Measles Vaccines! Unbelievable?

The Article below is a good indication of just how the figures can be presented to indicate what ever you want to emphasise.
Clearly it is intended to get parents to ensure their children are vaccinated, even encouraging them to ignore the recommended vaccine programme for MMR and have the jabs earlier just so their children are 'protected'


But look at the figures carefully. Of the 113 cases, 29 are in the non vaccinated adults & teenagers and 27 are in the children under the vaccination age for the measles vaccine.  This obviously gives a combined total of 56.  Are we to assume then that the remaining 57 cases were in the vaccinated??
If this is the case, not quite the story it would seem then. At best the vaccine gives you   50/50 chance and at worst could mean you have a greater chance of contracting the disease. 
I'm sure if the un-vaccinated  figures were greater than those mentioned, they would show that proudly so as to really prove how 'effective' a vaccine is, but on these figures so far, that is not the case.
 Bearing in mind the awful adjuvants that go into vaccines, is the risk worth it for a 50/50 outcome at best.
For another side to the Measles vaccine read Vaccine-nation by Andreas Moritz.

Measles on Merseyside: Outbreak 'largest since MMR introduced'

Parents are being advised to ensure their children are fully vaccinated

Continue reading the main story

Related Stories

• More cases of measles confirmed
• NHS 'sorry' over measles letter
• Warning after outbreak of measles

An outbreak of measles on Merseyside is the largest in the North West since the MMR vaccine was introduced, the Health Protection Agency (HPA) has said.

There are now 113 confirmed cases of the illness and another 43 cases are being looked at.

Twenty-eight people needed hospital in-patient treatment and three of these, two adults and a child, were extremely ill but have now recovered.

The HPA is urging parents to ensure children are fully vaccinated.

Two doses of the MMR vaccine give protection against measles, mumps and rubella.

The HPA declared an outbreak of the illness last month after six people needed hospital treatment.

'Measles spreading'

It said most cases were in children who had not been given the MMR vaccine - which was introduced in 1988 - and babies and toddlers too young to be vaccinated.

Approximately 29 of the confirmed cases are in teenagers and young adults who were not vaccinated as children and 27 cases are in children under the age of 13 months who were too young to be vaccinated.

Dr Roberto Vivancos, a specialist with the HPA's Cheshire and Merseyside Health Protection Unit, said: "Measles is highly infectious and anyone who has not previously been vaccinated is at risk when it gets into a community, as it has done here.

"In this outbreak we have seen measles spreading amongst unvaccinated children, teenagers and young adults and affecting infants and toddlers who are too young to be vaccinated.

"Our advice to teenagers and young adults is to arrange vaccination now. Speak to your family doctor. It's not too late.

"Our advice to parents is, arrange to have your children vaccinated regardless of their ages. If you are not sure if they have been immunised in the past, check with your family doctor."

The Cancer Act - Is this how it should be?

You may wonder why I choose to publish the Cancer Act 1939, but since it is something we have had to be aware of in regard to our convention this October, it is surprising just how restrictive this act is to free speech and knowledge.      

Of course we are all aware that with free speech goes a level of responsibility, but are we to first assume that we do not have a 'level of responsibility'? And are we to assume that should a person with a diagnosis of a disease such as cancer, suddenly lose the ability to be discerning or have the capacity of judgement on their own health?            

 If we are to assume that a person cannot make a considered choice, then why do we accept that their only choice should be whether to opt for the conventional route is also sound?                

The traditional route of course is free at the point of delivery, but that doesn't make it the only choice that should be given. If a better treatment might be on offer elsewhere, then why can’t  those be given 'free' under the NHS.             

 We surely cannot deny people an opportunity to know what is available and have open speech on it. No one can talk of cure in any illness, basically it is the body that will cure or not. It depends on the treatment given and to how it responds to it, no matter what that treatment is.  We must recognise that a range of treatments is needed to cope with the fact that cancer is very individual in its onset and development. If it was predictable, then I’m sure a 'cure' or 'magic bullet' would have been found by now for us all to follow.          

This act seems to do just that!, deny opportunity. If it is only those already in the medical profession that are allowed to hear others speak on alternative methods of treating cancer and to have the opportunity to question constructively those who are suggesting other routes that may work alongside or as stand-alone treatments, then the public at large is being denied a right to be fully informed of methods that may help them or someone they know.          

 I fully appreciate that the act was considered to protect people at a vulnerable time from charlatans and anyone offering a ‘magic cure' but i think we must have moved on from this and given that the 'cure' rates of cancer in most forms is still appallingly low using the methods currently accepted in the NHS, isn't it time to allow an integrative approach?              

What better opportunity for everyone to be able to hear and ask questions of the very people who are developing treatments rather than suffocate the expansion of knowledge that can lead to better decisions.                 

 I find it amazing that those who have blogged and written against the conference in October this year, have not seen it as an opportunity to ask the very questions they seem to have already formed the answers to, of the professionals they seem to so despise.              

 Having taught, i suppose the wanting to suppress knowledge and the attempts to deny others an opportunity of knowledge, is an anathema to me.  Whether we agree or not with the views of speakers is hardly something you can  decide prior to hearing them speak!                   

 So as long as we do not advertise the conference as treatments for cancer and of course do not allow speakers to suggest this, then we remain within the 1939 Act? Moreover, that by not advertising to members of the public but health professionals only, we can only be operating within the act, whether members of the public are in attendance or not.

After all, are we to check everyone that requests a ticket are of sufficiently sound mind and judgement, as others seem to imply, can only be the case of those in possession of or training for a medical qualification.                     

It would seem then that members of the public need not apply as this law deems us to be suddenly devoid of all intelligence and reason as soon as the word 'cancer' is mooted                    

 Is that the way it should be? Or should you be allowed to attend and hear from the speakers direct?

The 1939 Cancer Act.........

4Prohibition of certain advertisements.

(1)No person shall take any part in the publication of any advertisement—

(a)containing an offer to treat any person for cancer, or to prescribe any remedy therefor, or to give any advice in connection with the treatment thereof; or

(b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F1

(2)If any person contravenes any of the provisions of the foregoing subsection, he shall be liable on summary conviction, in the case of a first conviction, to a fine not exceeding [F2fifty pounds][F2level 3 on the standard scale], and, in the case of a subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding [F2one hundred pounds][F2level 3 on the standard scale] or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such a fine and such imprisonment.

(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F3

(4)In any proceedings for a contravention of subsection (1) of this section, it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove—

(a)that the advertisement to which the proceedings relate was published only so far as was reasonably necessary to bring it to the notice of persons of the following classes or of one or some of them, that is to say,—

(i)members of either House of Parliament or of a local authority or of a governing body of a voluntary hospital;

(ii). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F4

(iii)registered medical practitioners;

(iv)registered nurses;

(v)registered pharmacists and [F5persons lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business in accordance with section 69 of the M1Medicines Act 1968];

(vi)persons undergoing training with a view to becoming registered medical practitioners, registered nurses or registered pharmacists;

(vii). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F6

(b)that the said advertisement was published only in a publication of a technical character intended for circulation mainly amongst persons of the classes mentioned in the last preceding paragraph or one of some of those classes; or

(c)that the said advertisement was published in such circumstances that he did not know and had no reason to believe that he was taking part in the publication thereof.

(5)Nothing in this section shall apply in respect of any advertisement published by a local authority or by the governing body of a voluntary hospital or by any person acting with the sanction of the Minister.

(6)A prosecution for an offence under this section shall not be instituted in England or Wales without the consent of the Attorney-General F7. . ..

(7)Subject to the provisions of the last foregoing subsection, it shall be the duty of the council of every county and county borough to institute proceedings under this section.

(8)In this section the expression “advertisement” includes any notice, circular, label, wrapper or other document, and any announcement made orally or by any means of producing or transmitting sounds.

Annotations:

Amendments (Textual)

F1S. 4(1)(b) repealed by Medicines Act 1968 (c. 67), Sch. 6

F2Words “level 3 on the standard scale” substituted (S. ) for words “fifty pounds” and “one hundred pounds” in each case by virtue of Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (c. 21, SIF 39:1), ss. 289E–289G

F3S. 4(3) repealed by Medicines Act 1968 (c. 67), Sch. 6

F4S. (4)(a)(ii) repealed by Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1986 (c. 12), s. 1(1), Sch. 1 Pt. VIII

F5Words substituted by Medicines Act 1968 (c. 67), Sch. 5 para. 10

F6S. 4(4)(a) (vii) repealed by Medicines Act 1968 (c. 67), Sch. 6

F7Words in s. 4(6) repealed (30.9.1997) by 1997 c. 60, s. 3(2), Sch.

Modifications etc. (not altering text)

C1Criminal Justice Act 1982 (c. 48, SIF 39:1), ss. 35 (in relation to liability on first and subsequent convictions), 38 (increase of fines) and 46 (substitution of references to levels on the standard scale) apply (E. W. )

C2Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (c. 21, SIF 39:1), ss. 289E (in relation to liability on first and subsequent convictions), applies (S. )

Marginal Citations

M11968 c. 67.

• 
  

Cancer Convention comes under fire! Read On!

If we think we live in a land of free speech and information, we are truly wrong, or perhaps it depends what you want to speak about.

It seems that unfair, misleading and down right untruths are allowed and that these can be delivered by a person/persons hiding behind a pseudonym.

They can call for information to be removed or seek to have views and opinions squashed, which in turn prevents information and choice being available to the public and still not identify themselves.

In October 2012, Cichealth has planned a convention that will bring together various therapies and techniques that are currently being used and developed that may be able to help support healthy tissue

Clearly according to the 1939 Cancer Act, we are not allowed to say that any therapy can treat a person for cancer or provide a cure, but no one can promise a cure, be it allopathic medicine or a more complementary/naturopathic approach.

Our speakers at the convention have attracted the attention of a most insidious website that calls itself the Quackometer. I will give you the full route to find it as we at Cichealth have nothing to hide and are more than happy for any reader to view the ridiculous writings of the 'Le canard noir'
www.quackometer.net

The convention would welcome the participation of a representative from the Quackometer site if they could offer something constructive and agree to appear as themselves or may be they choose to hide.

I find it ludicrous that any one should want to hide behind a pseudonym, let alone one as ridiculous as 'Le canard noir' oh please!!

Still, some seem to have free speech and can write whatever without revealing who they are. They can slate professionals and never reveal themselves, yet the public are not allowed to have anyone aim treatments at them, with any indication that those treatments may help in the treatment of cancer.

Are we to assume the public are too stupid to discern a path way for themselves or perhaps seek to further their own knowledge on treatments that are available. Interesting appraisal on the public in general.

Does a law protect and if so who? Is it the 'stupid' public or the interests of the NHS and all that it entails, drug companies and other vested financial interests.

Cancer is a vast industry world wide, So many jobs depend on it and it alone! From those that have specialised in it as a career, the drug companies with there new patents on yet another drug for it all the way to the huge charity organisations that fund raise for the research and supporting of the sufferers.

It must bring in the highest amount of money from charity than any other illness and that is because it is an illness with such fear around it. That is a fact that is played on to extract money from the public to help in the research into cancer, yet where are the results for the vast sums that the public so generously poor into it?

The cancer act is obviously there to protect the public at vulnerable times, if we are to assume that the public at large can not be objective, yet there are no laws that say you can not prey on people for their money with such emotive tactics.


I found it disgusting that while my sister was in hospital on a cancer ward, that one of the cancer charities box came round. For a donation, you could have a daffodil pin or pink ribbon etc etc.

If you are not allowed to inform the public what is available that may help in the treatment of disease, then should it be allowed that money tins are rattled under the noses of those suffering with the very disease you are collecting for or play on the emotions of the relatives at that time?


The answer to the 'cure' of cancer is not singular. It could be assumed that is is as different as there are people that contract it.
Is the word 'cure' too positive? Aiming for a cure? Far too positive it seems. We are only allowed to aim for remission!  Well that's great!  I like to think if I was struck with this problem, I would be aiming for a cure and not a remission, but then there is no money in curing cancer or any disease.  Money in ill health but not in health!

Who makes the most money in this?  Well we don't need to look beyond drug companies for the answer to that and we all know how desperate they can be.

Great play is made of the money that the so called 'alternative' treatments charge, but is that true? I know many excellent therapists that most certainly do not charge excessively for their skills and very often in treating cancer either charge less or give their time voluntarily.

I don't think drug companies are handing over free drugs or oncologists not taking their salaries.

In life we should be allowed to be informed of what ever is available and as long as nothing is deemed as a cure then let the information be out there and debated/discussed and questioned by the public.

I just happen to believe that we the public are not silly and can be informed of things and then make considered judgements. Better to know what may be available and how it may benefit before a problem in the health arises, they may even discover how to prevent illness such as potentially serious ones in the first place.

Why is cancer so different to other ills in terms of the law. Perhaps its because the NHS make it so fear based that they themselves make the sufferer vulnerable rather than empowered. It is easier to get a patient to comply if they are coming from a base of fear rather than one of taking control.

It does seem that the public are denied choice under this act though, as how would your everyday person in the street know what is out there if other methods are not allowed to be given an opportunity to be heard

Cichealth make no claim that any of the treatments being discussed are a cure for treating any person for cancer as the act states, neither do we say they are a cure in themselves.
It is an opportunity to hear and debate the treatments and nothing more.
That must surely be allowed in a country that prides itself on free speech and education.

The speakers are of the highest calibre and all professionals, so lets respect that and give all the opportunity to hear views.

If you can be bothered to visit the Quackometer site, and I do urge you to, as you will no doubt see the ridiculous way information can become misinformation by what I'm sure the author considers himself to be skilful in.

Patricia Peat has given an invitation to her critics to go and speak with her, but of course that may reveal the truth and clearly Quackometer are not so keen on that.

Bill Bradford has most certainly never claimed that Meditherm's thermal imaging is a replacement for mammography and I would like to see where Le canard noir can prove otherwise from Bill.

Re Steve Hickey, It is easy to throw suspicion on to a speaker by claiming that there is no record of that person working at a particular organisation...pity they don't add that they did, but have moved on to other areas as we all do in our work.  Some how it doesn't have the same sinister 'suggesting of a lie' about it.

I could go through all our speakers and correct the misinformation that this Quackometer site has deemed to write, but given all our speakers are of the utmost professional being, they really do not need me to do that. Their work speaks for them.

So Le canard noir, cheap tricks in your writings are just that and our far from stupid members of the public see right through them.

For more information on the convention www.cichealth.org.uk  click on 'Cancer Convention'

Please visit the Quackometer site and as you do keep a large pinch of salt handy!

HPV - To Vaccine or not to Vaccine

Is this vaccine, be it Gardasil or Cervarix, just one vaccine that is really not essential?
Its results are still to come of course. At this stage, we do not know if the vaccination programme in the long term is either safe or effective.

Having just attended a talk on the Human Papilloma Virus, HPV, it was enlightening to say the least. Interesting that it is agreed that the vaccination is ineffective in women who are already sexually active, so therefore needs to be given to young girls, very young girls in fact! but it is not known if the vaccine is 'protective' for life.

We could well be allowing young girls to be vaccinated for something that hopefully they will not contract due to their age and not sexually active, yet when they finally reach that stage of their lives, the vaccine could well have lost any protective quality it may have had.
By this time they will be sexually active and the vaccine is then considered ineffective!!......

Doesn't this seem ironic?

But what if it is decided that the vaccine would be offered to all women? Well a study shows that where the vaccine was used for sexually active women, they had a greater chance of developing cervical cancer! some increase of 44%

The issue of vaccination is a whole debating subject on its own, but if we just look at the Gardasil and Cervarix vaccines, both of these are set to protect against only 4 or 2 strands of the HPV and genital warts in the case of Gardasil, respectively, we see that we are spending money on a drug that is barely effective at all given the number of strains of HPV that could be problematic.
Yes, i'm sure they feel that they have selected the most likely strands, but what if it is one of the many other strands that causes a problem, then the vaccine is likely to give a false sense of protection.

Let us hope that they never do away with regular smear tests, just in case it is one of the other strands causing a problem, or we discover that the vaccine has a short protection or like many vaccines, none at all or very insignificant.

Our speaker informed us that from June this year in the UK, when a smear test is given, if any abnormal cells are found, then a test for HPV will be carried out. If this is also present then those women will be referred to the Colcoscopy Clinic.

I can see more women being fearful, to then come under a hospital department for what is very likely the innocent development of a virus that due to its transient nature will naturally be dealt with by the bodies immune system.

As my previous blog stated, the presence of HPV is not always there for cervical cancer to develop and equally we can have the virus and never develop cancer.
Our expert speaker agreed that it is a transient virus and so by its very nature comes and goes, so why do some develop cancer and others not?
When i asked her this question, her answer was immunity! When i asked how that might be rectified, her answer was diet, eat more veg!, stop smoking etc, but it was said with a certain flippancy as if no one would do that, so lets vaccinate instead.

Well are we really that stupid that we think a vaccine will then allow us to not look after our own immunity?
If that is the case, what a sad indictment on society. We want the state to stick a needle in us so we don't have to bother.

Surely we should be looking at what is causing the problem ie why do some develop cancer and others don't and if that is falling on poor immunity, then lets fix that problem. A vaccine will put pressure on the immune system in a way that is alien to the body, therefore weakening it and not strengthening it. Going for the real cause and addressing that, has got to be better than ignoring that and working on the next stage that allows the HPV to develop.

Wouldn't it be great for our doctors to be knowledgeable on natures medicine - Food!  We may all start to live healthier for longer without the need for vaccinations and other immunorepressant medicines.

If you have daughters being offered the vaccination, don't let ignorance or peer pressure affect your decision. There is no rush to ever having something like a vaccine done - check all the facts first and all the known side effects and remember your child doesn't have to be an acceptable statistic if they fall ill or worse - die,

The US has been using Gardasil and its track record is far from right, so why has the UK opted for this?

Think not of what your doctor can vaccinate you for, but what lifestyle changes you can easily make to improve your chances of remaining well and healthy.

Gardasil - A vaccine to far with a GM element!

To the parents or guardians of all young girls and if MERCK get their way, boys as well, view the Gardasil vaccine as highly suspicious. A vaccine with a GM element, fast tracked and MERCK wanting to almost give it away to poorer nations.....Its track record in the states is one with too many horror stories...just remember that if the horror story is your child, is that an acceptable risk?? This vaccine is due to replace the GSK vaccine of Cervarix  in September in the UK, why are we not making a fuss about this, why does it have such a low profile in the media??

It is a costly vaccine and does it have proven effectiveness over a good old fashioned smear test? I doubt it! It doesn't cover all forms of HPV by any means and you can carry this and never develop cancer or not carry it and develop it! Let’s stick with a smear test and not put the health of our young people at risk.

We don't know the effect of GM ingredients on our systems through food, never mind in a vaccine! If ever there is something to avoid, it has to be GM and this vaccine in particular.

As parents, our fear for our children gets played on by the health service who have the might of the drug companies breathing down them, let’s not be at the bottom of a fear based chain that has nothing to do with health.

HPV vaccines may well be one step too far, check the evidence from the US, ignore the statistics that can never prove or disprove a negative anyway and don't let your child be the 'acceptable risk'

If we are to have vaccines - make them safe - just check what else goes into that vaccine - you probably wouldn't want it then!  We don't want them fast tracked and we don't need them with any connection to GM

Lastly remember that drug companies have shareholders, they are businesses and desperate to make their money, after all that is what we expect businesses to do, do we not?  Let it not be to the detriment of our children!

The Cancer Convention - how its progressing.

I spent the day with my colleague working on the Cancer Convention 2012 here in our home town of Cambridge. We are just under a year away and have some wonderful speakers who have agreed to come and enlighten those that attend to the work that they are carrying out on cancer.  Treatments that look to treat it without the horrific side effects of the traditional options that the majority of the populus are subjected to

These are Dr and Professors that are putting forward safe and innovative ways of treating cancer, but not only treating cancer, how we can change the body environment to not develop it in the first place or to take away the 'ideal' living conditions for cancer cells to survive.

Yesterday we spoke to some great people who want to see this convention succeed and help promote health supporting ways of treating cancer.

So much so that we are thinking of extending the conference to 2 days.

For too long people have been putting their trust in the chemotherapy and radiotherapy and then having to endure an operation if they are fit enough to cope with it.

Those of you who kindly follow my blog will know that my passion in this area has stemmed from the all too early death of my sister this year, that despite having me on her shoulder and encouraging health giving approaches to cancer treatment, still felt the enormous pressure to take the chemo route, only for that to be a major factor in hastening her death.


So what is it within the majority of people that feel it is their only option?  Perhaps if the real stats were shown, then they would think again.

It is worth knowing what is available before a problem strikes so you are not searching for a cure in a panic mode, with doctors telling you everyday you defer from there treatment, the cancer is taking a greater hold.

Well find out what is on offer and just how these ways can treat cancer more effectively than the cut/burn and poison you could be subjected to.

With cancer ever on the increase in younger people and those of us in our middle years, we have to look at what is suppressing our immune system so much that our natural killer cells are not doing their job

The increase in breast cancer and lung cancer in particular.  It can't all be down to smoking either. If that was the case then all smokers would get lung cancer and we all know people in the 80's and 90's who have smoked since they were youngsters and never develop cancer, it has to be more than just causal in that way.

What about the other suppressors to our immune system that we inflict on ourselves.

Stress is another factor, well are we really under stress any more than other generations.

I consider that there can be no higher stress level than living through a war, and never knowing whether you would be bombed, or loved ones killed or that your young children would ever see their father again, let alone trying to feed a family on meagre rations.

All within very different living conditions than we do now, and with very few people having a 'cushion' to fall back on.

So may be we need to stop blaming things and situations and start look at the living conditions that 'house' our very life.  Look at the body, start to listen to it. Work with it and not against it.

Modern medicine is more and more disinfranchised from health and from the real workings of the body.

Going back to nature and the naturopathic principles of healing have to be best and when these are applied cleverly to treatments, wonderful healing takes place.

With all our speakers, there innovative ways and approaches to cancer are showing great results, with out the side effects that are so often worse than the disease and more likely to contribute to the demise of the body.

Keep you eye on the website for further developments.

www.cichealth.org.uk

The Statin Myth

If you could come up with a drug that was deemed to be preventative, you surely are in the money!
After all you can't prove a negative!  If you take it and you didn't need it, you would never know. If you don't take it and something happens, it might have happened anyway or it might not! You won't know that either!
So what ever you take you need to know that it will do what it says and it is the right drug to help the right problem!

No one over the age of 50 can have failed to recognise the love of statins by their local GP surgeries. You get your cholesterol test and if that level shows anything above 5 or in some cases above 4, then in comes that good old fear based agenda....'You could be in danger of a heart attack if you don't get the level down, but don't worry, we can put you on statins and that will protect your heart from cholesterol'

For diabetics they like it under 3!

You might get told that your 'bad cholesterol' or LDL  is to high or your 'good cholesterol' HDL is too low etc and so you need Statins.

If you look up any basic Anatomy and Physiology book or even google it, you will see that LDL and HDL are not Cholesterol. LDL (Low Density Lipoprotein)  HDL )High Density Lipoprotein   Both are protein and not cholesterol.

Has your doctor taken leave of his senses and why doesn't he know that? Well of course they do, but you need an advertising tag and so they proliferate the advertising nonsense!  But why?

I'm not sure why the ASA, advertising standards agency haven't jumped on this ages ago!

There is no such thing as good and bad cholesterol.  Cholesterol is made in your liver and you need it for the making hormones (steroidal hormones) and for making cell walls.

Hardly insignificant then and the body doesn't make things for nothing. So if you are under the belief that cholesterol is your enemy, why would the liver make something that is going to kill you?  That is not logical.

If you don't have cholesterol in the body, there is nothing to generate healthy hormones or repair and replace cell walls.  All cell walls!  Without sufficient cholesterol they become weak and allow infection and disease in.

So for those diabetics that are being told cholesterol should be 3, then that has a serious consequence. Diabetics often have a problem healing and hence have chiropody on the NHS to stop problems in the feet where cuts and infection could be serious, as circuation is affected by diabetes. So with invariably weaker cell walls due to reduced cholesterol, this is by far from a clever scenario for your average diabetic.

So far from preventing a problem, statins could be creating a bigger problem for you.

It isn't lowering cholesterol that is the issue, it is the size of the LDL particles that can be a problem

So LDL, takes cholesterol to the cells for repair and renewal, if the size of the particles are too small then they block the holes where nutrients pass through and cause a problem. you need large particles in you LDL and this keeps movement flowing.  where there is movement, there is lfe, where things get stuck, they become prone to becoming rancid and oxidising and that gives problems.
So Statins don't reduce the size of the particles in the LDL, only the type of food you eat can do that. Statins reduce the all important Cholesterol.  Just what you don't need to happen.

People are being misprescribed and mislead by what a statin will do.

We have what Dr's and advertisers like to call 'Good Cholesterol' and that is HDL. HDL transports protein away from cells. so they like to show this one as good, but the only reason it takes it away, is so that it can return it back to the liver and it can be recycled!

Why would a body have a mechanism for recycling something that is supposed to be harmful to us.

There is no logic there what so ever.

It recylces substances it knows are crucial to maintain good health and that it continually needs, so by recycling it, the body is being efficient and not wasting any of this essential substance.....Still want to take a Statin?


Well we need large particles in our LDL. That is only possible by the food you eat!  sorry folks no magic quick fix pill.

That statin could be and is showing in fact, weakening the body.


Why should you be fed a complete untruth as to what a statin does and what actually cholesterol does.

No money for any drug company in your change of dietary habits. Do you think they really care about your health?

This information is so available for people either through a good text book or via the internet. We just need to wise up on what we are being asked to take and exactly what for. Just because a Dr says so. it doesn't make it right.  Are they getting their info from the advertisers who want to sell you products based on Good Cholesterol!  The ASA should stamp on it!  No, they are being given the line by drug companies perhaps.  Or are they all hand in hand?

Don't let the medical profession treat you as an idiot and feed you nonsense., so they can rake in the bucks.

Learn about your own body and you are less likely to be mis prescribed and mislead!