Cholesterol, Chromium or Alzheimer's? Or Why Being a Fathead is Actually a Good Thing

Mid-life high cholesterol raises Alzheimer's risk "...those with high cholesterol levels between ages 40 and 45 were about 50 percent more likely than those with low cholesterol levels to later develop Alzheimer's disease." I predict that I will be the only one in media to report to you what this study really determined. All in good time.

First and foremost, the vilification of cholesterol must stop.

Why would a vital precursor for estrogen, progesterone and testosterone be accused of untoward evil? Primarily because the Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex (PIC) found out that they could synthesize substances to lower it.

Now all that was left was to claim that it caused disease. Boy did they -- and were they ever successful. A few generations have now grown to accept the "fact" that cholesterol is bad and must be kept low at all costs. Never mind that it is also critical for brain and nervous system function and health. As long as drug companies can keep us afraid of fat for life then we will be their loyal customers to death.

The study referenced above links high cholesterol levels in mid-life to Alzheimer's in later life. Why? I thought that you would never ask. What happens to the majority of adults who are diagnosed with "high" cholesterol levels in middle age? Here's your Moment of Duh: They are prescribed statin drugs to lower the medically decreed "satanic" substance.

What happens when you forcibly reduce available cholesterol for the body? Endocrine functions suffer. Liver function declines. Brain and nervous system health degrades. In other words, statin drugs actually precipitate and accelerate the manifestation of brain disease diagnoses, including Alzheimer's.

What the study is really telling us (without actually coming out and saying it) is that the medical profession is now the leading cause of Alzheimer's Disease. What else can we learn from a dummy?

"The findings come just weeks after another study showed that having a big belly in middle age may greatly increase one's risk of later developing Alzheimer's disease or another form of dementia."

Here they go again with the fat phobia. Despite all of their protestations to the contrary, fat does not cause neurological decline. If anything, the LACK of fat causes it. What they miss (as usual) is the qualitative issue. What's IN the fat? Is it loaded with toxins and heavy metals just waiting to plunder your antioxidant reserves as your defense systems exhaust with age? Now you're catching on.

The link to aluminum has been floating around medical circles for years as it relates to amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles as well. Why stop with one heavy metal when millions of Americans are loaded with plenty thanks to pediatricians and dentists? Besides, Julie Gerberding seems to have little concern that most flu shots contain at least 25 micrograms of mercury and that five in a row increases the incidence of Alzheimer's ten-fold.

We need fat for survival. We do not need the CDC.

Ms. Gerberdink, go home and plant some flowers. Clifton Road will do just fine without you and the thousands of other welfare recipients at CDC. Or maybe you would like to explain to me why it is you are paid to try and convince us all that the Holy Grail of disease prevention and control is in vaccines and drugs. Yes, I realize that you have heard of good hygiene, adequate sanitation, proper nutrition and hydration, but must you treat those fundamentals as an inconvenient truth keeping a small percentage of Americans from worshipping at your Church of Biological Mysticism?

By the way, are you on a statin drug? Why? You would do much better by taking GTF Chromium every day. You should note that it took no tax money to tell you that.

License to Drug Sample

Free Drug Samples Hike Out-of-Pocket Costs "Almost every clinician's office is stocked with drug samples," he said. "For patients and providers alike, these free drugs can take on the aura of Halloween goodies. Passing them out feels like giving a gift." It must feel real good giving the gift of drug addiction. Perhaps that is why there is so much depression in the medical profession. But why would free samples cost drug-users more in the long run? Well, you can be sure that they are not giving away freebies of low-cost generics. Only the newest and most profitable drugs partake in the free sampling program.

"Here, try this prescription crack; the first dose is on me."

Once you are on it, your doctor can then convince you that it's the only way to go, all the while enjoying the perks of being a first adopter of dangerous, but profitable new medicines. Your willingness to take the sample likely earns the good doctor a free trip to Hawaii. I wonder why his patients don't get to go as well?

Are you under the impression that drug company influence is waning and drug reps do not use psychological tactics on your doctor? This just in from Dr. Joseph Mercola: "Former Drug Sales Rep Tells All" Shahram Ahari, who spent two years selling Prozac and Zypraxa for Eli Lily, told a Senate Aging Committee that his job involved "rewarding physicians with gifts and attention for their allegiance to your product and company despite what may be ethically appropriate."

According to one study published in The New England Journal of Medicine:

• 94 percent of doctors have some type of relationship with the drug industry
• 80 percent of doctors commonly accept free food and drug samples
• One-third of doctors were reimbursed by the drug industry for going to professional meetings or continuing education classes
• 28 percent of doctors have been paid for consulting, giving lectures, or signing their patients up for clinical trials

I am sure that your doctor is above such undue influence, just like "your kid's government school is good," and "your elected representative is fine" and "it's just the other ones that need to be thrown out."

Of course, this is what we should expect from a monopoly: Inefficiency, corruption and high prices for something people do not really need. Do we really need the medical monopoly? Besides being unconstitutional, the allopathic paradigm is the wrong one -- if you would like to maintain or regain health and vitality (other than if you are hit by a bus).

"Surely you don't mean to challenge licensure as well?"

Of course I do. Licensure defends the "health" of an industry over the health and safety of the public it pretends to protect. Who do licensing boards typically go after? Doctors who stray too far outside the allopathic fence, particularly those that help people heal from disease without resorting to the drugs of the Pharmaco-Mafia.

Licensing boards are demon Fascist incarnate. I do not care if it takes an exorcism to get rid of them, but we would all be better off if physicians were allowed to practice based on their experience and good conscience, rather than by fear of and intimidation from state medical licensing boards.

The other thing that they typically go after is well beyond their scope and jurisdiction, but they use the power of the state to do it anyway. What is it? It's known as unlicensed complementary, alternative and natural medicines/therapies. In many states, the definition of the practice of medicine is so broad and vague that you could be arrested for giving your child nutritional advice to ward off disease. Hats off to former Governor Jesse Ventura, who was the first "guv" in the nation to sign health freedom legislation into law, allowing Minnesotans the option of seeing unlicensed health care providers without fear of persecution or prosecution. The medical establishment predicted hell on earth with people dropping dead in the streets due to the lack of "appropriate" medical care.

Well, Minnesotans, how are ye? Minnesota consistently ranks at or near the top of every quality of life survey regarding states in these United States. You can always go to a private board certified physician if you fear that the end of licensure means your end as well. Just consider that there is no profession that kills more people every year than the pharmaceutical/medical one -- and that is with FULL governmental licensure.

Go ahead, try and make an argument that licensure saves us from dangerous doctors and non-doctors.