Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Inflammation: Medicine's burning question

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 160 posts

Re: Inflammation: Medicine's burning question

#31

Post by coldtea »

boothead wrote: post #2

It's great to read things like this... I wish my GP would do the same. I recently had a really high cholesterol reading (both total cholesterol and LDL). Everything else (blood pressure, blood glucose etc) seems fine. I'm 38, fit and healthy and nothing that suspect in my family history. I found the attitude of my doctor in all this quite surprising. It amounted basically to "You definitely have familial hypercholest…

On the other hand your GP examined you and has an actual medical degree while you just read some articles on the internet...

Re: Inflammation: Medicine's burning question

#32

Post by jeremyswank »

satx wrote: post #23

statins-for-cholesterol is a hugely profitable business pushed hard for decades by BigPharma, going back to a single faulty "study" in the 1950s, after Eisenhower's heart attack. My opinion is that statins-for-cholesterol, obsession with cholesterol is as big of a medical scam, a BigPharma misdirection-for-profit, as BigFood's "low-fat" and "whole grain", and gluten scams. Cholesterol is essential, so much so 90% is…

What are your credentials for making these statements?

Re: Inflammation: Medicine's burning question

#33

Post by bigfudge »

carbocation wrote: post #30

Somehow LDL-cholesterol has come up in this thread about inflammation. The article here offers a highly speculative opinion regarding the role of inflammation across many diseases. The luminaries in cardiology cited in this article ran trials which many of us consider to show that, rather than inflammation being important, any reason to start statins is a good reason. The genetic data currently supports very little r…

It's hard to take the evidence at face value though, given the historically malevolent influence of big pharma on accurate publishing of trial data (SSRIs, vioxx etc), the significant links between the key trialists and the drug developers, and the lack of transparency in the data.

At this point the argument about statins can only be solved by opening the data.

Re: Inflammation: Medicine's burning question

#34

Post by kefka »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #26
epalmer wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My understanding is that a doctor's first job is to be risk averse. That's why they shy away from bleeding edge research and knowledge, and choose instead to rely on proven ways I think it is more a matter of relying on what other doctors are doing and as well what they think their patients will tolerate. I asked my cardiologist and primary care doctor before going on a well formulated low carb diet. they were both…

> For me I decided to take control of what I can in my health. But you did that cooperating with your doctors, which is how it should look. The problem with people taking charge of their own health is usually that they completely reject medical professionals altogether because they "know better". It makes exactly as much sense as when a manager decides not to hire a programmer, but instead buys himself a JavaScript b…

You can count me in on the group that "is not taking the drugs proscribed by the doctor". Type 2 diabetic, and on my way back out of that disease.

And I made that informed choice. Statins do not work well with my family history. That was disregarded by doctor.

I also said I wanted to try a diet of low/no carbs and testing vigorously in a term called "eating to the meter". Instead proscribed Metformin. Also doc quoted wrong safe blood glucose limits, higher than that of where damage forms. Following his advice would guarantee me with diabetic neuropathy.

Now I wanted to see proof that what I asserted was safer.

https://mega.nz/#!BgMEzbbB!hZtA0B64Xm-0XRr-lWlVD12zzTmJ2Wix2...

Seems to work for me.

Re: Inflammation: Medicine's burning question

#35

Post by boothead »

coldtea wrote: post #31
boothead wrote: post #2

It's great to read things like this... I wish my GP would do the same. I recently had a really high cholesterol reading (both total cholesterol and LDL). Everything else (blood pressure, blood glucose etc) seems fine. I'm 38, fit and healthy and nothing that suspect in my family history. I found the attitude of my doctor in all this quite surprising. It amounted basically to "You definitely have familial hypercholest…

On the other hand your GP examined you and has an actual medical degree while you just read some articles on the internet...

Yes, this is a very good point that I try to keep uppermost in my mind. The thing is though that I'm not sure that having a medical degree and several years as a GP actually gives you much more of a grounding in non-drug therapies than someone who can read the original research (or in my case well referenced and balanced synopses of said research by people who's opinion I trust). Which is where my vague sense of disappointment comes in: the only intervention that a doctor within mainstream medicine seems to countenance is a prescription.

Re: Inflammation: Medicine's burning question

#36

Post by JupiterMoon »

tkyjonathan wrote: post #8
boothead wrote: post #2

It's great to read things like this... I wish my GP would do the same. I recently had a really high cholesterol reading (both total cholesterol and LDL). Everything else (blood pressure, blood glucose etc) seems fine. I'm 38, fit and healthy and nothing that suspect in my family history. I found the attitude of my doctor in all this quite surprising. It amounted basically to "You definitely have familial hypercholest…

Take matters into your own hands and change your diet. Nothing beats a high anti-inflammatory whole-foods plant-based diet. Check the research.

Isn't it rather dangerous to give sweeping medical advice to strangers over the internet?

Re: Inflammation: Medicine's burning question

#37

Post by boothead »

dualogy wrote: post #27
boothead wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for sharing. I've taken a similar approach: cut all crap out of my diet and now in ketosis (according to urine strips). Ultimately this might not be the fix for me, and I might have to add some other interventions (like replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat if I turn out to metabolize SFA poorly) but I'm also convinced that the primary fix must be dietary/lifestyle with some limited support from med…

> if I turn out to metabolize SFA poorly Is that a thing? Humans metabolizing Saturated Fats badly? I mean, I know of gall-bladder deterioration after maybe years of very-low-fat eating, but other than that. Would these people also weirdly burn their own body fat (saturated) "badly"? ;)

It would seem so:

http://eatingacademy.com/cholesterol-2/random-finding-plus-p...

I think that's essentially what a diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolemia means.

Likewise people seem to vary widely in their ability to handle high carb diets. I guess a cookie cutter approach doesn't really work across the board.

Re: Inflammation: Medicine's burning question

#38

Post by carbocation »

bigfudge wrote: post #33
carbocation wrote: post #30

Somehow LDL-cholesterol has come up in this thread about inflammation. The article here offers a highly speculative opinion regarding the role of inflammation across many diseases. The luminaries in cardiology cited in this article ran trials which many of us consider to show that, rather than inflammation being important, any reason to start statins is a good reason. The genetic data currently supports very little r…

It's hard to take the evidence at face value though, given the historically malevolent influence of big pharma on accurate publishing of trial data (SSRIs, vioxx etc), the significant links between the key trialists and the drug developers, and the lack of transparency in the data. At this point the argument about statins can only be solved by opening the data.

What you are saying is true to the same extent that it is true about any drug. Statins are unexceptional in this regard, except that they have a lot more lines of evidentiary support than most drugs due to the importance of coronary artery disease.

Even ignoring statins, again, the genetic evidence paints a clear picture of the causal role of LDL cholesterol in coronary disease. The jury is largely still out on inflammation.

Re: Inflammation: Medicine's burning question

#39

Post by boothead »

carbocation wrote: post #30

Somehow LDL-cholesterol has come up in this thread about inflammation. The article here offers a highly speculative opinion regarding the role of inflammation across many diseases. The luminaries in cardiology cited in this article ran trials which many of us consider to show that, rather than inflammation being important, any reason to start statins is a good reason. The genetic data currently supports very little r…

I think this is a bit unkind:

> dismissed in a pseudo-intellectual manner by people who know a lot (just not about the subject at hand).

I'm the one who's potentially sick here, and this (perhaps wrongly) smacks of appeal to authority. What I absolutely don't want to do is disregard medical opinion, but neither am I inclined to abdicate all responsibility for my own health and well being.

> The genetic data currently supports very little role for inflammation in important diseases like coronary artery disease, whereas there is crystalline evidence supporting the connection between LDL-cholesterol levels and mortality

I'd be very interested in learning more about this, do you have anything you could recommend? I'm fully aware that the majority of what I read on the internet is likely to be along the lines of "don't sweat it, eat natural and you'll be fine" and I'd very much appreciate some exposure to the opposite point of view too.

Re: Inflammation: Medicine's burning question

#40

Post by boothead »

copperx wrote: post #20
boothead wrote: post #2

It's great to read things like this... I wish my GP would do the same. I recently had a really high cholesterol reading (both total cholesterol and LDL). Everything else (blood pressure, blood glucose etc) seems fine. I'm 38, fit and healthy and nothing that suspect in my family history. I found the attitude of my doctor in all this quite surprising. It amounted basically to "You definitely have familial hypercholest…

I recently visited my GP and I had a high cholesterol reading. He suggested me to reduce sugars and white flours, get a reading in a month, and depending on that he'll decide whether to prescribe statins. It surprised me that he didn't mention reducing saturated fats or meat consumption. It made me wonder whether refined carbohydrates play a role in high cholesterol. I think I'll have to take a look at the research.

I'd give Peter Attia a look: http://eatingacademy.com/start-here

His writing is incredibly in depth, and he's covered cholesterol extensively.

Post reply on HN