Talk:Cholesterol denialism

Excellent source
I feel the following source may perhaps provide some perspicuous insights into the topic at hand, if I am not entirely mistaken.

https://www.nhs.uk/news/heart-and-lungs/study-says-theres-no-link-between-cholesterol-and-heart-disease/

Would it be absolutely presumptuous of me to suggest that this article provides a more balanced review of the issue, incidentally one which is as accessible as possible, than the slightly one sided piece the scholars on this website have produced, and which, and please forgive me for saying this, appears to be based around cherry picking the worst critical comments. K. Peters BSc(Hons) (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The review mentioned in the link has been debunked, the NHS points out its weaknesses, it was conducted by Malcolm Kendrick and colleagues. Check the article we have on THINCS, we have a section on that study. From the British Heart Foundation Flawed cholesterol study makes headlines John66 (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * One thing I do agree on is that the article needs to be updated massively, it is only a stub currently. The recent Daily Mail investigation needs to be added The deadly propaganda of the statin deniers: The drugs DO protect you from heart attacks but as this devastating investigation reveals thousands are refusing them John66 (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Daily_Mail K. Peters BSc(Hons) (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Confusion between dietary cholesterol, blood cholesterol, and statin use
These are all different things. E.g. this website you rely on the scholars claim statin reduces blood cholesterol, which it does. Nobody is disputing that. Even this very article equates "statin denial" and "cholesterol denial". Eating cholesterol doesn't necessarily cause blood cholesterol. K. Peters BSc(Hons) (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * "Eating cholesterol doesn't necessarily cause blood cholesterol", well said, but the RationalWiki article does not make that link. This article is about blood cholesterol levels. John66 (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * These are all separate claims and need separate articles. These articles confuse all of them. E.g. your THINCS article says they "promote cholesterol denialism", and your link to "cholesterol denialism" redirects to "statin denialism". They dispute dietary cholesterol. K. Peters BSc(Hons) (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * There is no point in having three articles on similar subjects. The cholesterol and statin denialism are basically the same thing. Cholesterol denialism is basically the belief that blood LDL cholesterol levels do not increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, that is what all the main players in cholesterol denialism are claiming. The statin denialism is basically saying the drugs do not work in relation to cardiovascular disease. You do not get a cholesterol denialist who is not also a statin denialist. The beliefs go hand in hand.


 * Now regarding dieting, the debate is not about dietary cholesterol per se. Cholesterol foods only have a small effect on the level of cholesterol in blood. The debate and issue has always been about saturated fats (It is true that dietary cholesterol is common in foods that are high in saturated fat) but saturated fats affect how the liver handles cholesterol by effecting the receptors which can raise blood cholesterol levels. "Research suggests that eating too much saturated fat stops the receptors from working so well, so cholesterol builds up in the blood", here is a link that describes that and this. It is a proven fact that too much saturated fat is significant risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Cholesterol denialists deny this and this puts them at odds with mainstream medical advice. You will often see cholesterol denialists promoting or selling diets that are massively high in saturated fat. Their dieting recommendations are absurd. John66 (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Might I make so bold as to suggest an iota more circumspection
You're here accusing these people of denying the effectiveness of statins. Nowhere are they doing this. They are denying dietary cholesterol causes heart disease. It would be absolutely beneath me to launch a suit in law against you, but I feel I should warn you in your own interests that calumny of this nature would open an individual to such an action. K. Peters BSc(Hons) (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've had that concern, but been too lazy to differentiate which person does which thing. I know that's a terrible excuse, but do you happen to know which people are thus mischaracterized?  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All of them as far as I know. I don't think anybody denies the effectiveness of statins. I will have to check it and will do. Statin effectiveness and the effect of dietary cholesterol are absolutely different things, I have no idea why this article equates them. Perhaps your editor on this issue can provide referenced quotations for each of the people accused of denying statins, doing that. K. Peters BSc(Hons) (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (EC)Our citations establish that at least a couple do so without qualification, and that legitimate medical experts have deemed their assertions about it to be dangerous to patients. Notable quacks Unqualified-Alternative-Therapy-Specialists-Who-Rely-On-Unproven-Methods-At-Great-Risk-To-Patients who already sued rationalwiki are among those quite well demonstrated to buy the conspiracy theory hook line and sinker.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 23:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Peters, I am not aware of any content on the article relating statin effectiveness and the effect of dietary cholesterol. Dietary cholesterol has not been mentioned on the page. Most of the article is about blood cholesterol levels. What are you actually talking about? John66 (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * "I don't think anybody denies the effectiveness of statins", Wrong. - Aseem Malhotra and Malcolm Kendrick do. I just listened to a radio interview with Malcolm Kendrick on the Vinnie Tortorich podcast, he says statins do not work at all and are a con. John66 (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the source given to make this accusation against Kendrick is a blog which says nothing of the sort. That's rather sloppy. Surely such accusations should require the highest quality of sourcing? Your source is a blog, which doesn't even support the accusation. Can you give us the timestamp for your audio source? K. Peters BSc(Hons) (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I suspect that K. Peters is trolling us all here. He says that statin denialists are denying that dietary cholesterol causes heart disease. This is a straw man. What they are really denying is that blood cholesterol levels cause or increase the risk of heart disease.


 * Who actually believes dietary cholesterol causes heart disease anymore? That idea was prominent about fifty years ago. It is no longer supported in the medical literature. Perhaps a few vegan quacks support it like Michael Greger but not by science. This cholesterol denialism is about blood cholesterol levels not dietary cholesterol. For example, there is no good evidence that eggs are a major factor in high blood cholesterol levels or a contributing cause of heart disease. This is accepted by mainstream health authorities., , , ,  etc. As I said above the dietary issue is with saturated fats . Foods that contain cholesterol and are high in saturated fat include dairy foods such as milk, cheese, animal fats like butter and fatty meats like sausages etc.


 * Pretty much confirmed by this edit K. Peters is trolling . He now claims Malcolm Kendrick is not a statin denialist, and is removing an article in the Skeptical Inquirer which describes him as one . Madness John66 (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not trolling. Do not make this false and cheap accusation. I did not say that "statin denialists are denying that dietary cholesterol causes heart disease". Do not accuse me of saying things I never said. Where did I say that? Those two things are independent and must be established with references for each claim for each person. I do not make these association claims like you do. I am saying that you do not have a source supporting the accusation that Kendrick is a statin denialist. This is independent of whether Kendrick denies blood cholesterol, if he does. Why are you confusing all of these things? You are putting people in one box because they said one thing and accusing them of saying another thing, purely by association. You are accusing people who advocate a meat diet of denying the effectiveness of statins, because they advocated a meat diet. This is utter nonsense. You need to establish each of the three claims, for each of the people. Where in the reference does Kendrick deny statins? Provide the quote. This is the second time I have asked this. K. Peters BSc(Hons) (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes the dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol are two different things! Problem is, you are the only person who keeps mentioning dietary cholesterol over and over, you are only person who first brought it up, this article is mainly about blood cholesterol! Why have you come to this talk-page mentioning dietary cholesterol? Nobody else is making that confusion, only you. Our RationalWiki article does not mention it.


 * I have not mentioned dietary cholesterol on the article! Every single statin denialist is talking about blood cholesterol. Look at the RationalWiki articles we have for statin denialists. As for this claim "You are accusing people who advocate a meat diet of denying the effectiveness of statins, because they advocated a meat diet", Where? I have not. All those statin denialists listed, deny the effectiveness of statins. You can find sources on their articles.


 * As for sources claiming Malcolm Kendrick is a statin denialist, The deadly propaganda of the statin deniers. TOP OF THE ARTICLE - "Dr Malcolm Kendrick, Dr Zoë Harcombe and Dr Aseem Malhotra are all deniers". You are trolling us when you deny Kendrick is a statin denialist, as he blatantly is. It is what he is best known for, he wrote a whole book about it recently. Run a Google search for Malcolm Kendrick and Statins there are plenty of other sources. John66 (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * This article entitled "Statin denialism" is about blood cholesterol? Whether blood cholesterol cause heart disease is a totally separate question from whether statins are effective. You have made a gigantic mistake. Your article smears everybody with the same brush. I am not going to do a google search and find sources for the claims in your article. Frankly this article should be deleted until it is properly sourced, perhaps even properly titled. You have just admitted the source does not support the accusation. So per the policy on living persons I am afraid it is my duty to remove Kendrick from the article until you find an appropriate source. K. Peters BSc(Hons) (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I have read about this subject for years, you are just here to cause trouble. I just gave you a source that describes Malcolm Kendrick as a statin denialist. It was in a mainstream newspaper that millions of people read in the UK. Please stop trolling us! John66 (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You need to put the source in the article. K. Peters BSc(Hons) (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes that source will be added at some point because the entire Daily Mail investigation needs to be added as well, but there is already a source on Statin denialism that lists Malcolm Kendrick . Are you still claiming he is not a statin denialist, lol. This is mad. John66 (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * What about Marika Sboros? K. Peters BSc(Hons) (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * What about her? She is a statin denialist. Loads of references on her own article. This is blatant trolling and I will not further respond. John66 (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

John66, the K. Peters Bsc account is a banned troll. He is trying to wind you up, he is the same person who had the Liberosaurus Rex account. He does not understand this topic, he will just say things to piss you off. His main obsession is race. He has never researched this topic before today that is why he has no clue what he is on about. Redsquare (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I have no idea about that but it is pretty clear he is trolling us. He said above "I did not say that "statin denialists are denying that dietary cholesterol causes heart disease". Do not accuse me of saying things I never said. Where did I say that?", Now search the top of this section and he wrote "You're here accusing these people of denying the effectiveness of statins. Nowhere are they doing this. They are denying dietary cholesterol causes heart disease". He is either delusional or trolling, maybe both. John66 (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Me "statin denial is separate from dietary cholesterol denial"
 * You "you are saying that statin denialists are denying that dietary cholesterol causes heart disease"
 * What? K. Peters BSc(Hons) (talk) 04:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You wrote in your own words: "You're here accusing these people of denying the effectiveness of statins. Nowhere are they doing this. They are denying dietary cholesterol causes heart disease." John66 (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, which is not the same as "statin denialists are denying that dietary cholesterol causes heart disease".
 * X = statin denialists, Y = dietary cholesterol denialists
 * not X, Y
 * X are Y
 * Nowhere did I say statin denialists are dietary cholesterol denialists.
 * Is that simple enough for you? Is this nonsense accusation a distraction tactic? K. Peters BSc(Hons) (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Peters, the problem is that there is no such thing as "dietary cholesterol denialists", THIS POSITION DOES NOT EXIST, you have invented it. The mainstream medical opinion accepts that dietary cholesterol does not cause heart disease (I gave you a link to the NHS website!, this is mainstream knowledge). I am not aware of any scientist who says otherwise. High total blood cholesterol is a risk factor for heart disease, that is scientific fact. That is what the debate is about, and that is what cholesterol denialists obviously deny. The debate is NOT about dietary cholesterol. Cholesterol in food has only a small effect on the bad (LDL) cholesterol in your blood. It is the saturated fats in food that cause a greater increase in LDL cholesterol and thus increase the risk of heart disease (I described in another post why this is). Your entire position is a straw man. You come here to say that our RationalWiki article is equating statin denialists with dietary cholesterol denialists but nobody is saying that. Have you spent more than a day researching this topic, or this is new to you? You honestly have no idea what you are talking about. What you are doing is not productive here. I understand this topic may be hard for some people to understand but you have written some absurd things, even denying Malcolm Kendrick being a statin denialist. John66 (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. I never said statin denialists are dietary cholesterol denialists. Why did you accuse me of that? The point is that you need to provide sources for each of the separate claims. You haven't. K. Peters BSc(Hons) (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * K. Peters Bsc was a Mikemikev sock and has been banned. As I suspected this whole thing was just a way for him to troll the talk-page. He has never researched this topic before yesterday. This section should be collapsed. I am going to continue improving the article. It is a shame so much time is wasted by responding to trolls on this Wiki. John66 (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Counter Point
If cholesterol truly caused heart disease, the cholesterol lowering drugs should reduce mortality rates. A review of 29 randomized controlled trials, showed that 93% of the trials showed no benefit in mortality.

"The table summarizes 29 major RCTs of cholesterol reduction reported after the publication of these regulations (Table). Notably, only 2 of these 29 studies reported a mortality benefit, while nearly two-thirds reported no cardiovascular benefit at all. These unfavorable outcomes and inconsistent results suggest that the lipid hypothesis has failed the test of time. "

https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(18)30404-2/fulltext

How much evidence
How much evidence do we need to wait for before we change our position on cholesterol denialism? https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2734805