The above is the name of a new documentary film produced by the colleagues of Dr. Uffe Ravnskov, who is probably the leading cholesterol skeptic in the world today. I have had the privilege of corresponding with Dr. Ravnskov some by email, and I receive his monthly newsletter to doctors.

In case you haven’t figured it out, the 29 billion reasons above refers to the total number of dollars that are spent on cholesterol-lowering drugs each year around the world.  If you would like to watch the short trailer to this movie, go here:

In his latest newsletter, Dr. Ravnskov shared a letter to the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine that he submitted but which was rejected. Previously, the NEJM had published a favorable report about the SATURN trial which made weak claims of benefit for statin drugs.  But, what Dr. Ravnskov pointed out in his letter was that they used as evidence of improvement the relationship between the internal and external diameter of arteries, but the problem is that arterial dilation- from any cause- tends to increase that variable- but without reducing the amount of plaque.  For instance, just squeezing your fist tightly can temporarily increase the size of the arterial lumen by as much as 35%.

So, Dr. Ravnskov said they were drawing invalid conclusions from invalid assumptions.  But, the New England Journal of Medicine refused to publish his letter.

I have the greatest respect for Dr. Ravnskov. He is 78 years old, and he is a an internist and a nephrologist (kidney specialist). He is also a PhD. And I can tell you that for being close to 80, he sounds as mentally sharp as a tack.

I heard Dr. Ravnskov recently on a local radio program in my own area, the Patrick Timpone show, which is broadcast from  the little town of Dripping Springs, Texas, which is close to where I live.  And on the program, Dr. Ravnskov started by saying that there is solid evidence that old people with higher cholesterol live longer than those with low cholesterol.

Keep in mind that I am still very much in favor of a plant-based diet. I think that we should load up on, and emphasize unrefined plant foods, including fruits, vegetables, greens, and raw nuts (as top tier foods) and whole grains and legumes (as second tier foods).  And, as I’ve said before, in my diet, the only animal food that I have been eating, and semi-regularly, is free-range, organic eggs.

So, why am I such a fan of Dr. Ravnskov? First, he opposes statinization,  and so do I. I have never had to consider taking a statin drug  myself because my cholesterol level is fine. But even if it were high, I would NOT take a statin drug, and my bias against these drugs has been very much influenced by Dr. Ravnskov.

In contrast, Dr. Esselstyn will put people on a ultra-low fat vegan diet AND put them on a statin drug, which is a very extreme and dangerous thing to do, in my opinion.

Secondly, besides opposing the demonization of cholesterol, Dr. Ravnskov opposes the demonization of natural fats. Keep in mind that, doctors such as McDougall and Esselstyn, condemn not only animal foods but also high-fat plant foods, such as nuts and seeds and avocadoes.  And to my mind, that is just an arbitrary dietary fetish.  Fats are just as natural and normal and just as abundant in Nature as carbohydrates, and the natural attraction of humans to eat fats is just as great as to eating carbohydrates.  So really, it is a very unnatural and abnormal behavior to systematically avoid fats.  And I know that Dr. Ravnskov agrees strongly with that.

Thirdly, Dr. Ravnskov draws attention to alternative theories of heart disease causation, including infection, homocysteine,  nutritional deficiencies, and high cortisol levels, and these factors need to be highlighted.

And fourth, Dr. Ravnskov’s most recent research concerns the possible role of low cholesterol in the development of cancer, and there is no question that cholesterol has a protective effect against cancer. And this suggests that the harm from the mass statinization that is going on all over the world may be astronomical, and I fear that it is.

If you would like to learn more about Dr. Ravnskov’s work, just google his name: Ravnskov.





A new study has just been released on the Archives of Internal Medicine showing that postmenopausal women on statins had a 48% higher risk of developing diabetes.

The research echoes findings of other studies linking the cholesterol-lowering drugs with an increased  risk of diabetes in men and women.

This study involved over 160,000 women, ages 50 to 79, who participated in the Women’s Health Initiative, a large longitudinal study of women’s health outcomes.

Adjustments were made for “propensity score” (women who were inherently at higher risk of developing diabetes) as well as “all potential confounding factors,” such as obesity.

All kinds of statin medications were involved, including both weak ones and strong ones. The result was a 48% higher incidence of diabetes among statin users, and the authors called it a “medication class effect.”

The irony is that statins are taken to prevent heart disease.  But, diabetes is a strong risk factor for heart disease. Therefore, one could say that if statins increase diabetes risk, they also increase heart disease risk.

When contributing factors such as family history and excess weight were considered, the statin users were at markedly higher risk.

The researchers can't explain why. "It's still an area under scrutiny," said Annie Culver, the study's first author and a consulting pharmacist with the University of Massachusetts Medical School.

"Statins may affect the way the body manages insulin and glucose responses," she said.

It’s an interesting area of speculation as to why statins provoke diabetes. Could disruption in CoQ10 synthesis be a factor? That seems plausible to me since CoQ10 affects energy production and therefore glucose utilization.  But, it may be that disruption in cholesterol synthesis itself may also be a factor since cholesterol is crucial to cellular membranes including those within the pancreas.

I have never been the least bit tempted to take statin drugs since my cholesterol isn’t high. But, I’ll be honest with you: even if it were high, I still wouldn’t take them.  The risk of taking them is much greater than any possible benefit.



This is not an article about race relations. I am talking about the power of black foods.  People often think about eating plants of various colors, but these usually include only green, red, yellow, and orange. There is also blue, but there aren’t too many blue foods, mainly blueberries and blue grapes. There is also blue corn, but we usually only see that as blue corn chips.

But what about black? You rarely hear about people striving to eat black foods. Is it because black is associated with death?

Well, get that idea out of your head. Black foods are nutritionally loaded, and they deserve a place on the table. Black foods tend to be very high in antioxidants, polyphenols, flavonoids, and they are sky-high in anthocyanidins- higher than blueberries. Let’s consider some of the leading black foods.

Blackberries are related to raspberries, and they grow wild in many parts of the United States, including where I live in Central Texas. Nutritionally, blackberries are as valuable as any other berries. A recent study found that radiation-induced brain damage in rats could be prevented by feeding them blackberries.  They were also found to prevent age-related brain degeneration.  What’s amazing is that blackberries have a very short season in the wild, but commercially, they’re available all year, and mainly from Mexico. And  I observe that they tend to be the least expensive berry the year round. It may be because there is a little bit of grit involved, which makes them less popular, but that’s no big deal.  You get used to it fast. I am eating blackberries right now. I buy them at Costco, and the price and the quality have been excellent. Blackberries may  be the key to yearround berry-eating.

Black grapes are as high in resveratrol and other polyphenols as the more popular red grapes. In fact, there is a variety called Black Beauty which is the highest in resveratrol of all grapes. Black grapes are thicker skinned, so there’s a lot of fiber involved. But perhaps because they are thick-skinned, they keep very well and last a long time. I have seen them both seeded and seedless.  You really should try them.  With the seeded ones, you can either spit out the seeds or chew them up and swallow them- it’s up to you.  Black grapes are also high in quercetin.

Black beans are the most popular bean in Austin, Texas, where I live.  It’s part of the culture here.  In not just the ever-popular Tex-Mex restaurants, but even in the regular cafes and family restaurants, a side of black beans is considered standard fare.  Black beans take to spices very well, particularly cumin.  And they tend to form a rich, tasty broth.  Black bean soup is teeming with flavor and very satisfying.  Nutritionally, black beans are loaded with antioxidants and bioflavonoids. I don’t think I ever had black beans before I moved to Texas, but I sure like them now.

Black rice is something that I have not yet had. I am not referring to wild rice, which can be black. Wild rice is a totally different plant from Asian rice, and it’s good too, although it’s somewhat woody. That may be why people tend to dilute it with regular rice. But, there is also a black Asian rice, which unlike regular rice, is usually eaten unhulled.  In other words, they don’t usually refine it as they do regular rice. And nutritionally, black rice is reportedly much more superior.  Obviously, black rice is not commonly available. Perhaps Asian grocery stores have it. And what about Whole Foods?

Black lentils I have tried, and they are available at Whole Foods.  They are very different from the regular green/brown lentils. They’re much smaller and, in appearance, they almost seem more like a grain than a legume.  But, they cook quickly, and they’re less fibrous,  and like the red lentils, they tend to disintegrate more in cooking. And the flavor is very different although hard to describe.  I know that they are very high in minerals, including zinc and iron, and the nice thing is that they are lower in phytic acid than most legumes.

Black potatoes are making a comeback. These are an heirloom variety, from Peru where all potatoes originated, and they are much more nutritious than the white-fleshed potato. The skins may actually be black, but the flesh is more like purple. But, they are very nice to eat and more distinctively flavored than russets. The russet potato is actually an artificial thing. It’s a hybrid developed by Luther Burbank who wanted this pure, perfect, white-fleshed potato. But, he did not do the world a favor because he reduced the nutritional value. I always prefer to buy potatoes with colored flesh, usually the yellow, since they’re widely available.  The black potatoes are more expensive, but they’re nice for a change.

Black corn I don’t see offered commercially, but I do see the seeds offered for planting. It is an ancient Native American variety that was cultivated by the Lakota Indians.  I may try planting it one year.

I’m sure there are other black foods, but these give you a start. Definitely add black to your list of food colors. It’s a matter of changing your consciousness.  Black is good.

I just finished reading Empire of the Summer Moon by S C Gwynne, and it is a fabulous read.  It’s the true story of the Comanche Indian tribe in Texas in their struggles against the whites.  Of course, it was a lost cause, and ultimately, they had to submit, and they did. But, for centuries, they put up a heck of a fight. It was said that the march of the Spaniards through Texas, with their missions and their cattle empire, only went as far north as San Antonio, and then it stopped. And it stopped because of the Comanches.

The Comancheria, as their homeland was called by whites, reached as far south as the Texas Hill Country whch lies  just north and west of San Antonio. And it came very close to the city of Austin, where I live. And it covered a huge expanse that went clear across West Texas and into New Mexico, and it delved into Oklahoma and southern Colorado.  But, the heart of it, the very center of it, was the Palo Duro Canyon, which is close to present-day Amarillo in the Texas Panhandle. I didn’t know it until recently, but the Palo Duro Canyon is the second biggest canyon in the United States, after the Grand Canyon.

The Comanches were successful warriors against both whites and other Indians, and they were feared by both. Their success stemmed partly from their culture because they were a warrior culture.  But it also arose from their mastery of horsemanship. They were said to be the best horsemen in the world, and they fought mounted. And in the beginning, the whites weren’t doing that, and it gave the Comanches a huge advantage.

But, I mainly want to talk about their diet. Keep in mind that they were truly a Stone-Age people.  And they were hunter/gatherers. They had no agriculture. And they were nomadic. They stayed put an average of just 3 weeks; then they packed up and relocated, with all their wives, children, horses, and belongings. It was a rough life.

But, they lived primarily on buffalo. That was their main food, their ancestral food, and their preferred food.  They sometimes hunted other game, and if they were really desperate, they would kill one of their horses and eat it. But, they didn’t like doing that and they didn’t particularly like the taste of horse meat.  That was considered a last resort.

So, they ate a lot of buffalo. They ate it fresh, and they also ate it dried. The men killed the buffalo and dragged it to their camp. And the women processed the buffalo, and that was just about as hard a job. Maybe harder.  And of course, they used every part of the buffalo. The skin became clothing and also shelter, as their tepees were made of the hides. They used the bones to make various tools and weapons.  And the fat was used in different ways, including as insulation. There was very little waste.

And the ways in which they consumed buffalo included practices which most of us would consider gross. For instance, if they killed a lactating female, they would squeeze the milk out of her udders, as much as they could. And then, they would mix it with her fresh blood and drink that combination of blood and milk as a sort of health tonic. Hey, it was a raw food, wasn’t it? You can’t say it wasn’t nutritionally potent.

But, it got worse. They would cut out the gall bladder and drink the bile. Yuck! And if they killed a calf that had been nursing, they would collect the partially digested milk from its stomach and eat it like cheese.  Again, yuck!

They did consume some plant food. It was mentioned that they gathered and ate berries in season, which I presume was the Spring. We still have wild blackberries in Texas, and they’re not hard to find, although the season is short. And it was also mentioned that they ate nuts, and I’m sure that included pecans because they are the most abundant and widely distributed nut here. There are also some black walnuts, but they are much more scarce. And even the pecans, although they’re diffuse, they are not ubiquitous. You can go for miles and miles without seeing any. They’re not common the way oaks and cedars are common. And it was also said that they collected “roots and bulbs” to eat. But, they didn’t specify which ones, and my impression was that it formed only a small and irregular part of their diet. They lived mainly, and at times exclusively, on meat.

You have to wonder how that came about.  If it is true, as taught, that all Native Americans are descendants of Siberians who crossed the frozen Bering Strait, on foot, during the last Ice Age, then they had to be from a line of confirmed meat-eaters because you couldn’t survive in such a harsh, frozen place without eating meat.  There would have been no plant food for them to eat for most of the year.

But, as they moved south to milder climes, there was probably the opportunity to eat more plant food, since it was more abundant. But by then, the culture had been oriented to a high-meat diet, and it wasn’t going to change.  Culture and tradition, more than anything else, including climate, determine what people eat.

So, the Comanche were big meat eaters, and in some ways, it seemed to serve them well.  It didn’t make them fat.  And they were physically strong, and sometimes prodigiously strong. The book centered around the life of the last Comanche chief, whose name was Quanah. What a life he led. I don’t know how Hollywood missed making a movie about him. His mother was a white woman, Cynthia Ann Parker, who had been kidnapped by the Comanches at the age of 9. She was adopted by a childless Comanche woman and fully integrated into the tribe. She learned their language and soon forgot English. She learned all the ways of the Comanches, and she eventually became the wife of the Comanche chief, Peta Nocona.  Ultimately, Peta died at the Battle of Pease River, and she was recaptured by the whites and returned to her family in East Texas. But, she was miserable there and only lived a few years. Some say she starved herself to death.

But, her teenage son Quanah, who survived the Battle of Pease River and escaped, went on to become the last and greatest chief of the Comanches. He led them in war, and he also led them in peace when  he realized in the late 1870s, that further resistance was futile. He lived well into the 20th century and became a leader and spokesman for Indians in polite white society. He went on to mix and mingle with the high and mighty, including Presidents, such as Teddy Roosevelt.  Just think: earlier in his life he was a mighty warrior, scalping his white enemies and later, he was socializing with presidents.

But, I want to tell you about his feat of strength. During the Battle of Adobe Walls, he saw a fallen comrade who was still alive. So, he rode toward him and with one hand he lifted this fallen warrior and swept him up and onto the back of his horse- WITH ONE HAND! Everyone was amazed, including the whites. Think about the leverage that was working against him. And he did it with one hand.

So, the Comanche were plenty strong from their steady diet of grass-fed, organic buffalo meat.  But, they also suffered from it. They suffered from constipation, as you can imagine, and they took various herbs as laxatives.  They suffered from dental caries, and they figured out a way of packing carious teeth with dried mushrooms to fill the holes.  But the worst thing was the epidemics of acute disease. They died in droves from exposure to small pox, diphtheria, dysentery of various causes, and worst of all, cholera.  It was said that more Comanches died from the white man’s diseases than from the white man’s bullets.

A lot has been said about the idea that the Indians were so vulnerable because they had never been exposed to these diseases before, and so they had no natural resistance.  But, I have to wonder how much of their vulnerability resulted from simple malnutrition. Today, we know about the important role that Vitamin C plays in immunity. Where were they getting Vitamin C? From a few berries eaten in the Spring? That wouldn’t have sustained them through the year. Carotenoids also play a crucial role in immunity, and that had to be lacking in their meat-centered diet.  And of course, there were many other plant-based nutrients that they would have lacked as well.  But, what did they know about these things? Nothing.

Ultimately, the Comanches were settled on a reservation in Oklahoma.  And their diet switched from buffalo to beef. In fact, Chief Quanah became a big cattle rancher himself.  It doesn’t sound like he or any of them ever learned about the importance of plant food.  Quanah died of an undisclosed illness at the age of 66 in 1911.  Of course, for that particular time, it was considered a ripe old age. But, what a life he lived, and what a life they lived: a Stone Age people to within 20 years of the 20th century.  Amazing.

A new study out of the Netherlands found that EFAs from seafood were associated with lower risk of heart disease, improved immune function, health advantages in preterm infants, and even a lower risk of suicide. The findings were summarized in the December 2011 PUFA Newsletter for Health Professionals and the Fats of Life newsletter for consumers.

The study reported that healthy adults with the highest consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids from fish had higher scores for two indicators of heart health - endothelial function (the ability of tiny blood arteries to respond and dilate in response to increased circulatory demand) and less inflammation - compared with those who did not eat fish.

Other research reported on the positive effects of DHA from fish on cognitive and brain cell function in animals with traumatic brain injury.

Then there was also this study: very low DHA levels in active-duty U.S. military personnel were associated with a 62 percent higher risk of suicide.

"In the brain study, findings suggest that dietary DHA counteracted many of the harmful effects of brain injury on learning, neuronal cell signaling, membrane integrity, synaptic function and oxidative stress," said Editor Joyce Nettleton, D.Sc. "The other study documented that low DHA status in military staff may contribute to diminished mental health and a higher risk of suicide."

Other research found positive connections between DHA levels in preterm infants and improved retinal health as well as reduced risk of lung disease and hay fever. One study monitored preterm infants given fish or soybean oil after birth for the development of retinal disease. Fewer of those fed fish oil needed laser treatment to correct their retinal disorder compared with those given soybean oil, which does not contain DHA. Another study reported that male preterm infants fed higher DHA than in standard formula were less likely to develop lung disease and hay fever compared with infants receiving the standard amount.

"These observations suggest that treatment of preterm infants with higher levels of DHA immediately after delivery may have beneficial effects on lung function and respiration, particularly in males," Nettleton noted. "The study supports the provision of DHA and other seafood omega-3s to preterm infants."

I take our ProOmega Fish Oil softgels, which are extremely pure.

ProOmega is made by Nordic Naturals, a Norwegian company that harvests small fish and anchovies from way high up in the Arctic.  They extract, examine, filter, and guarantee the purity of the oil down to one part per trillion! There may be other fish oils that are just as good, but I guarantee you that there are none better.

As far as eating fish, it is not something that I have any great interest in doing. I really don’t have a taste for it.  I might have it once or twice a year, but that’s about it. But if you happen to like it, then have it more often. Just make sure you get a really good fish, such as the Wild Pacific Salmon. However, even with that, I still think that unrefined plant foods should comprise the bulk of what you eat. High-protein diets, even when fish-based, are not a good idea.

A question often arises about the potential to rely on the alpha-linolenic acid from plants, such as flax seeds, as a substitute for the DHA and EPA of fish. That I would not rely on, and particularly because I am a man. For some reason, men, and particularly older men (which includes me) have practically zero ability to convert ALA to EPA and DHA. There are now algae supplements that contain DHA in a low dosage. For those who are adamant about avoiding the use of a fish product, that is what they should use. But, I can tell you that the Nordic Naturals fish oil that I take isn’t even fishy. It’s very pleasant to take.

But, one way or another, cover your need for long-chain essential fatty acids. Although they were not identified until the 1970s, they are crucial to your health and to everyone’s health.


I have had a keen interest in the JFK assassination for a long time, and from responses I have received from other articles I have written about it,  I know that many of you share my interest. And one reader who responded to a previous article of mine pointed out something in the famous Altgens photo of the assassination that is truly mind-boggling. There is now visible proof that Lee Harvey Oswald was completely innocent of killing President Kennedy. 


Instead of posting it here, I am just going to give you the link to the site on which it was published: Lew Rockwell is a former Congressional aid  and campaign manager of Congressman Ron Paul, and Lew is presently the head of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute at Auburn University in Alabama.  His website is the most widely read libertarian website in the world, and it has also been listed as one of the most heavily-trafficked alternative news sites in the world.  Here is the link to my article on Lew's site:


There is also a video version which you can watch on youtube. I'll give you the link. You will be doing me a favor if you watch it.


For the record, I want you to know that I am not depressed; I am not suicidal; I am a very safe driver; I engage in no risky activities; and I have no personal enemies. So, if anything happens to me, if I disappear or get killed, you know what it means.

Recently, Dr. Joseph Mercola had yet another article about the danger and harmfulness of carbohydrates, and this time, he focused on the advice of another doctor, who mostly agrees with him that carbs are bad, but who also thinks that there are some "safe starches." For instance, rice and yams he regards as safe. But of course, that is only in small amounts, and like Dr. Mercola, he mostly wants people to eat animal foods and non-starchy vegetables. However, Dr. Mercola's purpose was to criticize that doctor and to question the whole idea that there are any "safe starches."
These doctors seem to think that anything that puts sugar into the blood is bad, and not just bad, but more like the worst thing one can possibly do. A doctor that Dr. Mercola favors most highly is Dr. Ron Rosedale who claims that there is no need for dietary carbohydrate at all, that the body can make all the glucose it needs from protein, and that's the best way to get it. He really thinks it's best not to consume any carbohydrate. It is the most extreme carbo-phobia I have ever come across.
But, I won't expound further about their ideas, not when I'm paying the freight. You can look them up online if you want to. I'm here to refute them and to point out the things that they are not saying. A lie by omission is just as big as an outright lie.
Of course, it is true that when you eat a food that is sweet or starchy that it adds sugar to the blood. But, your body doesn't just look the other way when that happens; it deals with it. Your body has a steady-state, an equilibrium for blood sugar, just as it has an equilibrium for potassium, sodium, and many other things. Piling sugar into the blood is definitely a disturbance of homeostasis, and your body responds to it. But, "disturbance" may be too strong a word because we are talking about a very normal, natural, everyday happening.
As soon as sugar starts entering your blood, your body starts sending it to the liver, where much of it is stored as glycogen. To give you an idea how much can be stored, the weight of the liver can rise by about 10% from a single meal due to glycogen storage. And if you are healthy and physically-fit, the process is very efficient. That stored glycogen becomes a steady source of glucose for the body between meals as your liver slowly releases it into the bloodstream to maintain a constant level of blood glucose. Think of it like a thermostat.
The muscles also store glycogen, but they are selfish about it. They store it only for their own use and not to share with the rest of the body. Glycogen is also stored in lesser amounts by the red blood cells, white blood cells, the kidneys, and certain brain cells called glial cells. So, this is a big deal. The body runs on sugar, and it stores it as glycogen so that meal-related fluctuations are minimized.     
How efficient is the process? It depends on how healthy you are. If your liver is healthy, it can store a lot of sugar and quickly. But, if it's diseased, say with fatty degeneration, then then the process is impaired. But that would not be the fault of carbohydrates. Or, if it's knarly and fibrotic from cirrhosis, glycogen synthesis and storage will also be impaired, but again, that would not be the fault of carbohydrates. And regarding the ability of muscles to make and store glycogen, it depends on how large the muscles are and how fit they are. The larger the muscle is, the more glycogen it stores. That is not to say that you need muscles as large as Arnold Schwartzenegger's. But, reasonably well-developed muscles are definitely a plus when it comes to sugar storage. And the more fit you are, the more accustomed you are to physical exertion, the more avidly your muscles store that glycogen. Therefore, if you have a healthy liver and strong, well-developed muscles, your tolerance for carbohydrates should be very substantial. You should be able to eat a lot of carbohydrate with only a modest and temporary rise in blood glucose.  
So, the question becomes: does a diet based on fat and protein, with practically no carbohydrates, result in healthier blood sugar levels than a diet high in unrefined carbs? It might seem like a no brainer that a low-carb or no-carb diet would be better in that respect, but don't be so sure. Dr. Mercola provided no clinical data about it, only fearmongering. And what about Dr. Kempner at the Rice House at Duke University? For decades, he put diabetics on a diet of rice and fruit to correct their diabetic condition, and he often got them off medication. How did that happen? Well, they dropped so much weight, and I mean fat-weight, that their insulin resistance went away, and so did their diabetes.   
So, besides having a healthy liver and fit muscles, the other thing that fosters tight blood sugar control is leanness. Having low body fat is necessary to keep insulin sensitivity sharp. When there is lots of body fat, then insulin resistance sets in, which means that glucose can't enter liver and muscle cells to be stored as glycogen. It's like the body is so overloaded with the fuel known as fat that it resists havng the fuel known as glycogen stored. So, there has to be leanness for the body to sanction the whole process. Diets high in unrefined carbs, meaning whole natural starches and intact whole fruits, support and encourage leanness. And that's why high-carb diets can actually help to improve blood sugar control.  
But, let's get back to the question of which diet actually works better in terms of glucose tolerance. First note that in order to make the comparison fairly, you would have to compare diets that were calorically equal. Obviously, if you had a low-carb meal that consisted of leafy green salad, cooked non-starchy vegetables, and a very small amount of meat or fish, it would likely raise the blood sugar a lot less than eating a whole pot-ful of beans and rice. The best approach would be to serve the same amount of salad and non-starchy vegetable to both parties, and then feed one the animal food and the other the equivalent in calories in, say, beans and rice. Who would win that contest? I think the plant fare would win, and I can tell you that attempts to remove carbohydrate from the diets of diabetics and just serve them protein and fat to control blood sugar have FAILED MISERABLY. Why? First, realize that just as the body can easily store glucose as glycogen, thereby removing it from the blood, the body can also very easily convert amino acids and the glycerol portion of fat into glucose, thereby adding sugar to the blood. So, if there are excess calories from protein and fat coming in, those excess calories can easily be converted into sugar. That process is known as gluconeogenesis.
And, you can't just look at the immediate effect on blood sugar; you have to look at the long term effects. It is widely known that high-protein/high fat/low carb diets do not support physical and athletic activity very well. The number of elite athletes who avoid carbohydrates, to the extent that Dr. Mercola and Dr. Rosedale recommend, is virtually zero. I just finished reading the biography of Lance Armstrong, winner of 7 Tour de France bicycle races, and I learned that before and during races, he loaded up on carbs: pasta, potatoes, rice, etc. Name me one top-tier elite endurance athlete who lives on salad and meat? You can't. There aren't any. That's because the body runs on carbs.
So, what I am getting at is that it's not just the food you are putting in- it's the activity you are putting out. And diets high in unrefined carbs support that output VERY WELL.
Keep in mind that I advocate including starches in the diet but not exclusively. I do not recommend eating nothing but starches and fruits and vegetables, as per McDougall or Esselstyn. Healthy fats are just as good for you as healthy starches, and I am for moderation with both. To demonize carbs or fats is extreme, and I mean really bizarre. The only thing more bizarre would be to demonize air or water. But, even though I consider Dr. Esselstyn's program extreme, it pays to look at him. I mean look at him physically. I have no doubt that he practices what he preaches. I'm sure he lives on nothing but starches, fruits, and vegetables. Well, the starches and the fruits are loaded with carbs, and even many of the vegetables he eats are, because I'm sure he eats potatoes, yams, corn, butternut squash, etc. And the result is: he is rail thin! Lean as a bone! But, what about what Dr. Mercola says about all the carbohydrate provoking all the insulin, and the high insulin levels making you fat, and that it happens even when the carbohydrates are unrefined? It isn't so. He made it up. 
So, what we are talking about is the paranoia of carbophobia, and the irony is that if Dr. Mercola were to get a woman pregnant, and if she were to give birth, and if he were to feed her his diet, her mammary glands would produce a high-sugar milk for that baby regardless- whether he liked it or not. Human breast milk is the sweetest milk on the planet- and by far. And even if he withheld carbs completely from her diet, her body would manufacture that lactose from scratch- if it had to- in order to provide the baby with what it needs and wants, which is: carbohydrates. Of course, for us adults, watching and controlling the total caloric intake is a very good idea. And when you restrict calories- to any extent- it will definitely reduce the strain on the whole system. But, the benefit comes from fewer calories, that is, less food. And, I am sure that most of us, including myself, could benefit from eating less food. But, let's concentrate on that and stop demonizing carbohydrates in particular. It's stupid. You know very well that you are not going to go the rest of your life without eating apples, bananas, yams, etc. So, why go down that road at all? It's just a form of extremism and paranoia. Find a good balance of protein, fats, and carbs in your diet; go for quality in all the foods that you eat; keep an eye on your total caloric intake, and cut out every single junk food; and also stay as physically active as possible. Also, try to avoid snacking. Eat your meals and "fast" in-between meals. That's the sensible, sane way to optimize your blood sugar.   

I am taking the liberty of posting the newsletter of another doctor, Dr. Uffe Ravnskov,  of Sweden, whom I am happy to say is an acquaintance of mine, although I have never met him in person.  Dr. Ravnskov is probably the foremost and most highly respected cholesterol skeptic in the world today.

He shows in the article that the most recent testing of high-dose cholesterol-lowering statin drugs was a complete failure.  And he also reveals the conflicts of interest that existed.  I find it appalling.

Parts of it are very technical, but you can gloss over the technical parts and still grasp what he is saying.

It is a long article, so I will just turn it over to Dr. Ravnskov- with my thanks.


November 2011 Newsletter of Dr. Uffe Ravnskov


The New England Journal of Medicine recently published the results of the SATURN trial. It was designed to study the effect of atorvastatin (Lipitor) vs. rosuvastatin (Crestor) on the volume of atheroma in a coronary artery. It was hoped that the volume would be reduced, demonstrating that high dose statins can decrease the burden of atherosclerosis.

Initially 1578 patients were selected for the trial, but after a run-in period of 2 weeks where they were treated with half-maximal doses of either atorvastatin or rosuvastatin, 193 patients were excluded. The rest were treated either with 80 mg atorvastatin or 40 mg rosuvastatin. After 2 years of treatment a further 346 patients had disappeared.

Before and after the trial the patients underwent intravascular ultrasonography to measure the lumen diameter and the total diameter of a coronary artery. Subtracting the lumen area from the total area of the artery is thought to reflect the total atheroma volume, (represented as the percentage atheroma volume). The primary endpoint was to measure the reduction in percent atheroma volume

After the treatment the lumen had increased on average by 0.99 % in the atorvastatin group, and by 1.22 % in the rosuvastatin group, and the per cent atheroma volume (eg. the area of the arterial wall) had decreased by 1.1 % and 1.3 % respectively.

There was also a secondary end-point. However, I must admit that I did not understand what it meant, and if anyone does, please explain it to me. Here is what the authors wrote:

“A secondary efficacy end point, normalized total atheroma volume (TAV), was calculated as follows:

TAVnormalized = ? (EEMarea ? lumenarea) x median no. of

no. of images in pullback images in cohort

For TAV, the summation of the EEM area minus the lumen area is performed first. This value is divided by the number of images in the pullback and then multiplied by the median number of images in the cohort. The average plaque area in the pullback was multiplied by the median number of images analyzed in the entire cohort to compensate for differences in segment length between subjects. The efficacy end point of change in normalized TAV was calculated as the TAV at 104 weeks minus the TAV at baseline. Regression was defined as a decrease in PAV or TAV from baseline.”

Anyway, the critical measure was the difference between the inner and outer area of the artery. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that the figure from this calculation reflects atheroma volume. For example, vascular dilation will increase the inner diameter, without having any effect on the thickness of the arterial wall. But this would result in an apparent decrease in atheroma volume. To further understand what I mean, read the following section from my book Fat and Cholesterol are GOOD for You!

The anguish of angiography

Let us still have in mind, that a change of the coronary diameter is nothing but a surrogate outcome. It is assumed that a widening of a coronary vessel on an X-ray means less atherosclerosis and thus a better chance to avoid a heart attack, but this is only an assumption.

Artery walls are surrounded by smooth muscle cells. When such cells contract, the artery narrows. When they relax, it widens. Various factors may stimulate the smooth muscle cells of the corona­ry arteries. Most important, mental stress, anxiety, exposure to cold, and even a sustained handgrip may lead to contrac­tion. The latter effect was studied six years earlier by Dr. Greg Brown, the same Dr. Brown who led the angiogra­phic trial mentioned above (1). He found that a handgrip sustained for a few minutes was followed by a 35 per cent decrease of the vessel diameter.

Consider that the changes seen in the trials were only a few per cent on average. What do you think you would do yourself if somebody were to put a long catheter all the way from your groin up to your heart and into your coronary vessels? If you are not a stuntman or an astronaut I think that you probably would have gripped the nurse's hand or something else very tightly.

Also, drugs which relax the coronary vessels, and which are used by almost all coronary patients, may have disturbed the study. In the trial Dr. Brown and his coworkers were aware of that problem. The use of such drugs was "dupli­cated as exactly as possible." This can't have been too easy be­cause the level of any drug in the blood depends on a large number of factors, which are difficult to standar­dize. And Dr. Brown and his colleagues didn't write anything about duplica­ting possible handgrips or anxious feelings because such duplica­tion is, of course, impos­sible. So, any factor which may influence the state of the smooth muscle cells in the coronary vessels may have influenced the vessel diameter much more than the possible appearance or disap­pearance of a tiny amount of cholesterol.

There are more uncertainties. Dr. Seymor Glagov and his colleagues from University of Chicago studied the hearts of 136 deceased individuals and found that when vessels become sclerotic, they widen to compensate for the narrowing brought about by the deposition of choleste­rol in their walls. In fact, this widening overcompensates for the deposition until the cholesterol deposits occupy about 40 per cent of the area beneath the muscle wall. Only thereafter does the vessel become steadily narrower. In other words, an increase of vessel diameter may be due to disap­pearance of cholesterol in a highly sclerotic vessel, but also to a compen­satory widening during the first stages of cholesterol deposition. How could the trial directors know whether the increase of vessel diameter was due to a disappearance of deposited cholesterol, or to a compensatory widening due to an appearance of deposited cholesterol or due to less anxiety at the second angiography?

In short, the degree of arterial dilation is a massive and uncontrolled variable in the SATURN study. This problem could have been solved if the investigators had included a placebo group (a group of patients who unknowingly received an ineffective pill). However, “It was not considered ethically possible to measure disease progression in placebo-treated patients”, as they wrote.

There were other major problems with this study. The issue of drug related adverse events is extremely important. This was virtually dismissed within the paper. “Both agents had acceptable side-effect profiles”.

Can this be true. A more detailed review of adverse events reveals that “new proteinuria”, defined as an excretion of more than twice the amount of protein in the urine during the follow-up, in 1.7 and 3.8 %, respectively in the two groups. An increase in proteinuria is a measure of progressive damage to the kidneys. This trial only lasted two years, so we don´t know what would have happened in the longer term.

Equally it was stated that less than two per cent had laboratory signs of liver damage. However, liver damage was only recorded if the laboratory signs were at least three times higher than the upper limit of the normal range. And whilst less than two per cent had muscular damage, this was only reported if the laboratory signs were at least five times higher than the upper limit of the normal value. What do you think will happen with the liver and muscles of patients whose laboratory signs were “only” twice or four times higher, respectively?

In the end a further 22 % of the patients had disappeared. The reasons were said to be preference of patient (7.7% and 7.8 %), adverse effects (7% and 6.5 %), loss to follow-up (1.3% and 2.9 %) and noncompliance (2.3% and 1.9 %). What they meant with “preference of patient” I don´t know, but I am confident that “non-compliance” and perhaps also “loss to follow-up” represent those who could not tolerate the medication. Thus, whilst the authors claimed that ‘both agents had acceptable side effect profiles,’ the reality is that 12% could not tolerate these agents at the start of the study, and another 23 % dropped out – most likely to due to intolerable adverse events.

My summary of the SATURN study would be that it used a primary end point that has never been properly validated, and can be affected by a host of confounding variables e.g. stress . This variability could only have been controlled for by including a placebo arm, which was not done. Therefore, the result is rendered meaningless.

More importantly, it would appear that the burden of adverse events from using high doses of statin drugs is unacceptably high. It is likely that more than a third of patients will be unable to tolerate 80 mg Atrovastatin, or 40 mg of Simvastatin. All of this suffering in order to have an uncertain effect on a surrogate end-point, which may or may not mean anything.

Finally, I should mention that the study was supported by AstraZeneca, and most of the results were in favour of their drug rosuvastatin, although most of the differences were not statistically significant. I shall leave you with a list of the authors´ conflicts of interest:

Dr. Nichollsreports receiving consulting fees from Roche, Esperion, Merck, Omthera, Sanofi-Aventis, and Boehringer Ingelheim, serving as an unpaid consultant for Abbott, Pfizer, LipoScience, Novo Nordisk, AtheroNova, and CSL Behring, receiving grant support from Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Anthera, LipoScience, Roche, and Resverlogix and lecture fees from AstraZeneca and Roche; Dr. Ballantyne, receiving grant support from Abbott, Astra-Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Kowa, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Synthelabo, and Takeda, consulting fees and honoraria from Abbott, Adnexus, Amarin, Amylin, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Idera, Kowa, Merck, Novartis, Omthera, Resverlogix, Roche, Sanofi-Synthelabo, and Takeda and lecture fees from Abbott, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Merck; Dr. Barter, holding an advisory board position for AstraZeneca, Merck, Roche, CSL Behring, and Pfizer, receiving grant support from Merck, consulting fees from CSL Behring, and lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Kowa, Merck, Pfizer, and Roche; Dr. Chapman, receiving grant support from Merck and Kowa, consulting fees from Merck and Pfizer, and lectures fees from Merck and Kowa; Dr. Erbel, receiving grant support from the Heinz Nixdorf Foundation and the German Research Foundation and support for travel, accommodations, or meeting expenses from Biotronik, Sanofi, and Novartis; Dr. Libby, serving as an unpaid consultant for Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, Amgen, and Roche, serving in unpaid leadership roles for clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Pronova, and Sigma Tau, and having previously received royalties from Roche for the patent on CD40L in cardiovascular risk stratification; Dr. Raichlen, being an employee of and owning stock in AstraZeneca; and Dr. Nissen, receiving consulting fees from Eli Lilly, grant funding from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Karo Bio, Novo Nordisk, Takeda, Resverlogix, and Omthera, and support for travel, accommodations, or meeting expenses from Novo Nordisk, Takeda, Karo Bio, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, and Amgen. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.


It is a sad fact that this report has been accepted for publication in The New England Journal of Medicine considered the leading medical journal in the world Either the editors and referees did not do their jobs, are not qualified for their tasks, or they have been blinded by Mammon.

There are more miserable news. Recently an expert panel appointed by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute and endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics has published new guidelines according to which every child in the United States should be tested for high cholesterol between ages nine and 11 so steps can be taken to prevent heart disease later on.

Such crazy thoughts have been aired several times in the past. In a letter to The Lancet (published on January 1, 2000; a good start of the new millennium). I tried to explain why this is a most dangerous idea, but obviously the letter made no impact.

How can an expert panel produce such malicious recommendations, you may ask. Because they are paid by the industry, of course. Read for instance Larry Hustens report or the one from the non-profit organisation Integrity in Science


More Articles...