, can we really rely on the models used to predict the next few decades? With this in mind, should those who raise valid questions about a so called 'consensus' be insulted or cast out as 'denialists'? Oh sorry, according to 'huguenot' its because of a "vengeful psychological block that makes you deny every piece of available evidence because it doesn't suit your purpose" ummmmmm

"Britain is bracing itself for one of the coldest winters for a century with temperatures hitting minus 16 degrees Celsius, forecasters have warned." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/6921281/Britain-facing-one-of-the-coldest-winters-in-100-years-experts-predict.html "A spokesman for the Met Office said: ?It is certainly a while since we had cold weather like this and there isn?t any sign of any milder weather on the way.?" Considerable amounts of ?showery snow? is expected over Scotland and eastern England over the coming days, he said, whilst the rest of the United Kingdom would remains dry but very cold. He added that temperatures in the Scottish highlands could dip to minus 16 degrees while even southern areas of England could see lows of minus 7. The cold weather comes despite the Met Office?s long range forecast, published, in October, of a mild winter. That followed its earlier inaccurate prediction of a ?barbecue summer?, which then saw heavy rainfall and the wettest July for almost 100 years." Predicting the weather and temperature has its hazards and difficulties does it not?

BellendenBear, I am already well aware of the organisation called ?No free Lunch?. I wish more GPs would adopt the principles this organisation stands for! And I aplaud you for not accepting visits from pharmaceutical representatives. I value your comments and contribution to this discussion. No where have I said that all doctors are bad. I work with several medical doctors myself. However, there are some isssues that I would like to raise with you. Do you not agree that too much ephasis is currently placed on risk factors for disease rather than the disease itself? One obvious example relates to the introduction of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). A significant proportion of the performance indicators in QOF are related to risk factors - cholesterol being one of them. This creates a strong financial incentive for doctors to lower the cholesterol levels of certain patients. Most people are not aware that doctors get paid more money from the NHS if they lower the cholesterol levels of certain patients. Some doctors have highlighted the potential problems associated with performance measures being based solely on risk factors for disease and there are a number of examples where focus on the suggested risk factor has actually caused more harm. Take for instance the ILLUMINATE trial, which found that the drug torcetrapib was associated with a 40% increase in deaths from cardiovascular causes despite reducing ?bad? cholesterol by 25% and increasing ?good? cholesterol by 72%. We are now in a situation where drugs are approved based solely on their ability to reduce a supposed risk factor, even if there is no evidence that this reduction in the risk factor actually saved any lives. As you know, recommendations issued by NICE are based on an assessment of the benefits, risks, and financial costs associated with a drug. When NICE did this assessment for statins, the costs associated with drug adverse effects were not included in the calculation. More worryingly, the calculation has been done on the basis of cardiovascular benefits alone, without addressing the issue of deaths from all causes (NICE Technology Appraisal 94). When judging the effectiveness of a drug, would you not say that it is important to look at deaths from all causes? My personal view is that there is not much point in taking an expensive medication if the risk for one disease is reduced at the cost of increasing the risk for another disease within the same time period. For example, in the Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study (AFCAPS), the statin reduced the number of cardiovascular related deaths but increased deaths from other causes to the extent that overall, there was no statistical difference in all cause mortality. This is by no means an isolated example. As you will be well aware, but others may not, most people who are prescribed statins are being given the drugs for primary prevention (for the benefit of other readers in this forum, this means that they are asymptomatic, do not have any signs of cardiovascular disease, but are taking the drugs in the hope of preventing future disease). Perhaps not surprisingly, clinical trials where statins have been used to 'treat' people who do not yet have cardiovascular disease, have been disappointing ? they have often struggled to show any benefit in terms of deaths from all causes. Along with AFCAPS, the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial (ASCOT) and the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS) failed to show any significant reduction in deaths from all causes. For several years, patients continued to be prescribed statins for primary prevention despite continuing concerns over the data for all cause mortality. The West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study (WOSCOPS) has been described as a ?watershed? trial - being the first primary prevention trial to show a reduction in deaths from all causes. The actual risk reduction in all cause mortality was less than one percent. In order to prevent one death, around 110 patients would have to be treated for five years. This issue concerning deaths from all causes provides the background for any risk / benefit / cost assessment of statins. But as stated above, it was not the basis used by NICE. The relevant document (NICE Technology Appraisal 94) is available from the NICE website. Yes, NICE recommends the use of statins on the proviso that patients are informed about the risks as well as the benefits; it could be argued that it makes sense for NICE to focus on the cardiovascular benefits and leave it up to doctors to explain the risks to patients. However, this approach leaves plenty of scope for the perceived risk / benefit balance to be influenced by an over-enthusiastic pharmaceutical industry. Yes, officially doctors are supposed to address lifestyle issues before prescribing statins but if this was really taking place would we have more than 6 million people in the UK taking statins? And do doctors spend enough time with patients to address lifestyle issues? The last time I checked average GP consultation times in the UK were around 8 minutes. Justin Smith

Hi brum, Thank you for your comment ? i do appreciate it! Although, I do actually mean ?dangerous?. Based on the research that I have done, I sincerely believe that people are exposing themselves to unnecessary risks. Statin drugs are dangerous for some people and I know of many people who's lives have literally been ruined by statins! This is what I aim to bring to peoples' attention. It is questionable if statins have any net benefit. And we as tax payers are paying hundreds of millions of pounds each year for these drugs. Not to mention the costs associated with testing cholesterol and GP visits etc.

'buggie', Again, I'll not be diverted from my goal of bringing the facts about cholesterol and statins to the general public. I am not saying that anyone should stop taking statins and use my techniques instead. Not at all!! I never mentioned these techniques and they would NOT feature in any seminar on cholesterol. They have only been mentioned by members of this forum who, for some reason known only to themselves, are making unsubstantiated accusations about me. You are incorrect, since I am also a fully qualified Personal Trainer and Sports Massage Therapist, that makes me a Health Practitioner. I was based at the BBC for 4 years and I have worked with Olympic athletes. But splitting hairs over a title is another desperate attempt to try and discredit me personally and again to prevent people from learning the facts about cholesterol. Even if you believe that hair analysis is not scientifically based, there is a significant difference here. The use of statins is based upon a heavy marketing campaign. As I said earlier 10.000 pounds is spent each year (per doctor!) on the marketing of drugs directly to doctors. At least 6 million people in the UK are currently taking statins. Most of these people do not have cardiovascular disease. Does it really make sense that so many people need these medications? If hair analysis is not scientifically based, in the worst case scenario it will just be a waste of time. But toxic medications can and do kill people! And lowering cholesterol levels reduces life expectancy! Hair analysis is simply not in the same 'ball game'.

'Huguenot', 'ruffers' and '???' Do you have any comments on the science that I have presented? the article I have attached, or the mp3 interview that I provided a link to? No, you merely seek to attempt to discredit and personally insult me. I hope that readers on this forum can see through your attempts to distract from the scientific facts that I am putting forward. Even the most casual look at the research that I have put together will make it obvious that I have spent many years researching cholesterol, heart disease and statins. How can you possibly suggest that I am not interested in cholesterol? Anyone who has attempted to write a book knows that it is extremely unlikely to generate profit, especially if the subject is of a technical nature. You have made several wild, fictitious accusations about my character that are completely unsubstantiated. I am now very deeply concerned about your motives to continuously divert this discussion away from the science. What is it that you are afraid of? What do you not want people to learn about? I have absolutely nothing to hide. People will be able to judge my sincerity for themselves when I do the seminar.

Huguenot, Your post has brightened up my day! You start by saying that you have ?not read sufficiently into the subject to have formed an opinion?. Consider that as you read back to yourself the personal insults that you have thrown at me. Your post reads like a standard cut and paste job that you send to anyone who raises issues with mainstream medicine. You say that you ?perceive Justin to be cynically playing with people's health for commercial profit?. I must say, you perceive and assume a lot from a small paragraph on my website. What commercial profit? Oh you must be referring to the cholesterol-lowering industry that is now worth tens of billions of dollars. Why are you so defensive of the pharmaceutical industry? Do you have any connections here that you are not mentioning and is that why you feel so personally offended by the mere facts that I have presented? The techniques I use as a practitioner are based on good science but there is not much point in discussing this with you because I'm sure (as with cholesterol) you have already made up your mind without any knowledge or reading of the subjects. And now you are talking about homeopathy, where will the list end? I too know nothing about homeopathy so there at least we may experience a metaphorical meeting of minds. Thank you for the entertainment but I will not waste any more time on your comments until you have read at least something about cholesterol, statins or heart disease. I look forward to further amusing comments from you once you have done that.....

Hi mockney piers, Thank you for your reply. I did actually start this thread in the drawing room - i agree with you that that would be a better place. However it was moved out of there into 'the lounge' for some reason??

I was requested in a previous post to provide some information about statins and cancer. I have stated previously that there are unanswered questions concerning this. Within the medical literature, there is a well documented connection between low cholesterol levels and increased deaths due to cancer. At least eleven studies have confirmed that low cholesterol levels are associated with increased cancer mortality: Rose G, Blackburn H, Keys A, Taylor HL, Kannel WB, Paul O, et al. Colon cancer and blood-cholesterol. Lancet 1974;1:181?3 Rose G, Shipley MJ. Plasma lipids and mortality: a source of error. Lancet 1980;1:523?6. Cambien F, Ducimetiere P, Richard J. Total serum cholesterol and cancer mortality in a middle-aged male population. Am J Epidemiol 1980;112:388?94. Beaglehole R, Foulkes MA, Prior IA, Eyles EF. Cholesterol and mortality in New Zealand Maoris. Br Med J 1980;280:285?7. Kagan A, McGee DL, Yano K, Rhoads GG, Nomura A. Serum cholesterol and mortality in a Japanese-American population: the Honolulu Heart program. Am J Epidemiol 1981;114:11?20. Garcia-Palmieri MR, Sorlie PD, Costas R, Jr., Havlik RJ. An apparent inverse relationship between serum cholesterol and cancer mortality in Puerto Rico. Am J Epidemiol 1981;114:29?40. Peterson B, Trell E. Premature mortality in middle-aged men: serum cholesterol as risk factor. Wien Klin Wochenschr 1983;61:795?801. Sorlie PD, Fienleib M. The serum cholesterol-cancer relationship: an analysis of time trends in the Framingham Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1982;69:989?96. International Collaborative Group. Circulating cholesterol level and risk of death from cancer in men aged 40 to 69 years. JAMA 1982;248:2853?9. Morris DL, Borhani NO, Fitzsimons E, Hardy RJ, Hawkins CM, Kraus JF, et al. Serum cholesterol and cancer in the Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program. Cancer 1983;52:1754?9. Sherwin RW, Wentworth DN, Cutler JA, Hulley SB, Kuller LH, Stamler J. Serum cholesterol levels and cancer mortality in 361,662 men screened for the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial. JAMA 1987;257:943?8. Stain drug manufacturers have been very keen to dismiss any idea that their products increase the risk for cancer ? they have suggested that cancer itself causes the reduction in cholesterol (reverse causation) but we do not know if this is this case. As with diabetes, statin trials are too short in duration to properly assess these increased risks for developing cancer. At a finer level of detail there are other pieces of evidence to show that statins increase the risk for cancer but these issues are best discussed in the form of a presentation.

Hi mockney piers and welcome to the discussion. Please, if you want to talk about bad science there is more than enough of it within the subject of cholesterol. I maintain that people start to look for ways to discredit others only when they cannot contribute to the scientific discussion. If you are interested in discussing Gillian Mckeith why not start a separate thread to do that ? I will certainly not contribute to that because I have no interest in the women. I feel that Metabolic Typing should also be discussed in a separate thread. There is more than enough to deal with here in terms of cholesterol and statins. I'll not be drawn away from the important task of bringing the facts about cholesterol to the general public. In fairness, please stick to the subject here so that people can asess the facts for themselves! You are however absolutely correct that there is no connection between cholesterol and ill-health. I have attached an article that I had published last year to provide people with some additional references. I only wish that some of your suspicion of me be directed toward an extremely powerful pharmaceutical industry who's motives are to generate business growth and not to improve heath. My motives are to communicate the facts. My original post was for a seminar that is most likely to be free of charge. No one has to buy my book to get the facts on this subject. I have already provided the link to a 60min interview of myself that anyone can download for free. That combined with the information on my website, the posts I have taken the time to write here, and the article I have attached to this message should be more than enough for people to decide for themselves if they are being misled by the idea that cholesterol causes heart disease.

jollybaby, I could have written the facts in two different ways: During a mean follow-up of 4.1 years, 5.7 percent of participants died in the placebo group compared with 5.1 percent in the statin group (BMJ 2009; 338:b2376). or: During a mean follow-up of 4.1 years, there was a 0.6 percentage reduction in the risk of dying (BMJ 2009; 338:b2376). Both statements mean the same thing and the point is that if patients are informed about this meagre 0.6 percent reduction in mortality, they may think twice about taking a statin every day for the rest of their lives.

Hi brum, I understood that your main point was that you choose to accept the view of your GP. I did not comment on this because I fully respect your personal choice. The issue of statins and type 2 diabetes can be illustrated through a discussion of a clinical trial known as JUPITER (N Engl J Med, 2008; 359: 2195?2207): http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMoa0807646 When the results of the JUPITER trial were published it was widely reported in the media that the statin used in this trial reduced the risk of serious cardiovascular events (such as a heart attack) by 44 percent. However, this again was a relative percentage reduction. If we look at what has been referred to as ?hard cardiac events? (heart attack, stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes), 1.8 percent of the people in the placebo group suffered these events compared with 0.9 percent in the statin group (N Engl J Med, 2008; 359: 2280?2282): http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMe0808320 So, in fact there was only a 0.9 percent absolute risk reduction, but this sounds much less impressive than 44 percent. The reporting of the misleading 44 percent suited both the media (sensationalism) and the drug companies. At the end of the day, the most important thing to look at is deaths from all causes. Since, there is not much point in taking an expensive medication if the risk for one disease is reduced at the cost of increasing the risk for another disease within the same time period. In the JUPITER trial, the statin reduced the overal risk of dying by about 0.5 percent. Now, JUPITER also found an increase in type 2 diabetes amongst the people who took the statin. This increased risk for diabetes was 0.6%. So the increased risk for developing diabetes was around the same as the reduced risk of dying. However the authors of the trial report chose to dismiss the increased risk for diabetes as a chance finding without justifying this and at the same time they exaggerated the 'benefits' of the statin. It is often difficult for us to imagine risk as a percentage - if we imagine a theatre containing 1000 people who all take the statin for the next two years ? around 5 people will have their life extended and around the same number will develop diabetes as a direct result of the drug. These are the facts from the JUPITER study, which incidentally is now being used as an excuse to put millions more people onto statins. The problem of course, is that an individual person has no idea if they will be one of the few people who have their life extended or one of the people who develop diabetes. Researchers tried to answer this question about statins and type 2 diabetes. A meta-analysis was published in the journal Diabetes Care (Diabetes Care, 2009; 32:1924-1929): http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/32/10/1924.abstract This meta-analysis confirmed that statins increase the risk for type 2 diabetes. The researchers state that this increased risk is reduced if the WOSCOPS study is included in the analysis, but WOSCOPS was so different in characterists that there is a strong argument for it not being included in the analysis -as explained in this editorial: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/32/10/1941.full#ref-8 Some researchers may indicate that the increased risk for type 2 diabetes (associated with statins) is a slight risk. However, it is important to realise that the suggested 'benefits' of statins are of a similar magnitude. Given the other additional risks associated with medications, individual people may choose not to take the drugs when the facts are presented to them accurately. This should cause concern because diabetes drastically increases the risk for heart disease, but this increased risk would not be seen during the three or six year duration of a statin clinical trial ? the full extent of the increased risks associated with diabetes develop over a much longer period of time. There are other studies to show the link between statins and diabetes but I feel that this post is already getting too long. I will discuss statins and cancer in my next post....

Huguenot, Your comments are typical and highly predictable. You have chosen to attempt to discredit me personally even though you have never met me or know anything about me. This approach is always used by those who do not have any scientific argument and those who wish to hide the facts. I am most certainly not ?advising members of this forum to ignore the advice of their doctors? or take my advice instead, as you have put it. This is a fabrication in your own mind sir. If you look back at my posts will will see that I have stated time and again that I wish to present the facts on this subject so that people can make their own informed decision. I have not once suggested that anyone should not take the advice of their doctor. Excuse me, but what has Gillian McKeith, lemon juice, AIDS and climate change got to do with this discussion? Your use of the word ?denialist? is also very telling since this word is only used by people who are afraid of entering into scientific debate. The scientific process at the core involves challenging a hypothesis. This is how progress is made. I am tempted to use the word dogma here to describe the cholesterol hypothesis. I challenge you sir to present a scientific argument. If you have any scientific contribution to make to the discussion then I welcome that but your personal attack directed at me has so far only highlighted a deficiency of knowledge on your part. I will state again that absolutely everything I have said can very easily be verified by anyone who wishes to know the facts.

Hi brum, With respect, I have many years experience as a health practitioner besides my degree in engineering. I do strongly feel that the scientific background has helped me to evaluate in particular, the numerical aspects of research and to put risk reductions into proper context. I totally agree with you about the interpretation of statistics but the fact is that the headlines and statistics have been so heavily exaggerated in favour of statins. The statistics that reach the headlines are the misleading relative percentages ? drug companies issue a press release to the media that highlights these exaggerated benefits, the media just copies this directly and thats what the general public gets. The real statistics I have quoted do not ever get into the headlines because journalists do not read the actually study itself but they rely on the press release directly from the drug company. I have documented evidence of this. In fact anyone can see this process taking place if they take the trouble to look.

Hi jollybaby, Thank you for your comments. You are suggesting that the survival benefit would be greater if the study was extended over a longer period of time, but you have absolutely no evidence for this at all. All statin clinical trials have been short in duration (from 2 to 6 years in duration). We simply do not know if the survival 'benefit' will be increased or decreased in a longer-term study. We are being asked to take statins for several decades. The fact that longer-term data is not available should make us concerned because pharmaceutical companies do not publish data that is unfavourable to their products ? there have been many examples of this and this issue has been highlighted by the editors of medical journals. I'm sorry but with respect, you are attempting to confuse people with the figures you have quoted. You should inform people that you are quoting relative percentages. Relative percentages have been used in all statin clinical trials to exaggerate any 'benefit' associated with the drug. You say that ?in absolute terms these figures may not seem very high at all? and you are absolutely right because they are not very high and people should be informed about this. You fail to mention that absolute percentages are the only thing that matters. It is only by looking at the absolute percentages that we can get an idea of how many lives are actually predicted to be saved. Relative percentages have no place in this discussion since relative percentages are only useful for comparing one drug against another drug. Absolute percentages are the only measure that an individual person can use to decide if they should take a drug or not. If you would like to read more about this I suggest you pick up a copy of the Lancet's Handbook of Essential Concepts in Clinical Research by Schulz and Grimes, or, The Illusion of Certainty by Professor Rifkin. Not to mention the serious known adverse effects of statins...

Hi Bony Fido, I agree with you that exercise and lifestyle change are the things that really make the difference. Unfortunately most people do not receive the information they need to make an informed choice.

Hi Monica, Yes, I have been very careful to reference everything, with such an important subject. I am a Personal Trainer and Sports Massage Therapist. I also practice a nutritional approach called Metabolic Typing. I was based at the BBC in West London for 4 years and I have also worked with Olympic level athletes. Before my career in the health and fitness industry, I obtained a degree in engineering.

All of science involves the basic process of generating a hypothesis and then challenging that hypothesis. The climate sceptics (as they are called) have challenged the hypothesis that CO2 causes the major part of global warming. Some experts also have the opinion that the warming has already (or will soon) turn to cooling. These arguments are based on sound scientific argument, however they have not been answered. We hear a lot about the melting Arctic, but only recently have people been talking about Antartica and Antartica is not melting. Antarctica is at least 10 times bigger than the Arctic ice cap and Antarctica contains about 90% of the worlds ice. The famous IPCC report on climate change has been presented to us as a consensus but hundreds of scientists who have been listed have actually said that they do not agree with this so called 'consensus'. Whenever sound scientific argument is ignored and people are criticised for challenging a hypothesis we should be very worried. The BBC report that around half of the people in the UK are 'sceptical'. However, rather than discussing these legitimate scientific questions they talk down to us as if we are stupid for not accepting their side of the argument.

Hi Ladymuck, You are absolutely right, the numbers themselves do not tell us very much. Yes, LDLs are called 'bad' cholesterol and HDLs 'good' cholesterol ? but even this idea of good and bad cholesterol is false. LDLs and HDLs carry cholesterol but they also carry vitamins and proteins around the body ? reducing LDL levels will reduce nutrient levels as well. This fact has been forgotten and ignored. It does not help that the big pharmaceutical companies spend around 10,000 pounds per year on each doctor in the UK marketing its drugs. For instance, please take a look at this article on so called 'bad' cholesterol: http://www.29billion.com/2009/12/bad-cholesterol-is-now-good.html

Great! Arrrr, yes but what is eating more sensibly?

Hi PeckhamRose, I am hoping not to charge for the seminar. It just depends on if I can get a room ? If the room is free the talk will be free. There really is so much evidence that cholesterol is not dangerous and I simply want to present these facts for people to make up their own minds. The idea that cholesterol needs to be below 5 came from the pharmaceutical companies that make statins. A cholesterol level of 5 is not necessarily better than 5.6

Hi '????', As a health practitioner, my motivation is to bring the facts about cholesterol and statins to the general public. If you would like to know more about me, you may choose to listen to a recent interview. You will need to register at the link below: http://www.worldpuja.org/home.php This is a 60min interview. The show is called 'To Your Health' and the host is Teya Skae