>From: Mike Weis <[log in to unmask]>

>
>Wayne, you wrote a number of things in your post that brought up what I
>would consider to be important questions. I think that it is important,
>since one thing we do on this list is question others' assumptions, that we
>not add to the confusion by making our own.
>  >>In the 1980's there was much controversy regarding cholesterol and
>heart
>disease and the result was a great deal of pressure being placed on doctors
>to get on board with the NHBLI heart disease education plan.<<
>  What pressure?
>
I want to avoid taking the hard work of others and presenting as my own.  I
also don't have the time to redo previous research and site my sources.  If
you would prefer to stick to well referanced academic work then you can
write me off as a crack pot.  I will do my best to support my initial
arguments without going back and re doing the initial research.

I started by stating that there was controversy in the 80's regarding
cholesterol. I don't remember where I read the history of the lipid
hypothesis probably on Westonaprice.org or perhaps on the Choleserol myth
site.  It was reinforced when I read a book on backpacking where Colin
Fletcher refused to make recommendations on the percentage of fat to take
backpacking becasue of the on going controversy over fat. His book was
published in 1972.

Forgot the source...but what I understand is The National Heart, Lung and
Blood Institute (NHLBI) spear headed the US effort to lower cholesterol by
endorsing a plan that would test the entire population and identify people
with cholesterol over 200 (the statistical mean) and get them to start
eating low fat food to lower their numbers through dietary intervention and
use medication to lower the cholesterol for anybody over another arbitrary
number that represented the 75% threashold.  That would put a quarter of the
population on medication.  Do I know this to be fact; no.

I could only hypothisize why they would do this and I choose to believe that
they meant well.  There is some shakey science to support the lipid
hypothesis especially if you are not to descriminating. They invested big in
the MR.FIT research that was going to provide the much needed proof but
failed.  However, NHBLI is a big government organization and they have to
justify budgets and produce something, even if it is not perfect.

According to the same source they put pressure on the docs through the AMA.
I don't know this to be a fact but the argument was compelling.  The AMA
endorsement had a carrot that would ensure that millions of people who
normally would not see a doctor would come in for a check up because of this
national educational campiegn that would make a quarter of them chronically
ill on medication and another quarter needing regular monitoring. If this
sounds like a conspiracy theory to you than I agree. I am not sure that this
went down this way because of a conpiracy but more likely many differant
individuals and groups with their own motivations that could advance their
own causes a little by get on board.  Or, maybe this isn't how it happened
at all but it is the only explanation that explains the whole sale disregard
for science by the entire medical establishment. On the positive side they
would likely catch real problems like diabetis and hypertension if they got
everybody into a lab for a cholestrerol test.

The CDC was implicated because of congressional funding in the original
source.  Fact/Fiction do not know.  What i did find was that on the CDC web
site there are two papers that are on the causes of heart disease.  The
first dated 1994 did not refer to lipids in relation to risk factors for
heart disease.  They listed homocystine levels, high blood pressure,
diabetis, obesity, inactivity, and smoking.  The second dated 2004 stated
that the number one cause of heart disease is high blood cholesterol,
everything else was an also ran. They did not referance thier sources for
the basis of their arguments either. I am not aware of any break through
research to support the huge shift by the CDC to elevate lipid above
obesity, hypertension, and smoking.

I also presented an hypothesis on group dynamics.  There has been a lot of
research on what makes a group do the wrong thing because of what happened
to the Jewish population in Germany.  Being faced with daily messages from
the government, drug reps, trade pub advertising, patients, and peers causes
individuals to question the validity of their own knowledge. Couple that
with the negative treatment of people who do not accept the status quo and
intelligent well meaning doctors could throw it the towel and order lipid
panels, prescribe statin drugs, and schedule follow up appointments. That is
what the patient expects and nobody get sued for that type of medicine.  At
some point 90% might really have believed the hype (I did) but I don't think
most of them really believed in the lipid hypothesis as much as they just
went along.  (Personal opinion...the damage is equal regardless of
motivation)

Sorry for the length.  I jumped in a little over my head.  If you disagree
with the history, I apologize for not siting my sources better.  I didn't
know there would be a test when I was doing my reading.