Read this reply on "X" and the message it is reference to.
Now I want you to look at this image:
What you're often told is that cholesterol is sort of like putting too much toilet paper in a pipe. You see that sort of "diagram" on the walls of doctor's offices all over the place. They're lies.
The above is what actually happens.
Don't think so? Look at Johns Hopkins page. Same thing.
How about Boston Heart Diagnostics? Do you think they've seen plenty of diseased arteries?
If you want go look for sectioned slide images, which also show this quite-clearly.
Why is the plaque build-up inside the arterial wall? Not on the surface -- inside the wall, between the inner and outer surfaces of the artery? What is going on there? Do you need a medical degree to understand it?
NO, YOU DO NOT NEED A DEGREE OF ANY SORT BECAUSE EVERY ONE OF YOU HAS SEEN EXACTLY THIS in your daily life on your skin at some point in your life!
EVERY SINGLE PERSON knows that above image is correct because you have ALL seen it on your person, with your own eyes, during your own life.
So has EVERY PHYSICIAN which means every single one of them knows they're lying.
Most of you had zits when you were a teen. Many of you have been bitten by fire arts and essentially everyone has stuck themselves with something -- a thorn or whatever, or been stung by a bee or bitten by a mosquito. You've all seen it, you've all experienced it and you know precisely what happens -- it gets inflamed just like that arterial wall. Have a zit (or fire ant bite pustule) pop and what that looks like is basically identical to that last image above -- except obviously its on your skin rather that in your cardiac artery!
In short your body attempts to repair the insult. Cholesterol is part of that repair mechanism.
The problem is the insult that results in the inflammation, not the repair mechanism. You can't fix the underlying problem by lowering cholesterol levels because cholesterol isn't the issue -- inflammation is. You might be able to mask the problem by decreasing the body's repair resources but if you don't correct the underlying problem then at best you are masking it, it is likely to cause other problems since you only addressed one outcome, you've now denied the body the full use of one of its essential repair mechanisms to repair injuries and worse, the medication has risks as do all drugs and when taken on an effective permanent basis the odds go way up you're going to get hammered by those because each day you take a drug the risk of a bad outcome multiplies.
It's simply a matter of time and exposure; if I take an aspirin for a headache while aspirin can cause bleeding (that is, a hemorrhagic stroke, which is very frequently fatal) my risk is tiny because it only occurs during the time I have the headache -- like an evening or so. If I take that aspirin every day I must now take that risk every day and the odds of me getting hammered with the bad effect are much, much higher. This is why there has been much debate over taking a "baby" aspirin to prevent clot-related strokes -- taking one for a headache is very safe but taking one every day runs the risk of a hemorrhagic stroke and which is the more-dangerous has been a subject of quite a bit of debate over the years with recommendations going back and forth.
The solution to the problem if you have the above issue going on in your arteries is to determine and address the cause of the inflammation. If you remove the inflammation source (e.g. you pull the thorn out of your foot) the inflammation will dissipate as the insult has been removed.
There are many causes of systemic inflammation. Seed oils, fast carbohydrates and the outcomes of consumption of both, obesity and poor glucose control are in the top tier causes but obviously are not the only ones. Other drugs, legal and otherwise, along with other lifestyle decisions are obviously also involved.
In addition note that there is a decent amount of evidence that if you stop consuming those things that cause systemic inflammation not only will your obesity and glucose control issues improve but at the same time the "bad" cholesterol will decrease as well.
Why is that?
I don't know that its scientifically known but is it not a fair question as to whether your body is making it in excess (nearly all cholesterol is in fact manufactured in the liver, it does NOT come from the food you consume) because your body believes it needs that level to repair inflamed tissue?
We know that the liver produces cholesterol and the reason statins lower it is that they block the synthesis pathway. Where is the evidence that this pathway is in fact diseased rather than reacting to a diseased condition caused by something else? There is none and there is no reasonable hypothesis of genetic mutation as an explanation either because these issues are relatively new and their increase happens to correlate with the introduction and widescale use of seed oils and other fast carbohydrates such as refined grains and high-fructose corn syrup.
The belief that "every body is diseased and a drug is the answer" is not only idiotic it makes no scientific sense. Humans have survived an evolutionary path of millions of years, as has every other animal that happens to still be around. Does your cat need a statin? Well, he might if you feed him processed carbohydrates -- may I ask how many carbs are in the average mouse, which is what he would eat living outdoors?
Why do basically no physicians seek to find and work with you to eliminate the cause of said inflammation rather than reach for the Rx pad?
Addressing systemic inflammation is a permanent fix and requires no drugs -- therefore it not only resolves the problem at the same time it avoids all risk of side effects since you're not consuming the drugs. Of course this doesn't make the drug companies any money and it also doesn't make the doctor any money from treating the side effects either since you don't get any of those.
Which is the wiser path folks and what leads any physician to offer a professional opinion that the "correct" path is to suppress a normal bodily function? What evidence is there that the apparent "dysregulation" is not an expected and normal response of the body to an external insult that the person can remove?