Cholesterol Hoax
Is cholesterol a scapegoat?

An Excerpt from Beyond The Zone
by Brian Peskin

" ... Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it." [emphasis added] Richard Feynman – Nobel Prize-winner.

"... because the students had been taught how to learn by rote from books and lectures, without any understanding.... The students had learned a list of facts, but had no idea what the facts really meant, and no understanding how...." [emphasis added] Richard Feynman.

These are principles that all researchers should follow. Too many researchers neglect to mention all of the evidence in conflict with their "pet" theory. This analysis by Professor Feynman, a Nobel Prize-winner in physics, helps to explain why cholesterol is broadly misunderstood by so many in the nutritional communities. Professor Feynman would have been delighted to read my STAT-SMART chapter giving you the tools so you can evaluate a study’s reported conclusions for yourself.

"Technology Follies" in the Journal of the American Medical Association (269:3030; 1993) states, "Much, if not most, of the contemporary medical practices still lack scientific foundation." This helps explain the "Great Cholesterol Hoax."

Next are some examples of the many studies about cholesterol, diet, and heart disease:

• St. Mary’s Hospital Trial (1965)

• London Research Committee Trial (1965)

• Norwegian Trial (1966)

• Anti-Coronary Club Trial (1965)

• London Medical Research Council Trial (1968)

• National Diet Heart Study (1968)

• Finnish Mental Hospital Trial (1968)

• Los Angeles Veterans’ Trial (1968)

• Framingham Study (1970)

• Ireland-Boston Heart Study (1970)

• St. Vincent’s Hospital Trial (1973)

• Diet and Coronary Heart Disease Study in England (1974)

• Edinburgh-Stockholm Study (1975)

• Minnesota Study (1975)

• UCLA Study (1975)

• Honolulu-Japanese Study (1975)

• How many more studies do we need?

All of these consistently establish that: No vegetable oil or plant product has any naturally occurring cholesterol, cholesterol comes only from animals.

Don’t be fooled by special claims and labels.

The margarine companies must really love it when the media trumpets the "no-cholesterol" aspect of their product. All sorts of products have "no-cholesterol" plastered all over their packaging. Actually, since cholesterol comes only from animal sources, any plant-based product will be cholesterol-free!

Some people think it’s important, yet, it has been known for more than 30 years that dietary cholesterol doesn’t significantly influence the body’s blood cholesterol. Your own body churns out 3,000-4,000 milligrams of cholesterol each day, no matter how much or how little cholesterol you eat. So, should we really care about low-cholesterol foods? Not from a Life-Systems Engineering view.

For many years, margarine’s "no-cholesterol" label has distracted us from the issue of its harm. The vegetable oils in margarine are chemically processed and partially hydrogenated. This process destroys many EFAs that could still be present. Also, how healthy are the various chemicals and additives in margarine?

You can easily prove to yourself that dietary cholesterol has minimal influence on blood cholesterol levels once EFA-deficiency is corrected. Ask your physician about obtaining a blood cholesterol and triglyceride (blood fats) test. Afterwards, eat more of the higher cholesterol-containing foods while eating basic essence. Then get another test, three months later. The laboratory test is relatively inexpensive. There probably won’t be a significant difference, or the HDL may increase (considered "good"). The triglycerides will probably decrease, too (also considered good).

Most of the popular nutritional buzz words focus almost exclusively on how foods affect us in one specific area. While this focus can be useful, we should be aware of how foods affect us in an overall Life-Systems fashion. Unfortunately, the weight of today’s public and professional attention is targeted toward cholesterol reduction.

There is no finer example of the application of incomplete understanding than the intensity of monitoring dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol levels almost to the exclusion of anything else.

Fat in our food (which supposedly leads to excess cholesterol in our blood) often gets a bad rap. Yet, how is the Inuit (Eskimo) "paradox" explained? The Inuit live on an extremely high-fat, high-protein diet. They may have higher blood cholesterol levels, too. Yet virtually no atherosclerosis (obstructive clogging) is found. Their arteries remain free of cholesterol buildup (plaque). Can this be explained by a genetic difference? While it is possible, there is a more plausible explanation.

Innuits eat much more raw and unprocessed meat than we do. Their food comes from the wild. Guess what they get in that wild meat and fish – unprocessed EFAs. They also get no chemicals, hormones, steroids, or other harmful food additives. Time-after-time we see this pattern when looking at a healthier culture or race. Remember the healthy, grease- and pork-eating Okinawans? Healthy EFAs are a common element with each of those cultures, and they have no significant heart-related problems. Could these cultures’ exceptional health be based simply on their lack of food processing?

A Life-Systems Engineering analysis strongly suggests that it is an EFA-deficiency that results in cholesterol-related problems.

It is not caused by eating too much natural fat.

In recent years, cholesterol has often been blamed for heart attacks and strokes. Heart attacks are tragic events, and I am also deeply saddened every time I hear about another person who has a stroke. Although heart attacks and strokes are two different things, they are both related to problems with blood circulation.

Review heart and circulatory health data and you find that at least 60% of people who suffer heart attacks do not have elevated cholesterol levels.

Here, once again, is a gross inconsistency. Blaming cholesterol levels as the cause of the problem, when there is no correlation and no evidence of cause-and-effect relationship is an example of poor science. Looking at this statistic and then even considering there might be a cause-and-effect relationship doesn’t make any sense. We can only logically state that there are almost as many heart attacks in people with elevated cholesterol levels as there are with lower cholesterol levels. We have to conclude that elevated cholesterol levels cannot be the cause of heart attacks.

We will find, time-and-time-again, that properly conducted studies about cholesterol don’t show cholesterol to be the direct cause of any problems. The problem is in how the companies who pay for these studies present the findings.

Let’s look at what was said in the Condensed Chemical Dictionary over 20 years ago. This is the "bible" of scientific chemistry. They had no political agenda or money to be made by promoting any specific viewpoint.

• Under "cholesterol": Dr. W. Stanley Hartroft is quoted, "It still has not been shown that lowering the cholesterol in the blood by this amount [20%] will have any protective effect for the heart and vessels against the development of atheroma and the onset of serious complications."

• Under "fatty acid": "There is still no conclusive proof that increase in body cholesterol as a result of high dietary intake of animal derived saturated fats or fatty acids is causatively related to atherosclerosis [clogged arteries]."

The chemical facts haven’t changed since 1977, yet there has been an explosive growth of industries making incredible profits based on cholesterol measurement, low-cholesterol foods and cholesterol-reducing drugs.

This information isn’t new, yet it is still not widely publicized. Back in 1973, research sponsored by the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council confirmed that:

There is no significant link between cholesterol in the diet and cholesterol in the blood.

They advocated not restricting fat or cholesterol.

This fact has been known for more than 30 years! Here’s the quote from Martinis and Whipped Cream published in 1966:

Question: Is it true that high-fat diets can cause hardening of the arteries and heart trouble?

Answer: There is controversy that is still unsolved by the medical profession. Cholesterol, a type of , was discovered to be present in cases of atherosclerosis, a thickening of the walls of the arteries said to be an underlying cause of most heart trouble. It was therefore thought that high-fat diets caused these maladies. Immediately, the word went out to get artery and heart patients off poly-unspolyunsaturatedut later observations showed that there were two types of cholesterol and the one that appeared to be the trouble-maker was not limited to foods, but was also produced by peoples’ bodies. It was also discovered that levels of both types of cholesterol did not seem to have any relationship with diet. All of this uncertainty is eclipsed by the unquestioned fact that you will lose weight on a high protein, low carbohydrate diet, and weighing less will be good for you. (emphasis added)

This finding is still largely ignored. Fat and dietary cholesterol continue to be improperly blamed for arterial problems. Will it take another 25 years for the establishment to admit they were mistaken again?

body fat

Cholesterol can’t be the cause of cardiovascular disease (CVD)

1. Cholesterol levels have remained relatively constant over the past 100 years while CVD has increased significantly.

2. The body makes the cholesterol it needs, no matter what the amount of cholesterol in your food. The body must have it to function.

The body maintains a relatively constant level of cholesterol according to its needs. This fact is rarely mentioned and is downplayed when it is mentioned.

More than one in three people have blood cholesterol levels between 150 and 200. William P. Castelli, MD, medical director of the Framingham Cardiovascular Institute, directed a study over a 16-year period. He reports that twice as many people with life-long cholesterol levels in this range have heart attacks as do people with cholesterol over 300! Cholesterol, in and of itself, isn’t a cause of heart problems.

Dr. L. Maximilian Buja, dean of the University of Texas Medical School at Houston, agrees that there is more to be understood. He states, "There is no question that the inflammatory process in vessel walls is very important to the progression of atherosclerosis. The question is what triggers it?"(emphasis added)

Even though cholesterol may be present, the essential question, "Why is it there?" is seldom asked and never really answered. Without understanding the basic essence-nutrition connection, cholesterol may continue to be blamed.

The LDL (low-density lipoproteins) carry critical basic essence EFAs to the cells.

Without EFAs in our cells we’d die.

Yet, we continue to hear about how "bad" the LDL transporter is and that it should be minimized at all costs.

Could this constant pressure to lower the LDL-based cholesterol be a direct cause of our massive increases in illness today, including: chronic fatigue, chronic obesity, and chronic diabetes levels? A Life-Systems Engineering analysis says YES. This is a good example of complete misunderstanding by the nutritional communities about how our Life-Systems actually work!

Consider these important facts about cholesterol:

• Cholesterol is produced by the body in large quantities relative to other substances.

• All cells contain it and all tissues make it.

• Cholesterol is so important that every cell regulates its own level internally.

• Cholesterol gives cell membranes their integrity and strength; without cholesterol, we’d be soft, flabby, and worm-like – about the consistency of a jellyfish hung on a skeleton.

• Cholesterol enhances the permeability-barrier properties of the lipid bilayer. This is critical for proper cell nutrition!

• Bone would be hollow and brittle if it weren’t for cholesterol and protein.

• Cholesterol has a major structural role in the brain, where it is found in high concentrations.

• Cholesterol enables nerve impulses.

• Vitamin D is made from the interaction between cholesterol and sunlight hitting your skin, so that calcium can be utilized.

• Bile, manufactured by the liver and essential for proper fat digestion, is produced from cholesterol.

• Cholesterol is essential for the liver and intestines to function properly.

• Cholesterol protects the skin against absorption of water-soluble toxins.

• It holds moisture in so we don’t dehydrate. Cholesterol will give your skin a nice, naturally moisturized feel.

With so many major functions, how could one ever come to the conclusion that cholesterol is negative in any sense of the word? Without a lot of it, we would all quickly die.

A paper titled "Controlling Cholesterol" was published by the Physicians’ Committee for Responsible Medicine. It was shocking that several points in the paper and its recommendations were exactly opposite to established medical science and research. This paper came out in the 1990s, so the authors should have been aware of the latest research. If they weren’t, then they shouldn’t be publishing recommendations. People are relying on accurate, current information. At the very least, authors should present the latest facts and let us decide for ourselves what we wish to do with the information.

Incorrect, misleading, or unfounded items in the report include:

• Claims that cholesterol is minimally important in only a few cell functions and is a very minor substance.

Not true. Cholesterol is abundantly produced and is one of the most important substances in your body. Review the list above.

• LDLs (low density lipoproteins) encourage the growth of plaque deposits.

Not true. They don’t encourage anything. LDLs transport cholesterol and the essential EFAs to the cell. This is a critical function. If something elsewhere goes haywire, it’s not the fault of LDLs. There is no cause-effect relationship as implied in the report.

• Saturated fats should be avoided.

Saturated fats are required for proper membrane integrity. The Condensed Chemical Dictionary states that saturated fats give required rigidity and support to the cell wall. Molecular Biology of the Cell agrees. There is a natural balance between rigidity and flexibility. You don’t want one without the other. Too stiff makes the cell wall brittle and easily breakable. Too flexible and it always bends. One without the other doesn’t work.

• Weight can be lost using a "low-fat" diet.

This method has already been shown to be harmful for two reasons. First, it causes an even greater shortage of EFAs. Second, the committee suggested eating more carbohydrates in place of fats, and we have already seen the problems with insulin and high-carbohydrate diets. Never mind that low-fat diets also clearly do not work – over 50 percent of American adults are now overweight, now that many of us have been relying on the low-fat concept for more than 15 years.

• Eat lots of small meals. They even cite a study with people eating seventeen snacks a day! This method is supposed to have lowered cholesterol levels compared to three-meal-a-day eaters.

They don’t say how much the level was lowered. Whether it was a significant amount or not remains unanswered. This doesn’t make Life-Systems sense. Most of us could not eat seventeen times a day. Furthermore, the continuous insulin-release from this frequent eating is extremely dangerous – over time you’ll destroy your pancreas. It is better to eat as few times a day as possible to minimize the insulin response. A study like this can be meaningless, especially when significant details are missing. This is an example of looking at one issue (cholesterol levels) to the exclusion of everything else.

• Exercise raises HDL levels, yet may lower LDL levels.

How significant was the HDL rise? Why is one (HDL) absolute and the other (LDL) only a possibility? Exercise either lowers LDL or it doesn’t. This point also assumes that HDL is desirable while LDL is undesirable.

• They say exercise doesn’t have to be terribly vigorous.

How much is vigorous?

• They say a daily half-hour walk is helpful.

What does "helpful" mean – compared to what? What results can be expected?

Does their analysis leave you wondering? Perhaps it is this sort of report that prompted the writing of an article called "Technology Follies," published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

"As noted by Pickering, medical education in the United States is, to a large extent, worship at the improbable shrine of useless knowledge. We produce ‘scientific illiterates’...who are not scientific in their approach to clinical questions or new technologies!

...New is not synonymous with improved....

Twenty years ago, the well-being of the fetus late in pregnancy was measured by analyzing the woman’s urine. This was ultimately shown to be worthless." (emphasis added)

Before cholesterol can form plaque on arterial walls, something has to make it come out of its liquid state and solidify.

We can’t assume cholesterol is responsible just because it is found at the site.

If I am at a crime scene, does it automatically make me guilty? No, it doesn’t. Not any more than all the other people at the scene. It may make me seem suspect, but that’s not enough to convict. If cholesterol did spontaneously build up by itself and form plaque, all our capillaries would quickly plug and we’d all die in a matter of hours. Arterial walls normally are very slick – like a non-stick coating. However, after a tear, scuff or chemical injury on the inner arterial wall, a cholesterol "scab" can form. This is similar to the scab that forms when you cut your skin – except it happens on the inside, and the way it happens is somewhat different.

Plaque buildup occurs as part of the protective healing process. Actually, the arterial buildup (plaque) is composed of fifteen or so different materials: calcium (yes, calcium), cholesterol, triglycerides, phospholipids, etc. What’s obvious is that a major malfunction over several years has taken place in the body to cause this buildup. Buildups happen when artery walls have been attacked by insulin, Xanthine Oxidase (XO, and other substances that are toxic to the wall. Constant abuse of the artery walls causes excessive buildup.

Obviously, we want to avoid injuries to our arteries. How can we ensure that the arterial wall doesn’t develop an internal injury? Later, I discuss a remarkable nutritional drink – Essiac-concept tonic – that has a non-stick property and helps keep plaque from sticking.

The nutrition establishment is slowly coming around to the indisputable fact that cholesterol, in and of itself, doesn’t cause cardiovascular problems. The American College of Physicians (ACP) stated in 1996 that regular cholesterol testing isn’t necessary for everyone. According to its new guidelines, men under age 35, women under age 45, or persons over 75 don’t need a test unless they smoke or have a family history of heart disease, high blood pressure, or diabetes. For healthy men 35 to 65 and women 45 to 65, testing is "appropriate but not mandatory." The American College of Physicians says there’s little evidence that lowering cholesterol in such individuals helps prevent illness or death.

The recent rage is to try and blame cardiovascular problems on a virus – in particular, chlamydia pneumonia. An article in Newsweek (August 11, 1997) states that, whatever their age, sex, or nationality, people with sclerotic arteries tend to show signs of infection. They say this bug never shows up in otherwise healthy tissue. Yet, as the article clearly states, "Finding the bug at the crime scene doesn’t prove it’s a criminal." (emphasis added)

The article asks the question, "Do fat and cholesterol make us sick by themselves, or only in the company of this bug?" Hurrahs for the article’s author, Geoffrey Cowley, for at least raising a question!

A subsequent, more in-depth article appeared in the November/December issue of Health magazine. The article starts by admitting that cholesterol, in and of itself, is not the cause of heart attacks because high cholesterol doesn’t generate higher occurrences of real-life cardiovascular disease.

The article mentions a study where over half the cardiovascular victims carried antibodies to this virus. It refers to another study: "People with and without blocked arteries were likely to have antibodies to C. pneumonia, they found, but levels averaged 25 percentage points higher among the heart patients." From a Life-Systems Engineering analysis, this implies:

EFA deficiencies and mineral deficiencies weaken our immune system so that infection is more likely to occur.

An attack in the cardiovascular system is as likely as anywhere else in the body, but because we are deficient in prostaglandin, the arteries may weaken quickly.

In the article, epidemiologist Thomas Grayson states, "Of course, the association doesn’t prove anything, either. The organism could be present without causing the disease." Paul Ridker, cardiologist at Harvard Medical School, states, "People are making a very big deal out of these observations. There are a dozen other plausible explanations."

Hurrahs for both of them – they don’t draw a cause-effect conclusion, because the evidence isn’t strong enough. The evidence here is on the order of cholesterol evidence – lacking in a definitive cause-effect relationship.

Another drug company bonanza may be in store. Margaret Hammerschlag, a chlamydia researcher, has a fear: "I’m telling you, they are going to start putting azithromycin (an antibiotic) in the drinking water."

She fears widespread use of "preventive" powerful antibiotics could create drug resistance in other germs that attack the respiratory system, even in C. pneumoniae itself.

Do you fear the possibility of a new wave of "preventive" antibiotic drugs similar to the suggestions of "preventive" cholesterol-lowering drugs? Once again, the Foundation of Radiant Health comes to the rescue.

Prostaglandin, which our bodies make from basic essence EFAs, are one of the best protections against cardiovascular disorders on the planet, and Essiac-concept tonic can be an excellent protector against infection of the heart and arteries!

Eggs and cholesterol

Here’s an interesting bit of information which could offer one reason why eggs were given such a bad reputation regarding cholesterol. For several years, we were warned of supposed dangers of eating eggs because of their cholesterol. In 1940 a study was conducted to explore the effects of dietary cholesterol in humans. Was dried egg powder, instead of fresh eggs, used in the study? The negative results of this study wouldn’t have been caused by real eggs. The processing required to powder the eggs would cause chemical changes in the egg. Oxidized substances are harmful to the body, so, from a Life-Systems Engineering analysis one would rightly expect this processed material to cause problems.

Current research indicates that the problem with cholesterol was a result of oxidation-induced food processing methods.

Chemically, transfatty acids appear very similar to EFAs, yet our body can’t make good use of transfatty acids. The processed, powdered egg has little nutrition compared to a real, fresh egg. With misleading findings such as this, no wonder, for half a century, eggs were inappropriately called "bad." This is another example of a half-truth. The adulterated cholesterol in the powdered egg would cause problems, but only because the cholesterol may have been ruined to begin with!

The results of a study relating blood cholesterol levels to either survival or hospitalization for coronary heart disease were quite clear. With 1,000 subjects, men and women over age 70, during a 4-year period, there was no reported correlation whatsoever between blood cholesterol level and hospitalization. That is, these people were no more and no less likely to be hospitalized with high cholesterol levels.

In 1993, a report titled "Cholesterol Screening and Treatment" was released by the University of Leeds in England.

Drugs for lowering high cholesterol levels were given to a study’s participants. The patients whose cholesterol was artificially lowered with drugs developed heart disease just as frequently as the drug-free high-cholesterol group. The drug increased HDL and decreased LDL (the supposedly "ideal" condition). There were more health problems among the group taking the drugs!

Its conclusions were:

• Apart from those with extremely high cholesterol levels (the top two percent), cholesterol screening can’t be connected with individual risk of heart-related disease.

• Few people identified purely on the basis of cholesterol levels will benefit from drug treatment.

• Drug treatment only benefits those with additional risk factors, such as high triglyceride level or high blood-pressure.

• The study discourages general cholesterol screening.

• Their overall conclusion: For the 98 percent with less than "lethal" (above 300) cholesterol levels, there was no benefit from treatment, and drug therapy given to lower-risk patients was actually detrimental.

Despite these findings, the estimated number of prescriptions for cholesterol-lowering drugs is increasing by 20% per year in England.

Lowered LDL may mean the cells don’t receive enough life-sustaining basic essence – nutritionally starving us – the very opposite of what we wish to accomplish!

A dire warning was published in a 1995 study by two physicians, Thomas B. Newman and Stephen B. Hulley, at the University of California in San Francisco. They stated that widespread cholesterol testing for people under twenty years old should be abandoned.

Newman and Hulley are concerned that popular cholesterol-lowering drugs are being prescribed far too frequently – and often unnecessarily – for people who are at little risk of developing heart-related problems. Remember the Phen-Fen disaster? This combination drug was dispensed to virtually anyone who asked for it. It produced life-threatening disorders, and now millions of people may suffer its long-term health consequences. A Life-Systems Engineering analysis explains why this happens.

Cholesterol-lowering drugs are prescribed ten times more often than just ten years ago.

Newman and Hulley are physicians concerned about the routine prescriptions for young people – who have no serious risk factors. Young patients are now being given these drugs with the expectation they will be staying on them for twenty to thirty years. The long-term negative effects aren’t known. Do you want to be one of the guinea pigs?

The American Medical Association now wants to lower what it considers "acceptable" cholesterol levels even further. To meet these lowered standards, the AMA would have to propose to place many more people on drugs. Does this make sense in light of what we have reviewed? No. Many physicians don’t agree with this new policy.

9 million people now take cholesterol-lowering drugs in the hope of warding off heart disease . . . Newsweek, August 11, 1997 "The Heart Attackers"

A television newscast featured a story on the AMA decision to lower the "acceptable" levels. Directly after this television news feature, there was a major advertisement by a cholesterol-lowering drug manufacturer! Could there have been a connection between the two?

The traditional drug orientation of modern medical practice is decreasing in popularity.

There is a huge increase in people turning to alternative medicine.

The amount of money now spent on alternative therapies, including nutrition-based remedies to fight disease and dysfunction, is approaching the amount spent on conventional medicine!

Take note of the conclusions from a long-term study performed in Finland, where the researchers tried to artificially manipulate cholesterol and blood-pressure levels with disastrous consequences:

One thousand male business executives aged forty to fifty-three were physically well but had risk factors for developing heart disease. Half the group was medically supervised, whereas the other half wasn’t. The results were surprising.

The supervised group was given a program of regular exercise, "strict" diet, and even blood pressure-lowering drugs. There were a shocking 240% more (nearly two-and-a-half times more) deaths from heart attacks in this supervised group. Lots of exercise, strict diet, and even blood pressure-lowering drugs apparently did more harm than good!

These researchers didn’t understand Life-Systems Engineering. Once again, we see that, when one thing changes, everything changes – and it’s not always for the better!

"We’d like to move beyond cholesterol testing," commented Dr. Peter Libby, chief of cardiovascular medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. "More than half the heart attacks out there occur in people who have normal cholesterol levels, don’t smoke, and have few other risk factors." (emphasis added)

Our Life-Systems Engineering team applauds Dr. Libby and his colleague Dr. Paul Ridler, at Harvard Medical School.

The results of this study, published in the Lancet were based on 1,000 middle-aged physicians (participating in the 22,000-man Physicians’ Health Study). Four hundred seventy-four (474) of the doctors went on to have a heart attack.

The study cites a probable cause leading to the heart attacks called ICAM-1 (Intercellular adhesion molecule, type 1). This substance makes certain inunune system cells stick to blood vessels. The inflammatory substance C-reactive protein has also been implicated as a possible cause of heart-related ailments.

In the previous chapter we learned how Prostaglandin (made from EFAS) help protect against harmful blood vessel adhesion.

One must always be aware that the human machine, whether functioning regularly or irregularly, is always trying to maintain a state of equilibrium (balance). Consequently, any change in one direction is bound to bring about a change in another direction. It is absolutely essential to foresee this new change.

This chapter, Is Cholesterol A Scapegoat? is taken from Brian Peskin’s landmark book Beyond The Zone – Peak Performance, Radiant Health.

Twenty references in this chapter are listed in the book but have not been included on this Web page.