cholesterol and the subprime mortgage crisis

First things first: The term "meme" (which originated with the biologist/philosopher Richard Dawkins) means a "unit of cultural transmission"- in other words, a shared cultural concept or notion that everyone basically buys into and is in the general storehouse of "common knowledge".

One "meme" is the idea that home ownership is always better than renting. Think of all the things you've heard over the years: renting is like throwing money away. You'll make more money on your home. The real estate market always goes up. Owners are always better off than renters.

Another "meme" is that cholesterol causes heart disease and lowering cholesterol saves lives.

Today's Wall Street Journal did a great piece on the first meme: The idea that home ownership is always a good idea. Carolina Katz Reid, a grad student at the University of Washington, did a 2004 study in which she found:

1) 36% of low income people who became homeowners returned to renting in 2 years, and over 50% returned to renting in 5 years. Most never went back to homeowning later on.

2) The average price appreciation gain of their homes was under what it would have been if they'd invested the money in plain old Treasury bills.

3) The typical low-income household spent half the family income on mortgage, leaving less money for education or a rainy day

4) The typical low-income homeowner saddled with a home was less than half as likely to move when a better job opportunity came up in another city

5) The so called "tax advantage" disappeared when people had little money to "shelter" from taxes.

The "meme" that home ownership, under all conditions- especially for low income people- turned out to be a huge case of "the emperor has no clothes".

Which brings us to cholesterol.

Maybe it's time to get serious about blowing holes in the "meme" that cholesterol causes heart disease or death or that lowering cholesterol does much of anything.

This meme is so entrenched in our society, in our economy, in our way of doing business, that dislodging it is going to be Herculean task, and we may not see it accomplished in our lifetime. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Jane Brody is the nutrition columnist for the NY Times, has been for years. Why a person of this monumental cluelessness should occupy a place of such importance, respect and distinction is completely beyond me. Yesterday she published her own "cholesterol odyssey". You can read it here.

I sent it on to my good friend Michael Eades, MD who wrote a reply to it on his blog. I can't do much better than he did, so I'm just going to point you there.

Let's review for the record:

1) Cholesterol does not cause heart disease
2) Lowering cholesterol does not save lives except in a very very specific select sub-population (middle aged men who have already had a heart attack)- and even then the number it saves is miniscule
3) Statins have a number of serious side effects and they are under-reported
4) To the extent that statins do any good, it is not by lowering cholesterol, but by lowering inflammation (a far more important goal than lowering cholesterol)
5) There has never been one single study- ever- of the effect of statin drugs on women


Please read Mike's blog today for a fuller report. And don't think for a moment that he's the only qualified MD who is saying this stuff. If you're up for it, you can explore the International Network for Cholesterol Skeptics website. Especially recommended: This (and other) essays by Malcolm Kendrik, MD.