Sounds like US is endorsing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Paradox
US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)
41–50 of 269 posts
Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Imagine if the FDA, instead of blocking new drugs for 10 years and $1B, it simply withheld its endorsement until satisfied by the clinical trials. Consumers could then take the government's recommendations into consideration when making a decision and drugs could get to market much faster. I'd go one step further. Give the FDA competition. Have private companies (similar to UL for electronics) that can endorse and…
Private companies have profit incentives. If a horrible substance comes to market they can be paid off to endorse it. You can argue that no rational company that cares about its reputation would do such a thing, but history has shown time and time again - yes corporations do waive all consideration for public safety in lieu for money. The government is the perfect institution to endorse safety of substances/drugs/wha…
Because government officials are never paid off?
Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)
#43Wouldn't it be nice if there were more government warnings and less restrictions / regulations? Imagine if the FDA, instead of blocking new drugs for 10 years and $1B, it simply withheld its endorsement until satisfied by the clinical trials. Consumers could then take the government's recommendations into consideration when making a decision and drugs could get to market much faster. The history of medical reversals…
I think it would be nice to not have the government involved in my food decisions in any way. I'm going to let people I've never met tell me what I should eat instead of looking at people I share genetics with? I'm also not going to listen to people who subsidize food producers as if they're impartial
Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)
#44Wouldn't it be nice if there were more government warnings and less restrictions / regulations? Imagine if the FDA, instead of blocking new drugs for 10 years and $1B, it simply withheld its endorsement until satisfied by the clinical trials. Consumers could then take the government's recommendations into consideration when making a decision and drugs could get to market much faster. The history of medical reversals…
The science behind nutrition health is extremely complicated and expecting it to remain constant represent a total misunderstanding of how nutrition research is done and how results are determined. > The history of medical reversals -- and in this case, nutrition reversal -- shows that the government isn't magic. What it shows is that nutrition science is hardly 'solved' and you'd be hard pressed to find a researcher…
That is why people have been so slow to mobilize around climate change predictions.
Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)
#45Here is my paraphrased takeaway: Cholesterol you see in your blood results is still bad. Whole milk, butter, and fatty meats is still bad. Foods like eggs, shrimp, and lobster might be good. I don't think this changes any of my mental models. The foods that I always thought of as "probably not great" are still classified as such, according to this article.
> Whole milk, butter, and fatty meats is still bad You're sure of that? http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/02/12/275376259/the... My main takeaway: > "Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome," John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford and one of the harshest critics of nutritional science, has written.
For instance, here's a handy guide to what causes or cures cancer http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/a-z/b
Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)
#46Wouldn't it be nice if there were more government warnings and less restrictions / regulations? Imagine if the FDA, instead of blocking new drugs for 10 years and $1B, it simply withheld its endorsement until satisfied by the clinical trials. Consumers could then take the government's recommendations into consideration when making a decision and drugs could get to market much faster. The history of medical reversals…
> Wouldn't it be nice if there were more government warnings and less restrictions / regulations? ... A whole raft of restrictions could be converted to warnings and recommendations, freeing up industry to innovate No, not without specific examples of how government regulations are a burden on innovation. Whenever people argue this point in industry X it always seems difficult to come up with concrete examples. > and…
I was just reading the new laws enacted for 2017 in California, which included a ban on powdered alcohol, even though it has never been for sale in the state. That's one concrete recent concrete example where a warning would have been a nice alternative.
Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)
#47This is terrible advice, it is well known that cholesterol and saturated fats found in animal products raise serum cholesterol levels and increase the risk of heart disease and other chronic diseases such as cancer and diabetes.
Here's the president of the American College of Cardiology's research, Dr Williams:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/advice-from-a-vegan...
Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Whole milk, butter, and fatty meats is still bad You're sure of that? http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/02/12/275376259/the... My main takeaway: > "Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome," John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford and one of the harshest critics of nutritional science, has written.
Even in that article, they say it's just associated with reduced obesity, and saturated fats in dairy are still associated with heart disease.
This is inaccurate.
Pubmed studies show that butter is not related to heart disease https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/behindtheheadlines...
Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)
#49Wouldn't it be nice if there were more government warnings and less restrictions / regulations? Imagine if the FDA, instead of blocking new drugs for 10 years and $1B, it simply withheld its endorsement until satisfied by the clinical trials. Consumers could then take the government's recommendations into consideration when making a decision and drugs could get to market much faster. The history of medical reversals…
> Imagine if the FDA, instead of blocking new drugs for 10 years and $1B, it simply withheld its endorsement until satisfied by the clinical trials. Consumers could then take the government's recommendations into consideration when making a decision and drugs could get to market much faster. I'd go one step further. Give the FDA competition. Have private companies (similar to UL for electronics) that can endorse and…
Or have competition in the form of foreign FDA counterparts.
If the European/Japanese/Other Reputable Country authorities have approved a drug, it could be allowed it in the US, with a clear label, of course.
Foreign physiology and science is the same as American.
Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
The science behind nutrition health is extremely complicated and expecting it to remain constant represent a total misunderstanding of how nutrition research is done and how results are determined. > The history of medical reversals -- and in this case, nutrition reversal -- shows that the government isn't magic. What it shows is that nutrition science is hardly 'solved' and you'd be hard pressed to find a researcher…
That is why people have been so slow to mobilize around climate change predictions.
Only through people's incorrect interpretation of reality.
>nutrition science is hardly 'solved' and you'd be hard pressed to find a researcher in the field suggest otherwise.
You'd be hard pressed to find a climate scientist not in agreement with the consensus on climate change, at least one that isn't already promoting book deals on Fox.