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

US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 269 posts

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

#71

Post by greglindahl »

BurningFrog wrote: post #68
greglindahl wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The FDA has stricter rules now about drugs because of previous problems where some approved drugs killed people, and others were ineffective, and some were both.

So we already have experience with some alternatives to the current scheme.

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

#73

Post by azinman2 »

badsock wrote: post #54
clarkmoody wrote: post #17

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…

Just as an example: 9% of the cases of Idiosyncratic Drug-induced Liver Injury is self-harm caused by people taking non-regulated dietary supplements: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18955056 You have a theory that the average person will wisely assume the responsibility to vet the health effects of what they consume, but empirical reality disagrees with your theory. Right now people are injuring themselves with…

Don't forget that marketing budgets for pharmaceuticals are also huge. The average person has no chance. The constant bombardment already means people go to their doctor asking for Rx by name even without understanding the medical need or if they're right for it. Now remove regulation... the warnings basically just blur into the background. Already we get so many warnings on prescriptions that they just turn into nothing because people become so habituated to them. It's identical to the paradox that is windows/browser security -- the more you warn, the more people just click through and ignore.

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

#74

Post by WillPostForFood »

mkautzm wrote: post #65
WillPostForFood wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

I wish science was as functional as you imagine.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/sep/21/society.politics

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13098773

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

#75

Post by smallnamespace »

ams6110 wrote: post #42
Scirra_Tom wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No, because government officials are paid off much less often because it's harder.

Outright bribery in the US is rare, difficult, and if caught, will land you in federal prison for a long time. Remember Blagojevich?

Government officials are under much more scrutiny than a private sector executive. There are independent investigators general that have broad latitude to look for malfeasance. The FOIA exists to bring government records to light; there is no equivalent in the private sector. Heck, we spent ~$80mm investigating Clinton over the Lewinsky affair.

The government isn't perfect, but it's a damn sight more transparent and directly accountable to the public than private companies are.

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

#76

Post by afterburner »

throwaway2016a wrote: post #24
clarkmoody wrote: post #17

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…

> 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 corporations aren't magic either. And they don't even have to pretend to give a shit about society.

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

#77

Post by bobdole1234 »

teach wrote: post #51
pdq wrote: 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.

The latest research shows exactly that.

In 15 years or so, what gets taught will reflect that.

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

#78

Post by credit_guy »

andy_ppp wrote: post #38
delinka wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Balanced diet" is the terminology that's honestly hard to define. Until we have that definition, "a variety of types of food" seems better to me. Here, let me offer a correction: "Eat a variety of foods, avoiding large amounts of any one thing, and don't overeat; you'll probably be fine."

"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." - Michael Pollan

Right. And what do you do if you are hungry after you eat "not too much" ?

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

#79

Post by afterburner »

jedmeyers wrote: post #67
mikepurvis wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Do you support vastly expanding SEC powers and making sure it doesn't get "captured" by the financial industry? Do you support massively higher penalties, and far more control over the industry, than it has now, to bring it in line with the power the FDA has?

Do you also only blame the police for not catching a criminal, and not care about the criminal at all?

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

#80

Post by tbrownaw »

andy_ppp wrote: post #38
delinka wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Balanced diet" is the terminology that's honestly hard to define. Until we have that definition, "a variety of types of food" seems better to me. Here, let me offer a correction: "Eat a variety of foods, avoiding large amounts of any one thing, and don't overeat; you'll probably be fine."

"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." - Michael Pollan

"For every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, elegant, and wrong."

- supposedly derived from H. L. Mencken

.

Point here being, just because it sounds good doesn't mean it's well supported.

Post reply on HN