Interesting stuff from someone who should know.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/242516...s-Heart-Disease

you can add polonium 210, an alpha emitter with a very short half life (lots of alpha particles in a very short time)that is a natural decay daughter of uranium...uranium (very long half life) is found with phosphate fertilizers (and if mom is there, the much quicker decaying daughter is also present)... when used as a tobacco fertilizer, residue can be vaporized at the burning tip...these gasified elements pass thru the lungs into the blood vessels... emitted alpha particles can scar the blood vessel lining causing a "rough" place for atherosclerotic plaque build up... don't smoke

Another example of PC killing who knows how many people. It is not like the health benefits of restricting carbs has not been well know for 50 years.

I take no position one way or the other; just a caution that anyone can say and publish anything on the internet.

A bit of background on the Dr. who wrote the article:
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/lundell.html

I go by the old saying: "Ya pay your money and Ya make you make your pick."

Good find, and you are absolutely correct.

Please present the peer reviewed papers reporting independently conducted comparisons between people on these different diets that prove which leads to heart attacks.
This doctor knows this is the only way anything can be proved; but where are they?

And ILBOB can you please explain what this has to do with Political Correctness?
And while you are at it; some evidence of all these people killed by Political Correctness?
Examples limited to ones that have actually happened.
QJS

Although there are some decent articles on the website, overall I've never been a fan of the Quackwatch website and Dr. Stephen Barret. He doesn't refute the information that Dr Lundell presents but I guess Barrett got his intended effect--guilt by association. If you don't like a message, if you can dredge up some dirt and make the messenger look bad, people will often uncritically reject the message.

Besides, I actually took the time to read the official report (anyone can read it online) that led to his license being pulled. I'm not a physician nor a surgeon but it seemed like a judgement call at best.

Sure Lundell is making money, but so is Barrett. Funny, for being such a vocal "consumer advocate," I don't think he ever criticizes harmful and ineffective pharmaceuticals. Hmmm, I wonder why that is? Be critical thinkers, people.

But back to Lundell's message, inflammation is certainly where our current understanding of the origin of heart disease has taken us. Yes, it's still a theory, but so is the idea that high cholesterol is the cause of heart disease. To many, the Cholesterol-Heart Disease Theory has mostly been debunked, and yet millions and millions of us (and probably many of the ETSers reading this) take cholesterol-reducing drugs every day. And every year, the "experts" seem to keep lowering the cut-off point that is consider "high" and where we need to go on some drug.

While folks may point to research that shows statins can reduce the risk of heart attacks in select groups, it's not proven that it is a reduction in cholesterol that is the cause (plenty of folks with "normal" cholesterol have heart attacks, too). In fact, statins seem to have an anti-inflammatory effect, too, and many think that is the real benefit of statins (and statins have downsides, too).

If you've heard of things like homocysteine, C-reactive protein, or lipoprotein(a) then you've heard about the research into the inflammatory origin of heart disease and how elevated levels of those markers are typically better predictors of heart disease risk than things like cholesterol or blood pressure.

The carb and sugar angle in heart disease is getting increased attention lately. Many of us have seen the recent news by Dr. Lustig of UCSF that sugar should be regulated because of how harmful the massive amounts we typically consume are, so Lundell isn't just making this stuff up out of thin air.

Don't get me wrong, there is snake oil out there, but also a lot of really good information that is mostly true but threatens certain vested interests. That's why we need to be awake and aware people who try to see through marketing, propaganda, and disinformation. I don't know what's in Lundell's book, but I doubt Barrett read it either. I mean, here you have a retired psychiatrist trying to debunk a heart surgeon's message about cardiac health?

"...just a caution that anyone can say and publish anything on the Internet." Abraham Lincoln July, 1860

This thread really caught my eye because my path crossed that of another cardiothoracic surgeon a bit over a year ago. He swapped out my aortic valve, stitched me up, and sent me back out for a few more laps. I don't think I would have preferred Lundell to operate on me.

In general, I am suspicious of anyone making broad, sweeping statements, particularly when they rail about the "Establishment" and "conspiracies, etc." Sometimes they are correct, but that is not the way to bet.

As far as "heart disease", a fairly road term, there are quite a few causes, typically rooted in life style choices. But nothing is guaranteed. My need for a valve replacement was due to the fact that I was born with a two flap valve, instead of the standard three. Without the swap, I would probably be pushing up daisies right now, instead of riding my bike as if nothing had happened. My experience affirmed my belief that regular exercise is pretty important.

I basically agree with your point; the ultimate test is of the message, not the bearer of the message.

My intent is to urge everyone to research the people and science behind the thousands of health claims on the internet, especially the type that says something to the effect of "I have the simple explanation and cure to this terrible medical problem. . ."

I will also admit a special sensitivity and anger with these types of claims because of my experiences with a family member with an incurable condition who spent copious amounts of badly needed money on every snake oil promise that came along, only to be bitterly disappointed time after time. One time, they were even sold a cream containing snake venom. (Really!)

How do we decide? My belief is in science, double-blind studies and peer reviewed studies. All the tough boring stuff. Yes, sometimes these can lead you astray or be downright wrong; but they are the most accurate tools we have. Not perfect, just the best we presently have available.

The point Dr. Lundell makes about inflammation and diet may be true. I also think that Dr. Lustig's theory in "Sugar, the bitter truth" (long video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM ) also explains a lot about the causes of obesity and heart disease. Statins are now beginning to be shown to actually help in the reduction and removal/repair of arterial lesions/damage. (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/706400_5), but may also cause an increase in the risk for diabetes (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110621164708.htm) I guess there really isn't any such thing as a free lunch.

It is no surprise that our diet affects our health. Yet, my grandfathers were all dead by age 65 of heart attacks. Their diets having been born in the late 1890's and living in the early 20th century, were not like ours. Yet, they still had and died of heart disease. My Dad and his brothers lived into their late 70's and early 80's, and all had various forms of heart disease. Though I have various heart health risks/problems, I'm in much better health then they were at the same age. Modern meds are, IMO, the key reason for this.

Science and knowledge progresses slowly and with hard, diligent methodical work.

In all medical matters, I just urge everyone to be careful and informed about their condition and the treatments. Remember the old adage that "For every serious and complex problem, there is a single solution that is simple, easy and wrong"

Try to identify and avoid the snake oil (or snake venom cream) salesmen. There are no simple cures or solutions to these health problems.

Part of the reason we are dealing with heart disease and cancer as causes of death is that death from infectious diseases has been markedly reduced since the late nineteenth century, when tuberculosis was a leading cause of death. My grandfather died from a sudden hearth attack. He was eating in a style that suited the lifestyle of the 1890's, when significant physical labor was the norm, but his life was more sedentary. No one talked as much about diet and exercise then, as we do now.

Thought some additional information might be interesting. Here is a link to the CBS "60 Minutes" segment on the relationship of sugar and heart disease, obesity, and cancer. I found the controlled hospital study on the adverse effects of sugar on blood lipids very convincing. They also recommend max daily consumption of added sugar for both men and women.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7403942n&tag=contentBody;storyMediaBox

The evidence is really mounting up