Nutrition Scientists - why are they wrong so often?

[I Shrugged]

I've noticed the same things, I suppose everyone has.  First something is bad for you, then it's good for you. 

I was diagnosed with an ulcer in the 80s.  I happened to have read an article about H.Pylori bacteria causing ulcers, and treatment with antibiotics and Pepto-Bismol.  I mentioned that to the doctor, and he laughed.  Today it is accepted.  I always remember that every time a doctor tells me "there is no proof" or something similar. 

I think the bottom line is that we have to be very critical readers of medical and nutritional advice, have an open mind without being gullible, and that we are our own best nutritionists and doctors.  Which is not to say we don't need doctors.  We do.  But ultimately we know more about what we are feeling and experiencing than anyone else does.

[dualstow]

Great article, Desert.
I never got into egg whites without the yolks. Glad I did ok by being "stupid" and greedy for the taste of yolk, ignoring the conventional wisdom.

  I happened to have read an article about H.Pylori bacteria causing ulcers

I seem to remember reading that we have less h. pylori in our guts in developed nations, and more in developing ones. As a result, we have all but cured one thing -- I forgot what -- but we have way more esophageal problems here than in developed nations, where that other thing has not been cured or reduced. A trade-off.

[MachineGhost]

Good article.  I think faith in government is detrimental to your health.

[Benko]

You can't blame the gov't for doctors/scientists latching onto a position e.g. cholesterol and refusing to let go. 

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”?
? Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers

Lookup what the guy who discovered H pylori had to go through before anyone believed him.

[Mountaineer]

This article describes yet another example of a major error in nutrition science consensus.  Why are they so frequently wrong?  And why are they so confident? 

Just look at what happens when one puts their faith in science as the end-all, be-all for every conceivable subject - sometimes the scientists are right, sometimes not - how does one know the "right" hypothesis/theory/fact for nutrition, for politics, for climate, for love, for physical health, for mysteries of life, for .........?  I propose that there is only one other thing that one should put their faith in for the one really important topic that cannot (yet) be proven.  All is vanity.  Wisdom from long ago. 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=ESV

... Mountaineer

[madbean]

On the same day I read that the government would probably be dropping the advice to avoid foods high in cholesterol, my doctor gave me that very same advice, although she didn't sound wholly convinced. I didn't bother to question her about it because I know doctors don't like that and I've been fired by too many of them already. I need to keep one this time because it's getting hard to get an appointment as a new patient nowadays if you are unfortunate enough to really need one. This one had a degree from a university in Mumbai and was rated 24 out of 24 doctors of internal medicine in the area, but she was willing to see me in a timely manner.

Very predictably she also prescribed a statin which I have resisted taking in the past (and part of the reason my last doctor fired me). I found this somewhat odd because she had no explanation to offer for what was actually ailing me (abdominal pain and vertigo) even after many blood tests and a CT scan. And yet, one of the blood tests showed a number she says is not related to whatever my condition is that warrants taking a medication that costs $7/day for the rest of my life (Crestor, the most expensive statin on the market, I believe).

As a layman the only fact I can ascertain in all this is that my total cholesterol number is indeed high (325). It has stayed high for quite a few years even though I've lost a lot of weight through diet and exercise and my BMI is down to 26.6. In reading research on the subject, there are so many "associated with" and "linked to" assertions that I don't know what to make of it. Apparently "associated with" and "linked to" is enough to spawn a $26 billion dollar industry but color me skeptical.

Nevertheless, she gave me a 30 day free sample and I'm going to give it a try at least until the first blood test in 90 days and then I'll probably go off of it. Hope I'm not making a big mistake.

[Mountaineer]

On the same day I read that the government would probably be dropping the advice to avoid foods high in cholesterol, my doctor gave me that very same advice, although she didn't sound wholly convinced. I didn't bother to question her about it because I know doctors don't like that and I've been fired by too many of them already. I need to keep one this time because it's getting hard to get an appointment as a new patient nowadays if you are unfortunate enough to really need one. This one had a degree from a university in Mumbai and was rated 24 out of 24 doctors of internal medicine in the area, but she was willing to see me in a timely manner.

Very predictably she also prescribed a statin which I have resisted taking in the past (and part of the reason my last doctor fired me). I found this somewhat odd because she had no explanation to offer for what was actually ailing me (abdominal pain and vertigo) even after many blood tests and a CT scan. And yet, one of the blood tests showed a number she says is not related to whatever my condition is that warrants taking a medication that costs $7/day for the rest of my life (Crestor, the most expensive statin on the market, I believe).

As a layman the only fact I can ascertain in all this is that my total cholesterol number is indeed high (325). It has stayed high for quite a few years even though I've lost a lot of weight through diet and exercise and my BMI is down to 26.6. In reading research on the subject, there are so many "associated with" and "linked to" assertions that I don't know what to make of it. Apparently "associated with" and "linked to" is enough to spawn a $26 billion dollar industry but color me skeptical.

Nevertheless, she gave me a 30 day free sample and I'm going to give it a try at least until the first blood test in 90 days and then I'll probably go off of it. Hope I'm not making a big mistake.

For what it's worth, I also used to take Crestor (it really does lower the "bad" numbers and raise the "good" ones).  I had a conversation with my doctor about cost vs. benefit.  He agreed that for people of my age, and circumstances, atorvastatin, the generic lipitor, was probably 99% as good as Crestor for a tenth or so of the price.  I switched.  My numbers have remained about the same and I have experienced no adverse side effects.  My wallet is happier.  I too hope it is a wise choice since I'm frequently wondering whether drugs that lower or raise "numbers" really make significant difference to mortality or quality of life.  I decided to trust my doctor as he really seems like a walking medical encyclopedia and I've been with him for a decade or more.  He is very ethical as best I can tell and does not over treat.  Who knows?  Good luck with your decision.

... Mountaineer

[madbean]

For what it's worth, I also used to take Crestor (it really does lower the "bad" numbers and raise the "good" ones).  I had a conversation with my doctor about cost vs. benefit.  He agreed that for people of my age, and circumstances, atorvastatin, the generic lipitor, was probably 99% as good as Crestor for a tenth or so of the price.  I switched.  My numbers have remained about the same and I have experienced no adverse side effects.  My wallet is happier.  I too hope it is a wise choice since I'm frequently wondering whether drugs that lower or raise "numbers" really make significant difference to mortality or quality of life.  I decided to trust my doctor as he really seems like a walking medical encyclopedia and I've been with him for a decade or more.  He is very ethical as best I can tell and does not over treat.  Who knows?  Good luck with your decision.

... Mountaineer

Thanks for the info. If I do decide to keep taking a statin I will definitely ask for a cheaper alternative, although I understand Crestor is going generic next June.

I found it kind of interesting that she not only prescribed the expensive Crestor but also Nexium, which did me no good and even made things worse, I believe. Both are made by Astra-Zeneca. Makes you wonder if she's either getting a kickback from them or they are just good at marketing to doctors.

[MachineGhost]

You can't blame the gov't for doctors/scientists latching onto a position e.g. cholesterol and refusing to let go. 

So government is just a innocent, benevolent bystanding conduit for fairy tales?  Without government, how would we have cultural impact?  It's different now in the age of the Internet due to audience atomizing; and is directly responsible for this "bottoms up" government shift.  Ancel Keys and ilk of his kind will never get their way ever again.  I also think global warming politics is the last vestige of this crony process.

[Mountaineer]

For what it's worth, I also used to take Crestor (it really does lower the "bad" numbers and raise the "good" ones).  I had a conversation with my doctor about cost vs. benefit.  He agreed that for people of my age, and circumstances, atorvastatin, the generic lipitor, was probably 99% as good as Crestor for a tenth or so of the price.  I switched.  My numbers have remained about the same and I have experienced no adverse side effects.  My wallet is happier.  I too hope it is a wise choice since I'm frequently wondering whether drugs that lower or raise "numbers" really make significant difference to mortality or quality of life.  I decided to trust my doctor as he really seems like a walking medical encyclopedia and I've been with him for a decade or more.  He is very ethical as best I can tell and does not over treat.  Who knows?  Good luck with your decision.

... Mountaineer

Thanks for the info. If I do decide to keep taking a statin I will definitely ask for a cheaper alternative, although I understand Crestor is going generic next June.

I found it kind of interesting that she not only prescribed the expensive Crestor but also Nexium, which did me no good and even made things worse, I believe. Both are made by Astra-Zeneca. Makes you wonder if she's either getting a kickback from them or they are just good at marketing to doctors.

Good observation.  My doctor said Nexium and Prilosec (available in generic form) break down in the body and metabolize to the same compound which is the one that gives the desired effect.  He said Nexium was marketing/chemistry genius by Astra-Zeneca to keep patent protection alive. 

... Mountaineer

[Tyler]

Nice article.

Lobbyists (and their government partners) and corporate interests definitely have a noticeable effect on published science.  I think the article also missed the effects of trial lawyers -- you think the billions extracted from companies over food ingredient scares might influence the industry a bit?  And then there's massive number of individuals (even scientists) who have profited immensely from writing alarmist books and promoting one diet or another. But people being selfish and profiting from fear is nothing new.

[MachineGhost]

Nevertheless, she gave me a 30 day free sample and I'm going to give it a try at least until the first blood test in 90 days and then I'll probably go off of it. Hope I'm not making a big mistake.

It sounds like you might have familiar hypercholesterolemia.  Crestor is the most toxic of the statins, but I doubt only 30 days is gonna do much CoQ10 depletion, muscle and/or brain damage.

But yeah, its sad that orthodox physicians are really nothing but drug mules and their pimps are pharmaceutical reps.  They no longer know or understand how to fix underlying problems, just bandage with palliatives.

BTW, I encourage everyone to sign up here: https://myquest.questdiagnostics.com/web/home
...and you'll auomatically get all lab results emailed to you from any physician using Quest, which is one of Big Two major labs.  No more bureaucratic bullshit and you can see your own results with your own eyes instead of taking the physician at his/her so-called word.

[Mountaineer]

Nevertheless, she gave me a 30 day free sample and I'm going to give it a try at least until the first blood test in 90 days and then I'll probably go off of it. Hope I'm not making a big mistake.

It sounds like you might have familiar hypercholesterolemia.  Crestor is the most toxic of the statins, but I doubt only 30 days is gonna do much CoQ10 depletion, muscle and/or brain damage.

But yeah, its sad that orthodox physicians are really nothing but drug mules and their pimps are pharmaceutical reps.

MG, I'm curious about the bolded statement.  Could you provide some more info?  Thanks.

... Mountaineer

[MachineGhost]

I too hope it is a wise choice since I'm frequently wondering whether drugs that lower or raise "numbers" really make significant difference to mortality or quality of life.  I decided to trust my doctor as he really seems like a walking medical encyclopedia and I've been with him for a decade or more.  He is very ethical as best I can tell and does not over treat.  Who knows?  Good luck with your decision.

It won't effect your cardiovascular mortality risk unless you've already suffered a heart attack, but it does have an indirect benefit in reducing some cancers somewhat from the anti-inflammatory effect (which could be better targeted with drugs of that kind).  So the major downside is statins reduces your quality of life when the negative side effects show up (and they will, given enough time).

[MachineGhost]

I found it kind of interesting that she not only prescribed the expensive Crestor but also Nexium, which did me no good and even made things worse, I believe. Both are made by Astra-Zeneca. Makes you wonder if she's either getting a kickback from them or they are just good at marketing to doctors.

You can look up your physician's kickbacks here: http://projects.propublica.org/docdollars/

[MachineGhost]

MG, I'm curious about the bolded statement.  Could you provide some more info?  Thanks.

http://www.wellnessresources.com/freedo ... f_statins/

[Mountaineer]

I too hope it is a wise choice since I'm frequently wondering whether drugs that lower or raise "numbers" really make significant difference to mortality or quality of life.  I decided to trust my doctor as he really seems like a walking medical encyclopedia and I've been with him for a decade or more.  He is very ethical as best I can tell and does not over treat.  Who knows?  Good luck with your decision.

It won't effect your cardiovascular mortality risk unless you've already suffered a heart attack, but it does have an indirect benefit in reducing some cancers somewhat from the anti-inflammatory effect (which could be better targeted with drugs of that kind).  So the major downside is statins reduces your quality of life when the negative side effects show up (and they will, given enough time).

Well, I'm about 15 or so years into the statins.  But, who am I and what is this forum?  And, spelln dunt cant. 

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

MG, I'm curious about the bolded statement.  Could you provide some more info?  Thanks.

http://www.wellnessresources.com/freedo ... f_statins/

Thanks. 

... Mountaineer

Edit:  This link does not make statins sound quite as bad as the above.  MG, What do you think?

http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/Consume ... 293330.htm

[Benko]

Statins are really bad.  They deplete the body of coQ10 an important nutrient for heart health and not infrequently cause memory problems.

[Benko]

Pug,

The muscle cramps (another side effect i didn't mention) that some get are related to co Q-10 depletion.

I don't know if it is known why the memory problems happen.  Cholesterol is a precursor for lots of things and is needed by the body.  I would not assume taking Co Q10 would protect from memory problems.

Forget statins.  Take (DHA predominant) fish oil and e.g. curcumerin (tumeric related supps).  Or other supps tailored to specific issues you have.

If you want higher level info, a cardiologist used to run heartscanblog and there is a forum (you may have to pay/join something to read) that has good info. 

[madbean]

BTW, I encourage everyone to sign up here: https://myquest.questdiagnostics.com/web/home
...and you'll auomatically get all lab results emailed to you from any physician using Quest, which is one of Big Two major labs.  No more bureaucratic bullshit and you can see your own results with your own eyes instead of taking the physician at his/her so-called word.

Thanks a lot for that information. I asked for a copy of my bloodwork after my last Dr appointment and was told I would have to wait until she was done seeing the next patient. Since she already showed up in the office 45 minutes after my scheduled appointment  I didn't want to wait. Just requested from Quest. Will see what happens.

Hope I can do something similar with the CT scan results.

[Benko]

Pug,

The muscle cramps (another side effect i didn't mention) that some get are related to co Q-10 depletion.

I don't know if it is known why the memory problems happen.  Cholesterol is a precursor for lots of things and is needed by the body.  I would not assume taking Co Q10 would protect from memory problems.

Forget statins.  Take (DHA predominant) fish oil and e.g. curcumerin (tumeric related supps).  Or other supps tailored to specific issues you have.

If you want higher level info, a cardiologist used to run heartscanblog and there is a forum (you may have to pay/join something to read) that has good info.

Thanks. I used to take fish oil daily but have cut back to every other day because my primary care doc said they think the [alleged] increased risk of prostate cancer outweighs the benefits to the heart.

Ask them what is the basis for them saying this.

http://examine.com/blog/fish-oil-and-your-prostate/

[Reub]

You can't blame the gov't for doctors/scientists latching onto a position e.g. cholesterol and refusing to let go. 

So government is just a innocent, benevolent bystanding conduit for fairy tales?  Without government, how would we have cultural impact?  It's different now in the age of the Internet due to audience atomizing; and is directly responsible for this "bottoms up" government shift.  Ancel Keys and ilk of his kind will never get their way ever again.  I also think global warming politics is the last vestige of this crony process.

Bingo! The reason scientists are wrong so often is because most of them are sheep and their settled science is actually nothing more than a thinly veiled, feel good, save the world political agenda that makes us need large government institutions more and puts great wealth and power in these institutions' hands. Global warming is their latest and greatest incarnation but  certainly not their last.

[madbean]

Well, I'm about 15 or so years into the statins.  But, who am I and what is this forum?  And, spelln dunt cant. 

... Mountaineer

If it wasn't for guinea pigs like you I don't think I would have even considered taking a statin. I've had the experience of being prescribed a much-hyped drug that was eventually forced off the market due to adverse affects, namely Vioxx. Fortunately, I didn't have health insurance at the time so I only went through a couple of bottles.

But people have been taking statins for 25 years now. Although I've heard anecdotal stories of  long term side-effects, if they were as unsafe as some people claim one would think there would be more conclusive proof of that by now.

My bigger concern was that the doctor was prescribing something known to alter blood chemistry before actually figuring out what was causing the symptoms I was actually complaining about. If she didn't know what it was, how could she know that a statin wouldn't make it worse? I guess experimentation is the only way. If I don't post again, you'll know what happened to me.

[moda0306]

Why is "government" the lightning rod here?  I'd say government and private interests are both equally complicit in giving us bullsh!t information.  The only saving grace is that SOMETIMES they have different motivations in giving us info so they can act as a check on each other rather than an echochamber to each other.

Do we really trust the agriculture/food/medical industries in the absence of government to give us accurate information?

This is not a "government" problem.  This is an informational asymmetry and a public laziness problem.  If the public put half the effort they do into following which sports team is drafting who back into their own personal health (and the emotional energy as well), both government and industry would be far more efficient at producing quality information.