>These people with genetically low cholesterol, however, have other issues
Neat.
>You have to understand the point which you’re not yet able to put in your head
Nowhere did I ever dismiss other causative inputs. All I did was reply to some probably-listen-to-chiropractor people who sure are trying incredibly hard to downplay cholesterol.
If one person with high cholesterol does not get heart disease then cholesterol is not the problem. Fact. Logic.
Why don’t you stop your appeal to authority arguments and focus on the facts.
It’s not that I haven’t died yet either. My calcium artery score was zero. I have no plaque in my arteries and I’ve had high cholesterol for probably 30 years of my life because of my genetics.
If that is not interesting to you then you have an odd bias. I merely saying that inflammation is the risk factor that matters more than high cholesterol. You can lower cholesterol for someone who has high inflammation and reduce heart disease, but reducing inflammation is more important overall.
>If one person with high cholesterol does not get heart disease then cholesterol is not the problem. Fact. Logic.
This is such a silly statement I'm not sure where to begin. Plenty of people smoke and drink and don't die of issues related to smoking or drinking, but smoking and drinking are bad for you.
Individual response to things varies. No one reasonable is going to say that because such and such person did X, Y, Z things that we know are bad and didn't have a negative outcome that we must flip the script on if those things are bad are not. Exceptions exist for a wide variety of reasons.
> It’s not that I haven’t died yet either. My calcium artery score was zero. I have no plaque in my arteries and I’ve had high cholesterol for probably 30 years of my life because of my genetics.
Calcium score does not tell you how much plaque you have in your arteries - it tells you how much calcified plaque you have in your arteries. This is NOT the same thing. You need a CCTA to tell if you have soft plaque or not.
I'm sorry, but you're just severely misinformed here and spreading all sorts of dangerous misinformation all over the comments here.
> The body does not need cancer, but it does need LDL to transport fats around the body.
Of course the body needs cancer.
Cancer is your own bodies cells. They're essential for you being alive. And, cells with damaged DNA train and hone your immune system.
You have millions of cancer cells in your body right now. Your immune system is killing them as we speak.
If a few happen to slip through, then that's we would say you have cancer. Why might they slip through? Your immune system makes mistakes. Because everything makes mistakes.
> What was it that he did that proved him immune to the ravages of smoking?
Um, nothing?
Is this your first day on Earth? Life is not an algorithm.
Everything is risk, everything is probability. Smoking increases your risk. It doesn't give you anything.
Your HIV and AIDS argument is just fucking stupid. Sorry to be blunt.
Yes, SOME things are A -> B. That is an extremely rare exception to the rule. Extremely. That almost never happens.
Like, if I drive fast, I might die. Might. Its not a garuantee.
I can drive 150 every day and live, or drive 10 and die immediately. That's life. Welcome to risk and probability. That's just how things work.
Having LDL and no heart disease doesn't prove anything to anyone. That doesn't prove LDL doesn't cause heart disease.
Neat.
>You have to understand the point which you’re not yet able to put in your head
Nowhere did I ever dismiss other causative inputs. All I did was reply to some probably-listen-to-chiropractor people who sure are trying incredibly hard to downplay cholesterol.