As a fellow molecular bio guy, I agree with you. I like a healthy degree of skepticism, and I think cholesterol is altogether too taboo in the US (to the point

As a fellow molecular bio guy, I agree with you. I like a healthy degree of skepticism, and I think cholesterol is altogether too taboo in the US (to the point where people won't eat eggs, even though it's been shown that people do not absorb almost any cholesterol from eggs) BUT this guy uses a lot of misdirection in his post and I'm left with a bad taste in my mouth. This article amounts to saying "cholesterol is not always bad" (true) and "all of your cells need cholesterol" (true), therefore "most cholesterol is good for you" (probably false), and "don't try to lower your cholesterol using modern medicine" (too absolute a statement for me to buy). My take? 1. Physicians do need to question what they learn about medicines and their actual uses/usefulness. They need to avoid the temptation to latch onto medical zeitgeists and bandwagons, instead thinking through what they know and don't know about drugs they prescribe. 2. Skepticism is good, but it needs to be responsible skepticism. Especially with regards to complex medical issues, honesty and humility (not pre-conceived notions) are most important.