Wow. Google Dr Revnskov and you get a million sites claiming he has debunked the cholesterol myth and a million saying he is a quack. The one thing I did notice was that I rarely saw his name without an add for his book. I also noticed that the "establishment" sites like the American Heart Association, the FDA,the American Cancer Association, and the more prominent medical journals discredit Rovnskov's studies as "picking and choosing" his information from studies and only mentioning the possibilites that support his conclusion.
Mass Media Bunk 26 - mythbusting the cholesterol myths -- The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
Science-Based Medicine The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics
His supporters hail him as exposing the pharm companies for ripping of the public with dangerous and ineffective cholesterol drugs.
The opinion of the "establishment" medical community is as follows: Response to Dr. Rovnskov by a Dr. NcNulty from a site called the cholesterol-myth-report taken from the website Elsevier.
"Ravnskov’s a bit of a quack and a crank. He’s earned a reputation for sending obnoxious, whining nonsensical letters to journals. You can find some of them if you’re wandering around Elsevier long enough. A lot of his colleagues publish material in sources like JPANDS – a journal of an insane ultra-right wing medical group that publishes junk like HIV-denialism and the like. Let me put this way – there’s not a lot of credibility on this side.
We actually get one of the Anthony Colpo/Ravnskov groupies showing up on this site every so often and posting in ALL CAPITALS until he gets banned.
Ravnskov is a bit of a crank. He’s got an idea that he’s fixated on, and he refuses to acknowledge the mountains and oceans of evidence saying he’s wrong. A lot of what he’s saying is based on the incredibly simplistic way that science material is presented to the American public, and the incredibly simplistic way it’s digested – rarely beyond the idea of X or Y is bad. He’s frequently dishonest with his examples and uses rhetoric rather than any good science – in many cases he tries to use isolated and unsupported studies to disprove the weight of scientific consensus and evidence. Science doesn’t work that way.
The development of atherosclerosis is extremely complicated, involves a very large number of factors, not all of which are completely understood. That said, an atherosclerotic plaque consists of a mass macrophages that become so engorged with LDL(a form of cholesterol) that they break down. Circulating LDL is necessary for this to happen. Cholesterol a major component of the plaque forming – and at the moment, the best ability to predict and control atherosclerotic plaques is via cholesterol."
I thought this was pretty harsh. What I got out of the ariticle you sent me and the research I did was that the established medical community does not think much of Ravnskov's theory but that a growing number of alternative or outside the box doctors do give credit to his theories. I'm not sure there is enough to support his theories...yet, but I do think it is good to challenge the "establishment" medical community every now and then.
I'm not sure I understand all the medical speak, but it is interesting. I didn't see much by Ravnskov on high fat diets and reducing obesity though, just about heart disease.
What I do think is that a glass or two of whole milk a day is fine for a person that exercises and eats a healthy diet.
Rebecca D