Talk:Cholesterol denialism

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon pseudoscience.svg

This Pseudoscience related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Excellent source[edit]

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

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) K. Peters BSc(Hons) (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Confusion between dietary cholesterol, blood cholesterol, and statin use[edit]

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 [1], 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[edit]

Counter Point[edit]

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. " — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

How much evidence[edit]

How much evidence do we need to wait for before we change our position on cholesterol denialism? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs