Live data from Hacker News

US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)

washingtonpost.com

61–70 of 269 posts

Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)

#61

Earlier 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…

That worked out really well for the banking industry. You really want a similar scheme for medical care?

That's a false analogy. I was not proposing self-regulation.

I was proposing something like UL which is independent from the companies being overseen.

Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)

#62
post #53

Earlier 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. The way you'd like the FDA to work is literally the way it already works. You're allowed to buy basically any drug you want unless it's scheduled by the DEA. Companies just aren't allowed to market them as being effective for a specific disease without passing clinical t…

Can doctors legally prescribe them without FDA approval? There are many niche drugs currently unavailable for therapeutic use in the USA because no current manufacturers hold an FDA certification.

Drugs have to be approved by the FDA for some condition to be sold at all in the US. Once available, they can be prescribed on and off label, as long as the manufacturer doesn't encourage any kind of off-label use.

Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)

#63
post #20
post #10

Let me know when the government wakes up and inverts the food pyramid, so that breads and grains and carbs are scarce, rather than fats.

Carbohydrates are not a bad thing and are indeed an important part of health. The current suggested diet doesn't say, 'bread'. It specifically calls out Whole Grains, which a great deal of evidence suggests are a Good Thing. Suggesting that grains, or even carbs, are somehow worse than literal fat is misleading at best, and delusional at it's worst.

I'm sorry but you have no idea what you're talking about.

Typical carb intake in avg diet that doesn't remove grains and starches is literally worse for you than pure eating pure fat.

Read about keto diet, read / watch presentations by Gary Taubes (his book "Why We Get Fat" is great).

Your understanding of nutrition is about 20 years out of date.

Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)

#64
post #51
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm referring to the original 1992 food pyramid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_pyramid_(nutrition)#/medi... > Fats, oils, sweets: sparingly > Bread, cereal, rice & pasta: 6-11 servings Yes I am in the camp that believe fats and proteins are both much healthier than carbs, and especially refined sugars. The latest nutrition supports low carb diets, as can be seen with Atkins and Keto diets.

> The latest nutrition supports low carb diets The "latest nutrition" supports nothing of the sort. Dietitians still recommend you get roughly 50% of your calories from healthy carbs. Source: my wife is a registered dietitian and has a PhD in nutrition.

Not wanting to blast an entire profession, and I am not even the guy you are talking with...

But to me, PhD in nutrition doesn't mean much, it is like PhD in underwater basket weaving, I am yet to met a single nutrition professional that could help me, and believe me, I looked really, really hard.

In the end the only people that could help me, were endocrionologists, biologists, and other scientists in fields that are not directly relation to nutrition.

And the reason for that, is precisely because of that high-carb recommendation, that is just insane, many cultures on earth lived just fine with low, or even zero carbs (extreme example: north-pole inhabitants, that in some places have diets that are 100% meat, organs included, since "regular" meat lacks some nutrients, like Vitamin C).

In more tribal places (all over the world too, Africa, Asia, Americas...) hunter tribes also tend to be healthier than farmer tribes (but also tend to have much lower population numbers).

And in many places, before FDA push for the vegetable agenda (I am not talking about veganism or vegatarianism, but about FDA constantly defending vegetable based food, including by accepting research that was fraudulent), people would happily eat lots of animal fats and meat, and live just fine. (example: in my country before the 60s, everyone used pork fat to fry stuff, and even make soap, but after vegetable oils became popular, and the government started to give strong subsidies to wheat, obesity, diabetes, etc... exploded, many common people still believe egg and cheese is absolutely evil, and prefer to stuff their faces with artificial sweeteners, soy milk, and salad with enough oily dressing to lubricate a car, than eat some eggs).

Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

yup, the science is "agreed on." Disagree and lose your job/funding. That's how to build climate consensus.

That's not at all true, and that level of ignorance is actually quite dangerous.

Scientists in no field are punished for disagreement. Even in really fringe science, disagreement is not only well-funded, but encouraged. A great example is String Theory: It has a lot of supporters and a lot of people saying it's untestable bunk, but research for both sides continues.. Consensuses happen when there is sufficient data to collapse to a consensus, not because 'funding'. Disagreements are extremely common in research and suggesting that the overwhelming consensus on the state of climate change is somehow a conspiracy or due to research pressures (that don't seem to exist anywhere else...) is complete garbage.

Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That worked out really well for the banking industry. You really want a similar scheme for medical care?

That's a false analogy. I was not proposing self-regulation. I was proposing something like UL which is independent from the companies being overseen.

There is pressure to be favorable towards the customer (the company being inspected). Something similar happened in finance, where issuers were shopping around the big 3 ratings agencies for the best rating.

Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)

#67

Earlier 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…

Do not want. See the role of Moodys and S&P in the 2009 meltdown for what a profit motive does to the ability to "endorse" anything that has the potential to harm.

Why aren't you blaming the SEC (FDA counterpart in this analogy) for 2009 events as well?

Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)

#68

Wouldn'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…

Drug approvals are currently much better than nutrition studies. Your suggestion of allowing not-known-to-work "medicine" to be sold would return us to the era of patent medicines, which killed a lot of people. You can look at the supplements market to see people dying from a similar policy right now.

Like anything else, you have to look at both costs and benefits of the alternatives.

The current extremely tough FDA approval process has the benefit you mention: Fewer people are injured by unsafe drugs.

But it also has a big (but harder to observe) cost: If disease X kills 1000 people/year, then each year a cure is delayed kills 1000 people.

The main argument against the current system is that it weighs the deaths of people in the first category vastly more than those in the second.

How many people the FDA process kills this way is hard to calculate, and you can find wildly different estimates. But most discussion assumes it doesn't even exist...

Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)

#69

My surgeon friend told me medical studies are like the bible. You can find a paper that says something is bad for you and another that says it is good for you. So just believe the one that makes you happier.

You can definitely find contradictory studies. The solution is not to abandon research, but to recognize that A study means very little, unless it's a systematic review or meta-analysis (in which case it's a study of many studies).

Don't pick the one study that shows what you want. Pick all the studies and go with whatever the preponderance of evidence suggests. That's science, and it's by far our most effective and reliable way of learning useful and non-obvious truths about the world.

Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)

#70
post #27

Earlier 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…

> The problem with this is that the average consumer is both A) dumb, and B) doesn't know what they need Note that the customer for prescription drugs is a licensed doctor.

> Note that the customer for prescription drugs is a licensed doctor.

Who can be bought and misled like anyone else.

Post reply on HN