Skip to content

    Announcements

    Exciting News for WebMD Members!

    We've been busy behind the scenes building new message boards for you. You'll have new and easier ways to find messages, connect with others, and share your stories.

    And, this will all be available on your smartphone or other mobile device!

    What Do You Need to Do?

    The message board you're used to will be closing in the coming weeks. While many of your boards will be making the move to our new home, your posts will not. Want to keep a discussion going? Save posts you want to continue (this includes your member profile story), so that you can re-post them in the new message boards.

    Keep an eye here and on your email inbox, we'll be back in touch soon to give you all the information you need!


    Yours in health,
    WebMD Message Boards Management

    Have We Wrongly Convicted Cholesterol?
    avatar
    bobby75703 posted:
    Interesting thing about human nature. We have a history of convicting innocent people to life in prison, despite lack of evidence. Too many times convictions were handed down based upon a Jury buying the prosecutor's presentation.

    Decades later DNA evidence proves the innocence of the convicted.

    Have we wrongly convicted serum cholesterol levels in heart disease?


    The Cholesterol story reminds me of famous murder case against Leo Frank for the death of Mary Phagan. Despite zero evidence against Frank, popular opinion of the circumstance Frank was in the building at the same time of the murder, was enough for the people to convict him. Frank was eventually hanged.


    Some 70 years later an old man, who witnessed another man ( not Frank) dragging Mary Phagan's body testified to what he had seen as a young boy.


    Leo Frank was pardoned about 7 decades after his conviction.


    Sometimes it takes that long to overturn a conviction. It still happens today as shown in this article where an innocent man spent 25 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. The Jury bought the prosecutors manufactured lies, and refused to accept to the truth.


    http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/justice/exonerated-prisoner-update-michael-morton/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

    Cholesterol has been accused of killing huge numbers of people. Is it true? Or have we bought manufactured lies?




    Reply
     
    avatar
    iride6606 responded:
    I really can't see a connection between a court verdict and cholesterol, but it makes a nice headline.


    Bottom line is really pretty simple, plaques are made of cholesterol. How and why does not concern me since plaques are indeed made of cholesterol. I think the hundreds of thousands of people that have been studied for many, many years and as a result we know that increased levels of cholesterol are linked to an increased risk of heart disease shows me enough.


    It did kill this guy;


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2260695/Man-35-killed-inherited-high-cholesterol--disease-undiagnosed-thousands-Britons.html
     
    avatar
    bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
    The bottom line is we are human. We make mistakes passing judgement, and as proven in court cases the jury can be wrong.

    Convicting cholesterol is highly profitable. Commercial interests in demonizing cholesterol is huge.
     
    avatar
    iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
    No, just more hype. Statin profits are falling with the introduction of generics and in fact statins have dropped from being the most profitable drug to being #3.


    Why don't we attack cancer drugs, they are the most profitable. Are the drug companies making excess profits there as well?


    Again, Cholesterol did kill this guy;


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2260695/Man-35-killed-inherited-high-cholesterol--disease-undiagnosed-thousands-Britons.html


    Would everyone be more accepting of statins if we required drug companies to make no profit? You need to change your argument, this one is no longer valid.
     
    avatar
    bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
    Human error is not hype. Its a fact of life. My point we can wrongly convict is 100% valid.
     
    avatar
    iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
    No, you can't apply this principle across all topics, you are making an guess based on your personal belief, that's fine but not necessarily accurate. Like I said, it does make for a nice headline.
     
    avatar
    bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
    Human error has no boundaries.
     
    avatar
    iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
    Sure it does, human error is only prevalent in situations where humans make errors. If your around flawed thinking or people that make human errors, that's your baseline.


    I'm not in that environment so I am not ruled by human error.
     
    avatar
    bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
    I didn't realize you live in an environment immune to human error. Please forgive me.
     
    avatar
    bobby75703 replied to bobby75703's response:
    Human Error knows no boundaries.

    It happens behind the counter of McDonalds and it happens in top notch surgical centers. It happens in the cockpit of airliners and it happens in government. It happens in our court rooms and it happens every day in traffic.

    No person or industry is immune, and to imply such an immunity or sheltering is in itself a human error.

    So I ask again. Have we wrongly convicted cholesterol?
     
    avatar
    iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
    Horsefeathers,


    You are subjected to human error by your own acceptance to be subjected. People are better than some give them credit.


    Statins have been falsely convicted by the headlines!
     
    avatar
    bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
    No one is immune from human error. No one.

    Have we wrongly convicted cholesterol?
     
    avatar
    iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
    Pollywaddle,


    Of course people are immune to human error, except maybe in this thread. There are checks and balances, trust but verify. That's how the person who is not willing to be subjected to human error lives rather than giving up on human nature.


    There is such a magnitude of difference between the small things that don't matter much and the big issues. This notion is more on the small side. I'll side with human nature.


    Featuring Experts

    There are no Expert stories for this community right now

    Helpful Tips

    Statin use is generally safe, and NOT associated with cancer and myopathy
    This network meta-analysis study provides evidence on the comparative tolerability and harms of individual statins. Overall, statins as a ... More
    Was this Helpful?
    1 of 2 found this helpful

    Related Drug Reviews

    • Drug Name User Reviews

    Report Problems With Your Medications to the FDA

    FDAYou are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.