Disproving the cholesterol paradigm

This 2018 review presented evidence that:

“For half a century, a high level of total cholesterol (TC) or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) has been considered to be the major cause of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease (CVD), and statin treatment has been widely promoted for cardiovascular prevention. However, there is an increasing understanding that the mechanisms are more complicated and that statin treatment, in particular when used as primary prevention, is of doubtful benefit.

The authors of three large reviews recently published by statin advocates have attempted to validate the current dogma. This article delineates the serious errors in these three reviews as well as other obvious falsifications of the cholesterol hypothesis.

Our search for falsifications of the cholesterol hypothesis confirms that it is unable to satisfy any of the Bradford Hill criteria for causality and that the conclusions of the authors of the three reviews are based on:

  • Misleading statistics,
  • Exclusion of unsuccessful trials and by
  • Ignoring numerous contradictory observations.

The association between the absolute risk reduction of total mortality in 26 statin trials [squares] included in the study by Silverman et al. and in 11 ignored trials [triangles] and the year where the trial protocols were published. The vertical line indicates the year where the new trial regulations were introduced.

In 2004–2005, health authorities in Europe and the United States introduced New Clinical Trial Regulations, which specified that all trial data had to be made public. Since 2005, claims of benefit from statin trials have virtually disappeared.


This paradigm was proven wrong eighty years ago! How much longer will its harmful consequences continue?

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17512433.2018.1519391 “LDL-C does not cause cardiovascular disease: a comprehensive review of the current literature”

Advertisements

Stuck in the wrong paradigm

This 2019 article questioned the paradigm of determining substance carcinogenicity:

“In the absence of robust epidemiological data, the final arbiter of whether a chemical is considered to be a carcinogen or not has been based on the outcome of long-term rodent bioassays. This approach is incompatible with the current knowledge of the etiology of cancer. The current view of the etiology of cancer suggests that it is not useful to consider carcinogenicity as a single hazardous property with its own hazard category.

There is no bright line between carcinogens and non-carcinogens but rather there is a continuum with some chemicals having high potential, some having no potential, and others having potential at a point along the continuum. This continuum exists alongside other adverse effects. One problem is being stuck in the old practice of wishing to reproduce the binary “carcinogen/non-carcinogen” results of the long-term bioassay rather than move to a new paradigm in assessing the chemical’s position on the spectrum of carcinogenic potential.

The two-year bioassay has such high variability (because of the variability of the carcinogenic process it is trying to measure and the interplay between dose limiting toxicity and cell proliferation inducing toxicity) that the outcome of the assay for compounds with low to intermediate carcinogenic potential is little more than a lottery. After half a century, it has only been used to evaluate less than 5% of chemicals that are in use. It is not reproducible because of the probabalistic nature of the process it is evaluating combined with dose limiting toxicity, dose selection, and study design.”


Unscientific research paradigms will eventually collapse because they can’t withstand the scrutiny of the scientific method. Too bad the coauthors didn’t kill off this one while they were still in positions at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, World Health Organization, etc.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230019300248 “Chemical carcinogenicity revisited 2: Current knowledge of carcinogenesis shows that categorization as a carcinogen or non-carcinogen is not scientifically credible” (not freely available)

Eat your oats

Here’s some motivation to replenish your oats supply.

From a 2013 Canadian human review:

“Review of human studies investigating the post-prandial blood-glucose lowering ability of oat and barley food products” https://www.nature.com/articles/ejcn201325

“Change in glycaemic response (expressed as incremental area under the post-prandial blood-glucose curve) was greater for intact grains than for processed foods. For processed foods, glycaemic response was more strongly related to the β-glucan dose alone than to the ratio of β-glucan to the available carbohydrate.”

The review found that people don’t have to eat a lot of carbohydrates to get the glycemic-response benefits of β-glucan. Also, eating ~3 grams of β-glucan in whole oats and barley will deliver the same glycemic-response benefits as eating ~4 grams of β-glucan in processed oats and barley.

The glycemic index used in the review is otherwise a very flawed measure, however. It doesn’t help healthy people to rank food desirability using an unhealthy-white-bread standard.


The reviewer somewhat redeemed herself by participating in a 2018 review:

“Processing of oat: the impact on oat’s cholesterol lowering effect” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5885279/

“For a similar dose of β-glucan:

  1. Liquid oat-based foods seem to give more consistent, but moderate reductions in cholesterol than semi-solid or solid foods where the results are more variable;
  2. The quantity of β-glucan and the molecular weight at expected consumption levels (∼3 g day) play a role in cholesterol reduction; and
  3. Unrefined β-glucan-rich oat-based foods (where some of the plant tissue remains intact) often appear more efficient at lowering cholesterol than purified β-glucan added as an ingredient.”

The review’s sections 3. Degree of processing and functionality and 4. Synergistic action of oat constituents were informative:

“Both in vitro and in vivo studies clearly demonstrated the beneficial effect of oat on cholesterolemia, which is unlikely to be due exclusively to β-glucan, but rather to a combined and synergetic action of several oat compounds acting together to reduce blood cholesterol levels.”


Another use of β-glucan is to improve immune response. Here’s a 2016 Netherlands study where the researchers used β-glucan to get a dozen people well after making them sick with lipopolysaccharide as is often done in animal studies:

β-Glucan Reverses the Epigenetic State of LPS-Induced Immunological Tolerance” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5927328/

“The innate immune “training stimulus” β-glucan can reverse macrophage tolerance ex vivo.”

I’ve curated other research on β-glucan’s immune-response benefits in:

The arrogance of a paradigm exceeding its evidence

This 2018 commentary from the American College of Emergency Physicians by 7 physicians discussed the harm that will result from imposing a mandatory paradigm of sepsis treatment. I’ll quote sections that mention evidence:

“These metrics [for pneumonia treatment] had little evidentiary basis but led to an institutional-fostered culture of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Have we learned from this folly or does a new sepsis guideline promote similar time-based treatment strategies with little direct supporting evidence?

Like the pneumonia quality measure, this resource-heavy care flows from an overreaching interpretation of evidence. Despite that evidence consistently fails to find a benefit of a single treatment strategy, the Surviving Sepsis Campaign continues to promote recommendations that bypass the individual clinician’s judgment.

Although well intentioned, the current sepsis bundles and the potential penalties associated with noncompliance lay a heavy weight on ED [emergency department] care absent evidence that a net benefit will follow. The proposed Surviving Sepsis Campaign abbreviated bundle heightens the burden by further restricting the time allotted for the identification and treatment of patients with suspected sepsis, all without any evidence of benefit or knowledge of the logistic consequences or cost.”

The paradigm’s promoters didn’t learn the appropriate lessons in the above page regarding “the sense of embarrassment and regret once experienced with the pneumonia quality metric.”


What do you think are the root causes of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign’s agenda?

  • Did it start with lawyers? Lawsuits can force hospitals into actions for which the primary reason is to avoid “the potential penalties associated with noncompliance.”
  • Is it due to governments? Governments can force hospitals into actions “without any evidence of benefit or knowledge of the logistic consequences or cost” when the hospitals accept government reimbursement.
  • Did it start with other groups of unaccountable people who think they know better than everyone else about how others should act?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196064418306073 “The 2018 Surviving Sepsis Campaign’s Treatment Bundle: When Guidelines Outpace the Evidence Supporting Their Use” (not freely available)

The imperative of human transgenerational studies

The coauthor of:

pointed out the opportunity for the researchers of A seasonal epigenetic effect of conception on BMI to have their work make a difference in their field:

“The ability of environmental epigenetics to promote an adaptive phenotype to cold has impacts on evolution. However, the impacts would be far greater if the phenomenon was transgenerational.

Future studies are now needed to determine whether the cold-induced thrifty metabolic phenotype is transmitted to subsequent generations. If exposure not only impacts the health of offspring, but also of all subsequent generations, the impact is significant.”


Every human alive today has observable lasting epigenetic effects caused by environmental factors:

  • During the earliest parts of our lives;
  • From our parents’ exposures and experiences before we’re conceived – many of which are inadequately researched; and
  • Potentially from some of our earlier ancestors’ exposures and experiences.

Aren’t animal studies’ evidence for epigenetic transgenerational inheritance sufficient to compel serious human follow-on research efforts by research sponsors and study designers?

The same comments about epigenetic effects caused by temperature potentially inherited by multiple human generations can also be made about other environmental factors, such as:

  • Nutrition,
  • Toxins – the commentator’s usual area of study, and
  • Stress.

I hope that these researchers value their professions enough to make a difference with this or other areas of their expertise. And that sponsors won’t thwart researchers’ desires for difference-making science by putting them into endless funding queues.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-018-0187-3 “Preconception cold-induced epigenetic inheritance” (not freely available)

Reversing epigenetic changes with CRISPR/Cas9

This 2018 Chinese review highlighted areas in which CRISPR/Cas9 technology has, is, and could be applied to rewrite epigenetic changes:

“CRISPR/Cas9-mediated epigenome editing holds a great promise for epigenetic studies and therapeutics.

It could be used to selectively modify epigenetic marks at a given locus to explore mechanisms of how targeted epigenetic alterations would affect transcription regulation and cause subsequent phenotype changes. For example, inducing histone methylation or acetylation at the Fosb locus in the mice brain reward region, nucleus accumbens, could affect relevant transcription network and thus control behavioral responses evoked by drug and stress.

Epigenome editing has the potential for epigenetic treatment, especially for the disorders with abnormal gene imprinting or epigenetic marks. Targeted epigenetic silencing or reactivation of the mutant allele could be a potential therapeutic approach for diseases such as Rett syndrome and Huntington’s disease.

Noncoding RNA plays important roles in gene imprinting and chromatin remodeling. CRISPR/Cas9 has been shown to be potential for manipulating noncoding RNA expression, including microRNA, long noncoding RNA, and miRNA families and clusters.

In vivo overexpression of the Yamanaka factors have proven to be able to fully or partially help somatic cells to regain pluripotency in situ. These rejuvenated cells would subsequently differentiate again to replace the lost cell types.”


The last paragraph was described in The epigenetic clock theory of aging as a promising technique:

“To date, the most effective in vitro intervention against epigenetic ageing is achieved through expression of Yamanaka factors, which convert somatic cells into pluripotent stem cells, thereby completely resetting the epigenetic clock.”

The reviewers cited three references for in vivo studies of this technique. Overall, I didn’t see that any of the review’s references were in vivo human studies.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6079388/ “Novel Epigenetic Techniques Provided by the CRISPR/Cas9 System”

The role of recall neurons in traumatic memories

This 2018 Swiss rodent study found:

“Our data show that:

  • A subset of memory recall–induced neurons in the DG [dentate gyrus] becomes reactivated after memory attenuation,
  • The degree of fear reduction positively correlates with this reactivation, and
  • The continued activity of memory recall–induced neurons is critical for remote fear memory attenuation.

Although other brain areas such as the prefrontal cortex and the amygdala are likely to be implicated in remote fear memories and remain to be investigated, these results suggest that fear attenuation at least partially occurs in memory recall–induced ensembles through updating or unlearning of the original memory trace of fear.

These data thereby provide the first evidence at an engram-specific level that fear attenuation may not be driven only by extinction learning, that is, by an inhibitory memory trace different from the original fear trace.

Rather, our findings indicate that during remote fear memory attenuation both mechanisms likely coexist, albeit with the importance of the continued activity of memory recall–induced neurons experimentally documented herein. Such activity may not only represent the capacity for a valence change in DG engram cells but also be a prerequisite for memory reconsolidation, namely, an opportunity for learning inside the original memory trace.

As such, this activity likely constitutes a physiological correlate sine qua non for effective exposure therapies against traumatic memories in humans: the engagement, rather than the suppression, of the original trauma.”

The researchers also provided examples of human trauma:

“We dedicate this work to O.K.’s father, Mohamed Salah El-Dien, and J.G.’s mother, Wilma, who both sadly passed away during its completion.”


So, how can this study help humans? The study had disclosed and undisclosed limitations:

1. Humans aren’t lab rats. We can ourselves individually change our responses to experiential causes of ongoing adverse effects. Standard methodologies can only apply external treatments.

2. It’s a bridge too far to go from neural activity in transgenic mice to expressing unfounded opinions on:

“A physiological correlate sine qua non for effective exposure therapies against traumatic memories in humans.”

Human exposure therapies have many drawbacks, in addition to being applied externally to the patient on someone else’s schedule. A few others were discussed in The role of DNMT3a in fear memories:

  • “Inability to generalize its efficacy over time,
  • Potential return of adverse memory in the new/novel contexts,
  • Context-dependent nature of extinction which is widely viewed as the biological basis of exposure therapy.”

3. Rodent neural activity also doesn’t elevate recall to become an important goal of effective human therapies. Clearly, what the rodents experienced should be translated into human reliving/re-experiencing, not recall. Terminology used in animal studies preferentially has the same meaning with humans, since the purpose of animal studies is to help humans.

4. The researchers acknowledged that:

“Other brain areas such as the prefrontal cortex and the amygdala are likely to be implicated in remote fear memories and remain to be investigated.”

A study that provided evidence for basic principles of Primal Therapy determined another brain area:

“The findings imply that in response to traumatic stress, some individuals, instead of activating the glutamate system to store memories, activate the extra-synaptic GABA system and form inaccessible traumatic memories.”

The study I curated yesterday, Organ epigenetic memory, demonstrated organ memory storage. It’s hard to completely rule out that other body areas may also store traumatic memories.

The wide range of epigenetic memory storage vehicles is one reason why effective human therapies need to address the whole person, the whole body, and each individual’s entire history.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6394/1239 “Reactivation of recall-induced neurons contributes to remote fear memory attenuation” (not freely available)

Here’s one of the researchers’ outline:


This post has somehow become a target for spammers, and I’ve disabled comments. Readers can comment on other posts and indicate that they want their comment to apply here, and I’ll re-enable comments.