Logic A and B

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2019/01/15/what-causes-heart-disease-part-61-strokes/#respond 

Regardless my disregard of claims that statins are health-supporting, I pick up on your point:

"A raised level of factor A does not cause disease B

Thus lowering factor A cannot reduce the risk of disease B"

If too much of factor A does not affect disease B, 

does it necessarily follow that;

not enough of factor A cannot affect disease B?

ie: can lowering factor A contribute to the risk of disease B?

(Even if in this case lower LDL doesn't - though I think it is associated with death by any other means).

I picked up on this with the implications of CO2 and the Bohr principle in relation to over-breathing still in my mind - in that not enough CO2 can surely contribute to disease conditions.

Implicit in this is the idea of a dynamic balance as being proportionally directed to the load and need.

Lowering a level of anything may have no effect until below a critical threshhold.

Manually lowering cholesterol in the body is in my view a form of self-deprivation or self-attack.

At a deeper level - the mind's intent to replace or substitute life - as a sense of control over it, includes replacing feared or predicted loss of life (including potential disease) with ongoing partial self-sacrifice. 

This kind of archetypal 'religion' goes back to the enactment of pain and loss as a mitigation of impending attack, as a last fragment of a power to protect against overwhelming odds. 

(IE: 'I'm already 'punished' - please don't hurt me'). This limits the fear - but also limits the mind to a sense of 'control' associated with sacrifice.