Diseases/Conditions

Modern Medicine’s Fatal Flaw Revealed in Research

September 17, 2012 by admin in Multiple Sclerosis with 77 Comments

Recent research findings document a major conflict: The same substance can be either harmful or beneficial, so the substance is not the issue. Medicine is focused on symptoms, not disease.

by Heidi Stevenson

A new study has documented that certain bits of protein called ß-amyloid are heroes in multiple sclerosis because they’re associated with reversing paralysis.

Other studies have shown that ß-amyloid peptides are villains in Alzheimer’s, so they’re called abnormal, even labeled as deviant, and have been the primary focus of Alzheimer’s research.

ß-amyloid is a Hero?
ß-amyloid is a Villain?

How can that be? Is ß-amyloid friend or foe, hero or villain? Modern medicine’s approach demands that it be one or the other, but obviously, that makes no sense.

There is something inherently flawed deep in the foundation of modern medicine, and it’s clearly revealed with this apparent discrepancy. That flaw strikes at the cornerstone of medicine’s structure.

In mainstream medicine, symptoms are seen as the disease itself. Changes that precede disease are redefined as new diseases, such as osteopenia (pre-osteoporosis) or high cholesterol (pre-heart disease). So, what gets treated is the symptoms, not the disease.

In the search for disease causes, regression to smaller and smaller particles has become the focus. First, it was organs. Now it’s particles smaller than cells, even smaller than proteins.

And now, we’re seeing where that leads: a stone wall.

The Villain of Alzheimer’s Is the Hero of Multiple Sclerosis.

Sticky plaques formed of protein bits, ß-amyloid, are found in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s disease. So these plaques have been treated as if they were Alzheimer’s itself, and research has been trying to find ways to prevent ß-amyloid plaques from forming or to remove them. Indeed, ß-amyloid and anything associated with it has been considered abnormal, literally deviant—something that doesn’t belong in the brain and must be destroyed.

Now, though, this same substance has been found to reverse paralysis in mice with multiple sclerosis. Not only that, this reviled protein bit also has anti-inflammatory effects. Oops!

So, what is this mysterious ß-amyloid? How can medicine deal with it unless they know which it is? How can it cause one disease and cure another? Or … are these the wrong questions?

Asking the Wrong Question

Asking if ß-amyloid is friend or foe is like asking if air is friend or foe. Every minute of every day for our entire lives, we breathe it in. We cannot survive without it. Yet, in tornadoes, air can become deadly. High winds can blow a piece of straw through a tree or pick someone up and dash his brains out.

Getting rid of air to prevent tornadoes is obviously crazy, because we’d all die from lack of it. That, though, is the medical system’s approach to health. They find that something is indicative of disease, such as cholesterol or high blood pressure—or in the case of Alzheimer’s, ß-amyloid—and the approach is immediately to attack it, destroy it, without consideration for why it’s there or what benefits it might be producing.

Obviously, it’s nonsense to label air as friend or foe. And it’s equally obvious that labeling ß-amyloid the same way is also nonsense.

ß-amyloid is made by the body because it’s necessary for life, though little is known about its function—probably because so much effort has instead gone into finding ways of destroying it in Alzheimer’s. Obviously, it can point out something wrong. But when medicine tries to treat it as if it’s the issue, that either destroying or increasing ß-amyloid plaques can produce health, is utter nonsense.

Yet that is precisely how modern medicine deals with virtually everything. Something found to be good or bad in a context is accordingly defined as good or bad. Research then proceeds to find ways to artificially increase or destroy the substance or symptom.

Cholesterol is an example of the same process. It’s a substance made by the body. It’s absolutely necessary for health. Yet, in some contexts, cholesterol can indicate that something is wrong. It does not then follow that preventing its formation will lead to health. Far from it! But modern medicine cannot see that. As a result, statins are routinely prescribed and even suggested for everyone over the age of 50—in spite of well-documented harms, including muscle pain, diabetes, and memory loss.

Modern medicine seems to be incapable of viewing the human (or animal) body as a finely-tuned organism in which all the parts, whether large, as in organs, or infinitesimally small, as in ß-amyloid or cholesterol, are needed and are never, in and of themselves, heroes or villains. The status of any of them is a symptom, whether indicative of health or illness.

Symptoms are not causes. Symptoms are not diseases. Eliminating them does not remove disease, and may exacerabate it.

As long as medicine insists on this absurd idea, then it’s headed in the wrong direction. For every drug or treatment used to counteract a disease, there seem to be more and more adverse effects, and these negative effects generally prove to do more harm than benefit. That’s why mammograms are now known to do more harm than good. It’s why drugs have adverse effects that usually end up producing more harm than good. It’s why spinal surgeries so often result in devastating damage to patients.

Recent research findings document that the same substance can be seen as either harmful or beneficial, depending on context. Surely medical science researchers can figure out that they’ve run into a paradox and step back to figure out where they’ve gone wrong.

Until they do, medical science is best referred to as junk or pseudo science. When the basic premises are wrong, the results, including medical treatments, more often than not are bound to be ineffective and harmful.

Sources:

Tagged beta amyloid plaques, beta-amyloid, big pharma, conventional medicine, disease symptoms, junk science, medicine fatal flaw, medicine’s fatal flaw, multiple sclerosis, pharmaceutical drugs, pharmaceuticals, pseudo-science, pseudoscience, ß-amyloid, ß-amyloid alzheimer’s, ß-amyloid bad, ß-amyloid good, ß-amyloid multiple sclerosis, ß-amyloid paralysis, symptoms, symptoms are not disease, symptoms diseases

Pingback: The Robert Scott Bell Show a Dr. Rashid Buttar, Advanced Medicine Seminar Philadelphia, Recovering Kidney Health, Heavy Metal Detox, Breast Cancer Answers, Prescription Rate Holocaust, Hollywood Obamacare, Salt Deficiency Drug, Allopathy’s Fatal Fla
Pingback: The Robert Scott Bell Show a Dr. Rashid Buttar, Advanced Medicine Seminar Philadelphia, Recovering Kidney Health, Heavy Metal Detox, Breast Cancer Answers, Prescription Rate Holocaust, Hollywood Obamacare, Salt Deficiency Drug, Allopathy’s Fatal Fla
http://twitter.com/xtaldave Dave Briggs

This entire post seems to be based upon the premise that “How can that be? Is ß-amyloid friend or foe, hero or villain? Modern medicine’s approach demands that it be one or the other,” Which is utter nonsense.
Auto-immune diseases & diseases that stem from complement dysregulation, like AMD, are just a couple of examples of pathologies that involve “friendly” molecules “going wrong”. It is precisely the approach of modern medical science that has lead to advances in our understanding of these highly complex diseases. To grossly misrepresent this in order to score points against modern medical science is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.
- HeidiStevenson
  
  Modern medicine routinely treats substances as either good or evil. It does so with every drug. They affect the entire body. Almost none are targeted – and even when they are, they focus on the symptom, not the disease. They treat the symptoms as if they were the disease.
  
  All that so-called increased understanding of diseases sounds really good – and I’m delighted that we’re learning so much. However, the focus is wrong. Focusing on symptoms as if they were the disease results in terribly wrong treatments – such as the utterly failed attempts to treat Alzheimer’s by preventing or destroying beta-amyloid.
  
  Your suggestion that modern medicine gets it right in terms of autoimmune diseases is truly laughable. The fact is that the cause is ignored. The focus is on the symptoms – trying to suppress them, rather than on prevention. You say much is now known. That’s true – but it isn’t doing much good, because the focus is so wrong.
  
  Nothing’s been misrepresented in the article, and the only intellectual dishonesty seems to be in your comment suggesting that modern medicine doesn’t do precisely what it does.
  - http://twitter.com/xtaldave Dave Briggs
    
    You are making sweeping generalisations, and you are just plain wrong.
    
    Medical research is not focussing on solely symptoms – it is focussing on causes. We focus on molecules that are demonstrated to cause the symptoms. That is the aim. In some cases palliative care can be given that offers patients relief from symptoms, but to suggest that cures focus on symptoms is grossly misleading.
    - HeidiStevenson
      
      That’s pure nonsense! Apparently, you don’t know the difference between cause and symptoms. As pointed out elsewhere, high blood pressure is not a disease. Neither is cholesterol. Yet, when it comes to heart disease, those are blamed – and trying to control them has been the biggest part of research for treating heart disease.
      
      That alone clarifies the reality of what is happening in medical research. I’m sure that there are exceptions, but the fact is that most research is paid for by corporations that hope to profit from it – and that includes most of what universities now do. As a result, we have huge amounts of money going into research on symptoms, which is then defined as diseases, as in the case of heart disease.
      - Prieks
        
        Amazing, how people can read wrong such a clear written article!
      - HeidiStevenson
        
        Thank you. I tend to believe that it’s either intentional misreading or simply not bothering to read it..
- Scott
  
  I agree.
Lesley

I really don’t agree with your premise. For example, digoxin is friend when given in the correct dose to correct an abnormal heart rate and foe when given in overdose causing toxicity. Hence it really isn’t surprising that a protein in once context is friend and foe in another. In fact, you would expect this to be the case, or why has it been conserved in evolution?
- HeidiStevenson
  
  What you say is true – except for one little detail. You’re speaking for yourself, but ignoring what modern medicine routinely does. As pointed out in the article, modern medicine sees something that’s a symptom, then tries to stop destroy the symptom. That’s what it does with statins in cholesterol, drugs for high blood pressure – a symptom, not a disease – drugs for osteopenia, which again is not a disease, and so much more. The focus of modern medicine is controlling symptoms, not curing diseases.
  - TigerHobbes
    
    No, no that’s not how modern medicine does it.
    
    You seem to be very confused as to what modern medical science is about.
  - Liisa W
    
    It’s what journalists who understand nothing of medicine may do, to produce nice screaming headlines. That’s not medicine, bad or good, that’s bad journalism.
    I yet have to see a MD claiming that this or that substance is only, always, in any amount or way of usage, good (or bad). Why do you think that medicines are prescribed in certain doses? Less won’t work, more would cause damage. Ointments are for rash, not to eat. Cholesterol has a place somewhere, somewhere, it may cause damage.
    Medicine does treat symptoms. In some cases, the underlying cause is unknown – nobody knows what makes the immune system overreact, leading to allergies but I seriously doubt you would stand against allergy and asthma medication – or when the cause is untreatable, think terminal cancer, and again, I guess that everyone prefers to die without screaming in pain. Very often, the cause is known, such as bacteria or viri leading to an infection, and the cause is treated while symptoms may be treated as well, such as fever. Treating only symptoms would be pouring perfume on the oozing wound so that it wouldn’t stink, which, as far as I’m informed, doesn’t happen. One gets antibiotics.
    Everyone who has a bit of understanding of natural sciences knows that one substance can be noxious to someone or some tissue while beneficial or at least indifferent to other species/tissue. You don’t want gut bacteria in your brain but they do their job excellently well in the gut, you don’t want cholesterol to form plaques in your arteries but it serves well elsewhere… and if I, a mere botanist, know this, then I strongly suspect that any literate MD knows this as well.
    - HeidiStevenson
      
      And you describe how doctors think they see things – but not how they actually act. There is no balance in the cholesterol issue. Otherwise, why would so many doctors automatically prescribe it when people reach a certain age?
      
      Treating symptoms is precisely what doctors do when they use steroids. Sometimes it makes sense – most of the time it does more harm than good. Even when giving antibiotics – often when there are no bacteria involved – it’s done before necessary, more often than not, thus not allowing the body to learn how to protect itself, and ultimately weakening as a result.
      
      Sure, “everyone knows” – but that doesn’t mean it’s how modern medicine is applied, nor does it mean that research is applied appropriately.
  - http://www.facebook.com/chris.cole.7967 Chris Cole
    
    Can you please introduce me to this mythical creature called “Modern Medicine” and show me evidence of how he/she/they think and act?
    
    You are making wildly inaccurate and unsubstantiated claims (and seem to lack the insight, even when it’s pointed out to you, that this is what you are doing) and seemingly think that making such unsupported claims and then sitting back with an implied “So there!” somehow constitutes a valid argument, or repudiates the far more logical arguments of others… ?
Andy

Water can be harmful or beneficial.

We need to ingest water in order for our bodies to remain hydrated. Water can be beneficial.

But get water on the lungs and it can prevent respiration. Water can be harmful.

Water used as a medicine, as homeopaths do, will do nothing for the course of an illness. Water can be harmful.

Water used as a solvent for drugs can make a good delivery vehicle in some cases, Water can be beneficial.

Context is everything.
- HeidiStevenson
  
  Huh?
Thomas

Heidi are you deleting our comments or is it just taking a while to show up publicly?
- HeidiStevenson
  
  As should be obvious by the existence of your post, no posts have been removed at the time of this one. However, posts that offer nothing but ad hominem attacks or simply repeat or are otherwise not taking part in a discussion of the topic will be removed.
Scott

There seems to be a mysterious process removing posts that don’t agree with your article, is that not a bit biased?
- HeidiStevenson
  
  No posts have been removed at the time of this one. However, posts that offer nothing but ad hominem attacks or simply repeat or are otherwise not taking part in a discussion of the topic will be removed.
Thomas

Definitely removing posts. What a productive use of your time!
- Scott
  
  I’d expect deleting posts and ignoring input purely because they contradict your opinion probably compromises your ability to be an objective reporter on an issue, no?
- Thomas
  
  I notice that you don’t remove posts about removing posts just the reasoned discussions, helping to enlighten your readership as ever
  - HeidiStevenson
    
    At this point, no posts have been removed. It’s beginning to look like a cute attempt to imply that they have.
    
    Another such post, though, WILL result in all your posts being removed. I don’t have time for this nonsense.
Thomas

You seem to be suffering some cognitive dissonance. I suggest you take a remedy of your article diluted to 30C
- HeidiStevenson
  
  Sarcasm is not debate or discussion. Thomas’s comment referencing homeopathy is rude, inappropriate, and off-topic. He thinks he’s cute – but he’s clarifying that he has nothing of real value to offer here.
  - Thomas
    
    I apologise Heidi, it was a cheap quip but my more in depth comments in which I merely sought to clarify your arguments and the reasons for them kept disappearing (i am willing to believe this could be a technical glitch) and I was getting frustrated. I will repost said comments when I get home and look forward to your response.
    - HeidiStevenson
      
      If you have indepth comments that are not based on ad hominem attacks (discussing the author instead of the article or study) or reductionist (as in Andy’s comments above) or redirectional or nothing but links to other places or are just plain insulting, they aren’t censored. If comments don’t show, then please contact Disqus, which has recently revamped the system so may have some bugs to iron out.
Joe

Hmm, that research finding is interesting, although I don’t think it reveals very much more than the current limits to our collective understanding of the pathophysiology of both MS and Alzheimer’s. I feel personally that there are very valid criticisms to be made of ‘modern medicine’ but that this article somewhat misses these.

Firstly you seem to imply that ‘modern medicine’ has a single dogmatic viewpoint, ignoring the plurality of opinions within that constitutes scientific debate. The main issue I find with this is that you don’t seem to understand what a symptom is. A symptom is something the patient complains about. Hypertension and raised cholesterol are not symptoms but surrogate endpoints. Modern medicine, with the exception of palliative care, does not always emphasise symptoms above these endpoints or biochemical values, and a more convincing case could be made for the relegation of the patient voice within modern medicine. Without understanding of pathophysiological processes, historically disease was labelled more by it’s symptoms than the underlying process – see ‘dropsy’ for example, which was a disease in itself, without knowledge of the conditions such as heart or kidney failure that can lead to oedema.

Furthermore, medicine doesn’t tend to work in this dualistic good/bad model you describe, and tends to emphasise balance. Much disease is due to failure of homeostasis – see the wealth of hypo/hyper conditions for example, where the substance in question is neither considered good or bad, but excessive or deficient. In type I diabetes insulin is deficient, with an insulinoma it is excessive. Both cause corresponding symptoms, and both will lead to mortality without appropriate treatment. Insulin itself is value neutral. A more convincing case could be made for the tendency in medicine to control a range of endpoints and markers within a strict limit, without always considering the impact of this on the patient.
- HeidiStevenson
  
  You certainly don’t seem to be aware of the fact that medicine decided that beta-amyloid was inherently bad and needed to be destroyed as a result of finding it in plaques in Alzheimer’s. The fact that there might be a reason for the body to make it – that it could be harmful to simply go on a wholesale destruction of the substance – didn’t factor in. That’s clearly an either-or approach. And that’s the approach taken to most things in modernmedicine.
  
  Raised cholesterol and high blood pressure most assuredly are symptoms. They are also used as endpoints, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are also symptoms and are treated as diseases themselves as a result. That is dogmatic – and wrong.
  
  Modern medicine is so far from balance it’s farcical!
Andy

Heidi

Can you link to any scientific paper whatsoever that classifies substances into good substances and evil substances?

Just wondering?
- HeidiStevenson
  
  That’s a stupid question – entirely irrelevant and pointless.
  - Andy
    
    Heidi – you said ”
    Modern medicine’s approach demands that it be one or the other”.
    
    I was wondering how you can substantiate this? No research I have ever seen tries to characterise chemicals as either ‘good’ or ‘evil’.
    
    On what do you base your assertion?
    - HeidiStevenson
      
      The idea that everything must be in a science paper before it can be stated is reductionist to the point of absurdity.
      
      The assertion is explained in the article, specifically with beta-amyloid protein bits, which were initially treated as evil because of the finding that they’re involved in brain plaques in Alzheimer’s, but then found to have a beneficial function in multiple sclerosis. The fact that beta-amyloid was treated as an unequivocal evil without any consideration for why it exists in the first place is enough to demonstrate the good-evil dichotomy that exists.
      
      Your reductionism is just another demonstration of the misuse of science.
      - Andy
        
        Heidi – what you are talking about is how science comes to be represented in the media. The idea that scientists classify chemicals into good and evil is absurd. That is why I ask for any such classification occurring in the scientific literature. Your whole argument is a strawman fallacy – and actually extremely (and ironically) reductionist.
      - HeidiStevenson
        
        No strawman was given, so there is no strawman fallacy. A strawman argument is one that is given as if it were an argument proposed by the opposition, but is intentionally weak so that it can be easily knocked down. No such argument was offered at any point in this article.
        
        Clearly, you don’t actually know what a strawman argument is. The article doesn’t posit that modern medicine claims substances are defined as good or bad and then knock that claim down, so there is no strawman argument. The article says that modern medicine does that, demonstrates it, and shows why it’s a significant flaw.
        
        Your attempted reductionism is nothing but an attempt to evade the point actually made by the article. It is, in fact, very much like the reductionism of modern medicine – completely misses the point.
      - Andy
        
        Let me make this easy for you:
        
        Strawman:
        
        “How can that be? Is ß-amyloid friend or foe, hero or villain? Modern medicine’s approach demands that it be one or the other, but obviously, that makes no sense.”
        
        It’s so strawman that it could be used as an example in schools.
      - Scott
        
        I would argue that any form of evidence to justify your claims in the article above (apart from a sporadic and sketchy bibliography out of context) is entirely necessary. Otherwise your solitary opinion going firmly against the grain of all published evidence to the contrary smacks of delusion. Should it be hard to substantiate your claims if they’re *so* well founded?
        
        Strawman argument or not, the fact of the matter is that you’ve provided nothing but out of context anecdotal information with no hard evidence that scientists love to categorise things as good or evil, or in fact that they’re confused about any of the conditions mentioned in this discussion. Only you appear to be, sorry.
      - Scott
        
        That was obviously directed to Heidi
      - Scott
        
        The above post was obviously directed to Heidi, such is the perils of commuter Internet connection.
      - HeidiStevenson
        
        To suggest that it’s necessary to provide scientific proof of the observation made in the article is simply ludicrous.
        
        In fact, modern medicine has gone to great efforts to try to suppress high cholesterol based on the assumption – never proven – that it’s inherently bad simply because it may be associated with heart disease. Changing markers in studies and in regular patients is used as if they were the disease, but they aren’t. It’s very clear that’s what’s being done, again and again.
        
        The article isn’t meant to prove anything – merely to elucidate. That you expect proof where none is needed is rather strange and it’s reductionist – misses the point entirely.
        
        And, by the way, the article isn’t about scientists – it’s about what modern medicine and its practitioners, including those who purport to do science for its benefit, do. So again, you are arguing in the wrong context.
      - Scott
        
        Those who practice modern medicine are scientists by training and profession. That includes doctors, research personnel, national guideline drafting teams, and clinical trial investigators. Not all scientists wear white coats.
        
        Your article makes dangerous sweeping generalisations that directly advocate a distrust of modern medical evidence. I refer you to your final paragraph:
        
        ”
        Until they do, medical science is best referred to as junk or pseudo science ”
        
        Furthermore, if you’d care to read the latest comment at the top of the discussion you’ll understand why we’ve taken so much issue with your claims. There’s no other way in which i can put this so I’m simply going to say it as it is – there have been numerous large scale clinical studies that categorically prove beyond any reasonable doubt that high cholesterol is one of the major contributing factors in heart disease. You seem to disagree with this again, so please substantiate your claim otherwise It’ll go into the ever-growing box of sweeping unsubstantiated statements.
        
        You are attempting to draw on scientific theory, yet doing so in a completely erroneous manner – blind to the input of other members of this discussion, and in the process claiming that all medical science is ‘junk or psuedoscience’.
        
        And you’re right, its not an article about scientists is it. I dont recall mentioning scientists at any point apart from referring to your article’s propensity to paint them as the great labeler’s of substances as good or evil. I’ve only discussed the scientific practice and research you have mis-interpreted and attempted to critique.
      - HeidiStevenson
        
        Medical doctors are NOT scientists!
        
        There have been lots of studies on cholesterol showing the opposite – including some of those you think say that it does cause heart disease. The results often don’t support the claimed conclusions. Aren’t you aware that nearly all these studies are controlled by Big Pharma, directly or indirectly? Besides, how do you explain that at least half of all heart attacks happen to people whose cholesterol is supposedly “normal” if it’s such an evil and a major cause of heart disease?
        
        By the way, have you noticed yet that you are doing precisely what the article discusses – characterizing a marker as evil and therefore worthy of attack, without consideration of what its function is, of why it exists, and what harm might be produced by simply treating it as bad?
        
        If you wish to believe the pseudo science that’s produced so many products that have done so much harm, that’s your right. If you want to believe that medical doctors are also scientists, then go ahead – but it’s not true, except possibly in their own eyes.
        
        You say that I’ve misinterpreted research, but you haven’t pointed out any misrepresentations.
        
        You restate what I said – that the article isn’t about scientists – as if it means something. And you’ve couched it all in condescending tones, as if your claims are absolute truth – but you haven’t supported a single one.
        
        You seem to think that a few people commenting here constitutes a group who have the truth, making them right and me wrong. That’s simply ludicrous – but it fits quite nicely with the rest of your illogical commentary and completely unsubstantiated claims.
      - Scott
        
        Point one. Medical doctors are scientists by training, they are required to study science to BSc level and most have Masters degrees or PhD’s in scientific research by consultancy level. Just because dont wear a lab coat and they work with patients not in a lab doesn’t mean they dont practice science, perform scientific research and contribute to the growing knowledge of science. The essence of what it is to be a scientist.
        
        Point 2 not everything you read is some conspiracy of ‘big pharma’. A bit of time spent in scientific research might teach you that the vast majority of scientific knowledge is gained in academic labs, funded by organisations such as the wellcome trust or cancer research UK for instance. it’s only when a physiological proven mechanism exists that ‘Big Pharma’ will try to exploit this for profit. Thus, the link between high cholesterol and coronary heart disease was proven long before the intervention of large pharmaceutical companies. Try 1988 for example, long before the consideration of statins:
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3042200
        
        Point 3. Cholesterol isn’t the only major contributor to heart disease. High blood pressure, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, high salt intake, family history and diabetes are other major factors contributing to coronary heart disease, leading to heart attacks. But for under 40′s suffering heart attacks, cocaine induced coronary vasospasm is the most common cause. Its not Pharma crap, it’s epidemiology, linkage of causation and consequence after accounting for confounding factors.
        
        Point 4 if you would consider my earlier posts which were removed, Thomas and I have explained to you in detail the role of cholesterol in the body – both good and bad. i will do so again here. With a detailed understanding of human physiology, I appreciate that some things have both good and bad roles. that is not up for debate. This idea seems to be difficult for you to grasp however. Cholesterol, like many other things is about moderation. too little is bad, too much is even worse. furthermore, there are many types of cholesterol, some being very bad for your heart (LDL) and some being in fact very good for your heart (HDL). statins address the bad cholesterol (LDL), which in normal ranges is safe. above the normal range LDL cholesterol confers increased risk to heart disease. the types of cholesterol in cell walls supporting organ function, or as precursor to hormones are different and are not affected by statins – such is their targeted design you denied in your article. If you want to understand any more about cholesterol and the use of statins, I suggest a Pharmacology text book. I know it will be full of ‘pseudo-science’, short of you providing us reasonable alternative evidence to the contrary, dont be surprised that we’re just going to continue ignoring such sweeping generalisations.
        
        Point 5. Yes, a small number of views on here doesn’t prove anything of the wider view of the public. But ask yourself this, where is the other side of the argument to support you? I dont see it so far. Maybe if you weren’t so stubborn in such sceptical opinions when presented with firm evidence to the contrary it might help your cause.
        
        Point 6. Unsubstantiated claims.
        There is a link in my latest reply to a 1200 page medical text book which is the first port of call for the modern medical profession of the western world, based on peer reviewed exhaustive literature references and a consideration of ALL of the available evidence at the date of print in 2012. I suggest you become familiar with it, it’s only £40. It substantiates every point made here by myself, Thomas, Andy and anyone else who has commented. It doesn’t substantiate anything you’ve stated, whats more in most of the cases it states the exact opposite. That’s more than enough substantiation for this absurd article.
        
        I’ve become condescending because you appear to be one of these difficult people who despite all the evidence to the contrary and numerous informed opinions advising you otherwise, you still harbour an unwavering view without any evidence to back it up apart from a dash of conspiracy and a poor understanding of medical science. If it wasn’t for the danger than opinions like yours present to vulnerable and impressionable members of society, I would have let it all slide and just ignored your article. But the fact of the matter is, people might unfortunately read this article and if they believe the content, the consequences to them might be substantial.
        
        Consider this definition:
        
        A false unshakable idea or belief, out of keeping with educational, cultural and social backgrounds, held with extraordinary conviction despite evidence to the contrary.
        
        There will be no reply to your next retort, it’s up to you if you chose to make one.
      - HeidiStevenson
        
        Scott –
        
        If medical doctors are scientists, then by your definition, so am I, as I hold a BS degree – summa cum laude, by the way. That was, after all, your definition of a scientist.
        In fact, Big Pharma DOES control most of what goes on in the medical world. If you believe otherwise, then you’re highly naive. Your link to a study done in 1988 most assuredly does NOT demonstrate research done before the advent of statins, which began in 1971. Lovastatin was isolated in 1978. Big Pharma most assuredly had its marketing arm (which is the bulk of the juggernaut) going by 1988!
        
        No, of course cholesterol isn’t the only contributor to heart disease, which demonstrates the point that treating it as THE evil that MUST be reduced at all costs – even to the point of pushes that everyone over age 40 or 50 should take statins all the while ignoring the harms done by the drug – simply makes my point of a single thing being defined as inherently evil. Thanks!
        
        Your next point is that previous comments were removed. That isn’t true – and I’m not going to bother going past this point. Your first ones were destroyed simply enough, and you’ve had more than enough time and space here.
        
        Trying to suggest that your comments were removed is over the top – quite obviously, since so many have been posted without being touched.
      - TigerHobbes
        
        He did NOT define “a scientist” as “having a BSc”. He said that MEDICAL DOCTORS study science in their BSc’s.
        
        As for this: “In fact, modern medicine has gone to great efforts to try to suppress high cholesterol based on the assumption – never proven – that it’s inherently bad simply because it may be associated with heart disease. ”
        
        That’s absolute nonsense. Cholesterol is vital for life, and it’s one of the first things you learn in the first cell biology course in both med school and for any degree in molecular biology/medicine.
        
        It’s almost as if you’re making this up as you go.
      - HeidiStevenson
        
        Of course cholesterol is vital for life – but the routine practice now is to villainize it. People are routinely put on statins simply because of reaching a certain age, on the presumption that cholesterol must be lowered. That’s the point of the article – the way modern medicine acts, not the details of things taught that end up being ignored, as is the case with cholesterol.
        
        You are using typical reductionist arguments, which may sound good, but don’t address the points made in the article, except peripherally. What’s at issue is how modern medicine – primarily through its practitioners – behaves. Cholesterol is treated as if it were an evil and should always be reduced. When it was discovered that beta-amyloid was involved in brain plaques associated with Alzheimer’s, the rush was on to find ways to prevent its formation or destroy it – without consideration for the overall effects.
        
        The fact is that modern medicine routinely responds to such discoveries in an extreme manner – an all-or-nothing, evil-vs-good approach.
      - TigerHobbes
        
        That’s absolute hogwash.
        
        It is not treated or regarded as an evil.
        
        Large amounts of a certain type of cholesterol IS however very damaging, especially to older people. That’s why it’s recommended that you REDUCE the intake of this type of cholesterol. Not because its only bad, but because our diet consists of too much of it.
        
        Just like salt is vital for life. large amounts of salt can lead to hypertension. That doesent mean modern medicine tells everyone to not eat any salt. Salt is vital.
        
        You just don’t get it, and you’re making things up based on your interpretations and assumptions. Like I said, as a student of molecular biology, and living with a medical doctor, not ONCE have I heard anyone claim anything remotely related to what you are saying. In fact, quite the opposite.
        
        Please, stop claiming modern medicine is saying this and that when you quite blatantly have no background in the field of medicine or medical science, nor any idea of what these things are, how they work, why they’re “contradicting”, and why they’re actually used the way they are. ALL things are “contradicting” in some way or another, and medicine not only knows this, but USES is in that way. Have you ever wondered why they use chemotherapy (CELL POISON) to treat cancer? It’s not because its good for the body or its cells, quite the opposite. It’s because it KILLS cells, and thereby also kills cancerous cells.
        
        Even a bad substance can be used in a good way, but that does not mean its a good or bad substance. It’s just not the way we think in medicine.
      - HeidiStevenson
        
        No, YOU don’t get it. Gaia Health has said many times that salt is healthy and important, and has said that same about cholesterol. In the same (all kinds, not just some), you’re preaching to the choir, but completely missing what this article is about – that, or intentionally misreading it.
        
        The point that the article makes is that these substances in the body are necessary, but that modern medicine treats them in isolation. To suggest otherwise is to wear blindfolds. The article offers clear examples documenting the practice.
        
        Modern medicine is forever going on about how bad cholesterol is. How bad salt is. It has done the same about beta-amyloid. More thoughtful people in the industry recognize that the approach is misguided – but the either-or dichotomy of defining substances as inherently good or bad most assuredly is how medicine functions.
        
        Your denial – indeed, your anger – that it’s pointed out is revealing. It’s as if the door has been opened and the wizard’s exposed for the little man he is.
        
        If you could get your comments on track to discuss what the article actually states, rather than distorting it, future comments will be accepted. But repetition of the same thing again and again will not.
      - TigerHobbes
        
        “but that modern medicine treats them in isolation. ”
        
        And I keep telling you: NO WE DON’T.
        
        And your so called “examples” are just based on plain ignorance. You quite clearly know nothing about medical practice. And to tell a doctor and molecular biologist otherwise just makes you portray a quite obvious case of the dunning-kruger effect.
      - HeidiStevenson
        
        You keep saying that “you” don’t – but the facts show otherwise. The millions of people who reach age 50 and are automatically told they must take statins are proof that modern medicine makes either-or, good-evil determinations on a routine basis.
        
        You can scream all you want, but it doesn’t change what actually happens. If you want to call the experience of millions of people ignorance, you are merely demonstrating your self-righteous attitude.
        
        Your referencing the Dunning-Kruger effect is nothing but an ad hominem attack. That’s the end of it.
      - andre
        
        Scott, there is only ONE type of cholesterol. End of story. The molecules you are referring to, are LDL -Low Density Lipoprotein and HDL – High Density Lipoprotein… They are transporter molecules that bind to cholesterol molecules and transport it throughout the body. Perhaps it is you who should invest 40 pounds in some basic science books…
      - / Heidi Stevenson
        
        Thank you, Scott. You are so right. Isn’t it humorous how someone can be so condescending and so wrong?
        
        It must be time to revisit the cholesterol topic.
      - andre
        
        Heidi, I will assume that you meant to write Thank you, “Andre”, but that you were sooo perturbed by Scott’s terrible arguments, that error of such kind was inevitable!
        And.. yes,please! to the revisiting of the cholesterol topic..
      - / Heidi Stevenson
        
        You are so right, Andre! And I am so sorry – had to edit and change the name to Andre.
      - HeidiStevenson
        
        I said only that modern medicine takes that approach. I did not offer it as an argument that modern medicine uses and then knock it down. I simply state that modern medicine does use that approach. No phony argument is given as if modern medicine had stated it in support of the claim. If you can’t see the distinction, then please read up on it.
      - Scott
        
        How patronising you are. Debating technicalities of argument doesn’t distract from a mis-informed article littered with errors.
      - HeidiStevenson
        
        The argument given was based on a complete misunderstanding and misuse of the term employed. If you don’t like seeing that explained, it’s too bad.
        
        You have gone way over the line with that comment.
      - Scott
        
        I don’t believe so. It was an exceptionally patronising response, there’s nothing wrong with acknowledging this. I’m sure Andy would agree.
        
        I simply served to redirect the discussion onto the more pertinent points of your erroneous medical advice throughout the article. If you’d like to get back to the article itself, that’d work well for us all as there are some substantial misgivings with your claims.
      - HeidiStevenson
        
        When it comes to patronizing behavior, you take the cake.
      - Scott
        
        I wouldn’t agree. I’m just trying to establish why you’re adamant we are all in error, when nobody seems to be supporting your viewpoint and you consistently fail to provide us with any substantial proof of your article’s claims.
Joseph

when you say that modern medicine only looks at symptoms and not underlying disease you are using Alzheimer’s, where beta amyloid deposition is the disease process and gradual cognitive decline is the symptom, as the exception that proves the rule?
- HeidiStevenson
  
  Of course it’s not the exception that proves the rule – and that’s obvious by the examples of cholesterol and high blood pressure in heart disease that were given in the article. The same is true even of cancer. The tumor isn’t the disease – it’s the response, the symptom.
  - Scott
    
    Wrong again. The tumour is the disease, it causes symptoms. Medicine 101. Symptoms are not diseases, but manifestations of disease – and not a response to disease.
    - HeidiStevenson
      
      No it isn’t. The tumor is the symptom, the manifestation of the disease. The disease is the problem that resulted in a tumor.
      - Scott
        
        You’re confused again, but that’s fair – cancer is one of the most complex diseases humans encounter. By disease, you mean the process of tumorigenesis, that is repeated genetic mutation (whether heritable or acquired) through several stages leading to cancer cells dividing too much to form a ball of tissue called a tumour. A lump that the patient feels is a symptom of the tumour. the pain a patient feels because the tumour compresses surrounding organs or invades nearby nerves are symptoms. Tumours themselves do not cause pain. the tumour is a pathology, part of a disease process. Consult the following book for an in depth definition of symptoms and disease:
        
        http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kumar-Clarks-Clinical-Medicine-STUDENTCONSULT/dp/0702044997/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347997976&sr=8-1
    - Andy
      
      Scott – you will never understand Heidi as she has a magical view of disease – she is a homeopath. Causes are ‘deeper’ than what you or I might think – some kind of magical disturbance in a miasm or energy field or vibration. Remember homeopaths are wedded to the revelations of their founder and so can never accept germ theory, genetics or any other of the many things that we have discovered in the past 200 years. Homeopaths are locked in the magical thinking world of the 18th Century.
      - HeidiStevenson
        
        Why didn’t you just ask to be banned, Andy? You’d have saved yourself a lot of trouble.
        
        To everyone else: If you think it’s unfair to get banned for insulting the site’s owner, then it’s time to grow up. And if you think that insults are a good way to hide your own lack of understanding … well, it doesn’t work.
      - TigerHobbes
        
        You’re confusing cause, symptom and disease.
        
        Genetic mutation is the CAUSE of the tumour, which is the disease. The pain, visible lump and anything else, are SYMPTOMS of the tumour, which is the disease.
        
        You really need to take a basic course in biology or something, because you’re confusing very basic principles consistently.
        
        Also, as a student of molecular biology, and living with a medical doctor, I have not once heard anyone within our fields say any of the things you claim medical professionals to be saying.
        
        No medical professional or molecular biologist will say that cholesterol is all evil. In fact, basic biology dictates that its absolutely vital for life.
        
        Also, that medicine considers anything to be either good or bad is absolutely ridiculous. That’s not at all how it works. And just because something exists or is produces, does not mean its good for you.
        
        Chemo is cell poison, and while its absolutely deadly and poisonous, it’s vital in the treatment of cancer because it also kills off cancer cells.
      - Andy
        
        Am I wrong in what I said? Is it not true, you have a vitalistic view of disease?
Thomas

test post
Will

Heidi, I’m sorry, but I can’t hold back any longer. Please, please, please, look up the definition of symptom.
wrpvincent

I was going to right a comment about how appallingly badly written, erroneous and full of illogical statements this article is but I can see that I don’t need to! WOW!
http://www.facebook.com/chris.cole.7967 Chris Cole

As pointed out already, context is important. Also, having a basic understanding of what you’re attempting to criticise can help, too.

Doctors do not take the simplistic approach of “Is substance x good or bad for you?” as real life is usually far more complex and subtle than that. It seems you are labouring under the misapprehension that doctors _do_ think that way?

As Andy points out… water is essential for human life, but drink too much of it and you can rapidly knock yourself off with hyponatraemia. Drinking water (in moderation) is good for you. Inhaling it is, almost always, rather bad for you. Drinking too much of it is bad for you.

Salicylates from willow bark can be good for you… but overdosing on aspirin certainly isn’t.

We could sit here and list as many examples as you like, but the point is that it’s obvious to any casual observer that any given substance has the potential to be either beneficial or deleterious, depending on the circumstances.

Just because one research group finds that a substance is beneficial in one setting or context, and another research group finds that it is harmful in another context does not constitute any sort of paradox, or oversight, or any problem with the science involved. It does not render all of medicine “junk science”.

The attempted arguments in your last three paragraphs are non sequitirs, but I look forward to reading a more cogent explanation in the future if you manage to put something more logical together.

Oh and yes, cholesterol is manufactured by the body and absolutely necessary. And no, it does not follow that reducing it’s production will improve health. That’s why we do clinical trials. Clinical trials have demonstrated that the use of statins in those with higher risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including death, reduces the incidence of those outcomes. We don’t use statins because they reduce cholesterol. We use them because they demonstrably reduce morbidity and mortality.

If you’re going to “educate” others who know even less than you do, PLEASE take the time to ensure you understand what it is you’re talking about.
- / Heidi Stevenson
  
  You are so condescending, but nothing you say reflects what really happens. The reality is that modern medicine does treat cholesterol as if it were simply bad.
  
  Context is important – and that’s precisely what modern medicine seems to forget – over and over and over. You can say it’s not true over and over, but that doesn’t change what happens. To suggest that most doctors actually take the individual into consideration is farcical. When prescribing drugs, it’s nearly always one size fits all. There’s almost never any consideration for adverse effects. People are prescribed statins simply for reaching a certain age. The concept of a polypill to be given to everyone upon reaching a certain age is gaining traction.
  
  Yes, the medical profession, as a whole, does behave in precisely the manner described. If you don’t realize that, then count your blessings for not having had the need for medical care. Few who do are unaware of the truth.
http://www.facebook.com/chris.cole.7967 Chris Cole

Unsubstantiated claims, confirmation bias, lack of scientific literacy, and an inability to understand clear logical points made by others.

It’s very hard to explain to someone what it is they clearly don’t know, when they don’t even know enough to know they don’t know.

It’s morbidly fascinating to watch people try, though.