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

131–140 of 160 posts

Re: Inflammation: Medicine's burning question

#131

Post by coldtea »

tertius wrote: post #72
coldtea wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> actually gives you much more of a grounding in non-drug therapies than someone who can read the original research I don't think one can actually "read the original research" (with the all the prerequisite and pressupossed knowledge that entails) without either having been to medical school and have similar training of his own to such a level. Having access to said research and being able to read it (in the nominal…

I agree here, though I personally wouldn't trust a single doctor to him/herself be able to parse, as you say, the research. Research is written at a peer level and most doctors are not trained or don't care to know how to interpret the results of research. Not to mention that the vast majority of research is extremely specific.

>Research is written at a peer level and most doctors are not trained or don't care to know how to interpret the results of research. Not to mention that the vast majority of research is extremely specific.

Most research (the vast majority) is also bogus too. Until it's distilled to common practice, people shouldn't really touch it with a bargepole.

See my other lengthier comment on this.

Re: Inflammation: Medicine's burning question

#132

Post by lucidrains »

jpmattia wrote: post #107
shanusmagnus wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree 100%. The corollary is that, if you must play, make sure that you yourself are the best expert of your medical history, symptomology, and candidate hypotheses about what may be going on with your health. This is difficult, and perhaps futile, but the sad truth is that due to time issues (and probably information overload) it's your job to a) bootstrap the MD with whatever is relevant about your condition, and b…

One resource I would add to your list: http://www.uptodate.com/ Since few MDs can actually stay on top of the latest developments for all the different items that cross their desks, UpToDate serves as a curated summary of many medical conditions, and is updated every 6 months (? maybe 9, it's been a while) for each topic. It is a subscription service, and if you are dealing with anything in between problematic-to-ser…

I second this. In fact, the big secret is that all doctors use this as reference these days in clinical practice settings, while in the backroom on a computer. It is literally the doctor's goto wikipedia.

Re: Inflammation: Medicine's burning question

#133

Post by Swizec »

copperx wrote: post #126
Swizec wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's okay. That's how engineers and computer scientists work. The idea of "generalization" and "hyperbole" and "caricature" is often lost on us. This is primarily why my technical blogging has slowed down significantly. Writing for an audience that cares more about details than The Point (tm) is often annoying.

Actually, to nitpick on the details, it's both. We care about the details AND the point. The details sometimes take you to The Point. For example, I on your original post, I was trying to figure out if you meant "Computer Scientists are theoreticians" through the details. If you're not going to outright say something straight to the point, the details better be clear so that one can understand the implication.

That's the thing, there were no details, it was a caricature.

I've never heard of a person rewriting COBOL into Lisp in 2015. But I do personally know people who write Coq proofs and care about differences between strengths of various grammars.

Maybe that's the problem - that part came too close to reality and triggered people's spidey senses.

Re: Inflammation: Medicine's burning question

#134

Post by [deleted] »

copperx wrote: post #126
Swizec wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's okay. That's how engineers and computer scientists work. The idea of "generalization" and "hyperbole" and "caricature" is often lost on us. This is primarily why my technical blogging has slowed down significantly. Writing for an audience that cares more about details than The Point (tm) is often annoying.

Actually, to nitpick on the details, it's both. We care about the details AND the point. The details sometimes take you to The Point. For example, I on your original post, I was trying to figure out if you meant "Computer Scientists are theoreticians" through the details. If you're not going to outright say something straight to the point, the details better be clear so that one can understand the implication.

[deleted]

Re: Inflammation: Medicine's burning question

#135

Post by QSIITurbo »

kefka wrote: post #51
ejstronge wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to comment on the version of your comment that you edited. You stated that you believe a blood glucose of 140 mg/dl would cause diabetic neuropathy whereas your GP quoted a blood glucose of 150 mg/dl as causative of diabetic neuropathy. It doesn't seem like things are as starkly different as that. Patients usually develop diabetic neuropathy over many years, so it's not clear that your GP would have 'guarantee…

Weird. I've edited no posts at least in the last week or so.(this post edited to add lines to show separation between studies.) And yes, I cite 140mg/dL causes neural damage and shows itself as diabetic neuropathy. Proof. _____________________________________ >Diabetic Retinopathy Develops at "Prediabetic" Blood Sugar Levels NIH News: Diabetic Retinopathy Occurs in Pre-Diabetes. http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/jun2005/nid…

Your quotes are about destruction of beta cells (not neural damage). The 140 vs. 150 is a moot point: if you're diabetic, you're supposed to get your blood glucose fixed a lot lower than that.

Added: I read one of the studies, and it doesn't really controvert your doctors quote. It gives fasting glucose target a lot lower than 140 or 150 (as it should be), and 2hr glucose a lot higher than 150.

In essence, I think you're just interpreting these studies as you will without a proper medical training. My advice is: don't start experimenting with your life based on such weak foundation.

Re: Inflammation: Medicine's burning question

#136

Post by astrange »

JeremyNT wrote: post #29
boothead wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for those links! I should have been clearer: what bugged me about my interaction with the GP was that he didn't ask about anything to do with lifestyle/diet. When I went looking on my own - everything I seemed to find from the NHS/Heart UK suggested that cutting saturated fat was essential, leading to my conclusion that this is what the mainstream medical establishment still believes.

As somebody in the same situation (same age, otherwise healthy, high cholesterol, regular exercise) my read is that trying to influence ldl in a meaningful way through diet alone is essentially pointless. You can knock off a few points, and you can raise HDL a bit, but the likelihood of a dramatic reduction is essentially nil. Going right for the statins kind of makes sense beyond a certain point. That said, I opted…

If your triglyceride levels are too high you're eating too many carbs and not enough fish. If they're not, there is not as much evidence you really have a problem.

Re: Inflammation: Medicine's burning question

#137

Post by boothead »

teslabox wrote: post #81
boothead wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trigs were fine. Overconsumption is certainly one more thing for me to look at.

Broda Barnes book [1] says, iirc, that high cholesterol levels are basically diagnostic of hypothyroidism. Usually people's superficial thyroid lab #'s look fine (TSH), but their body is not properly activating T4 -> T3. [1] https://books.google.com/books?id=TJXf2ZqoxUIC

Yes, when I demured on the statin it occurred to my doc to check thyroid function (seems the wrong way round to me). My levels were fine.

Re: Inflammation: Medicine's burning question

#138

Post by boothead »

QSIITurbo wrote: post #85
boothead wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely, agree with all of that. What I'm moaning about is the absence of desire to explore further. I don't know if I've had high cholesterol for a long time or not or whether it's lifestyle or not, or whether I do actually have a 1 in 500 genetic mutation that means that my liver doesn't process cholesterol correctly or not. I want to look into some of those possibilities a bit more before I take drugs for the r…

The thing is, if you have familial hypercholesterolemia, some forms have life expectancy of 35 without medications. Patients might have severe atherosclerosis at the age of 10. There is a seriously heightened risk of CVD mortality without statins no matter what you eat or how hard you exercise if you really have it. So in that case your doctor is correct: there's nothing you can do but take medication. But what were…

Yeah, I'm aware of this and it's pretty scary! That's why I'm certainly not ruling out the drugs. What I want to do it figure out if I do have any damage with a CIMT test. If that shows I'm taking damage then it's a done deal, but If I can change my LDL through diet I think I owe myself a couple of months at least to try.

Re: Inflammation: Medicine's burning question

#139

Post by QSIITurbo »

boothead wrote: post #138
QSIITurbo wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, if you have familial hypercholesterolemia, some forms have life expectancy of 35 without medications. Patients might have severe atherosclerosis at the age of 10. There is a seriously heightened risk of CVD mortality without statins no matter what you eat or how hard you exercise if you really have it. So in that case your doctor is correct: there's nothing you can do but take medication. But what were…

Yeah, I'm aware of this and it's pretty scary! That's why I'm certainly not ruling out the drugs. What I want to do it figure out if I do have any damage with a CIMT test. If that shows I'm taking damage then it's a done deal, but If I can change my LDL through diet I think I owe myself a couple of months at least to try.

I'm not that familiar with the CIMT test, but by quick glance it only tells whether your carotid artery is affected. A negative result won't tell you whether the rest of your arteries - such as the coronary arteries - are affected.

But I'm a bit curious: Who referred you to a test like this in your condition?

Re: Inflammation: Medicine's burning question

#140

Post by DrScump »

noondip wrote: post #108
boothead wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just had a click round that website. It's just the kind of place that I avoid like the plague. It seems hopelessly biased, as does the author. I didn't come across one link to an scientific study, and it was immediately obvious that there's a serious anti animal products agenda going on and no disclaimer. Avoid.

It's quite apparent you didn't actually look through the website, or you are just a low-carb shill (if so, please see http://www.atkinsexposed.org - the same dietary nonsense seems to be repackaged by each generation). The NutritionFacts website is literally about published peer-reviewed research, not the author's own personal opinion, nor some "agenda" (pushed by whom, Big Broccoli?) In case you aren't trolling, try…

If you can figure out the actual studies from those sites, please provide links to them or their abstracts, at least.

Otherwise, all that is being provided are two websites pushing books, and their failure to even give usable locators to the claimed studies in text footnotes on the pages (if not clickable links) is suspicious.

Post reply on HN