Live data from Hacker News

50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)

npr.org

101–110 of 307 posts

Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)

#101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen terrible logic errors in biology models as well. It just tends to be drama when I talk about those examples. I have a form of cystic fibrosis. According to the CF Foundation website (last I looked), my body overproduces mucus and I am drowning in my own mucus and this is why lung clearance methods are prescribed. I have seen exactly one study that concluded that people with CF actually underproduce mucus. T…

I wouldn’t dismiss your claims, but I’d have some questions. First, have you had genetic testing to confirm that you have CF? If so, then that completely rules out a misdiagnoses of something presenting with a similar set of symptoms. Second I’d be curious what form of the disease you have, since that make make your experience different from someone elses’. Concerns I’d have with accepting your theory about CF as it…

Thank you.

First, have you have genetic testing to confirm that you have CF?

Unfortunately, no. I have had two or three blood tests that indicate I do not have any of the 100 most common alleles. Last I checked, there were 1600 known alleles. My insurance denied my CF specialist's request for a more comprehensive (and expensive) test from Stanford.

I was diagnosed with atypical cystic fibrosis at age 35 based on sweat chloride results and medical history.

My sweat chloride results were 41, as were my oldest son's. My understanding is that historically, below 40 was normal and above 80 was CF. The numbers in between were an undefined grey zone. At some point, they decided that this grey zone was a milder form of CF.

At the time that I was diagnosed, the life expectancy for CF was 36. I was diagnosed just before I turned 36.

So logically I shouldn't have any of the more common alleles. Those alleles really should result in a case of classical CF and have a more severe presentation.

My best understanding is that I have the same pattern of issues as classical CF, just less severe. The lessened severity combined with a late diagnosis meant I had my own mental models for what was going on with my health and allowed me to question what doctors were telling me.

Because CF is so deadly, most people with a diagnosis are terrified of questioning what they are told. I stopped participating on CF lists because they aren't places you can have a meaningful discussion of the science.

I've talked to a guy with a PhD in chemistry and a guy with a PhD in biology to help me understand a few things about how CF functions at the cellular level without having to deal with histrionics and hatred from people terrified of questioning the current mental models.

One thing that occurs to me is that a thicker mucus as expected with CF might still create the perception of dryness.

Mucus is supposed to be slippery. You can have thicker mucus from being dehydrated. Or it firms up to trap invaders.

If it is thick, it is either trapping something or it's incorrectly formulated. It can't do it's job.

People with CF are chronically infected. Logically, thickened mucus is a reflection of a high load of infection, at least in part.

it’s also known that overproduction of mucus is not related directly to CFTR! What that means is that the observed overproduction is a secondary result of the underlying condition.

I think most of what we think of as CF is really secondary, tertiary or further downstream effects.

If we had a condition called Pale Skin Disorder where you were chronically sunburned to the point of being at high risk of dying from skin cancer, you would have a lot of symptoms that aren't per se inherent to having pale skin.

If you are chronically infected your entire life and chronically malnourished your entire life because people don't know how to address issues with the CFTR, this will have consequences that aren't per se due to the defect in the CFTR.

No one is going to mistake a slide of pus and a slide of mucus, and no one will mistake a spectrograph of the two either.

No, of course not. But at what point does mucus become phlegm? How chemically deranged does mucus need to be before it gets recognized as not normal, healthy mucus? How many microbes does it need to contain to be considered some kind of drainage due to infection rather than mucus?

Phlegm is not pus. But they are both a form of infected drainage.

I don't have the language I want for the ideas I have, in part because I generally don't get meaningful engagement.

I'm trying to make a distinction that's clear in my mind.

When I'm adequately hydrated and have enough salt, etc, my mucus membranes are moist and I'm less infected.

I no longer have vaginal dryness either. I spent some time waking up worried that my period had started because dry was the norm. If it was wet, I was bleeding.

That fact did not prevent me from having vaginal discharge, including from frequent yeast infections. I no longer get yeast infections either.

Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)

#103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except you have it backwards. I didn't develop a hypothesis and look for a few internet people to support it. Instead, I did what worked and then tried to understand why it worked. Thick mucus tends to be poor quality mucus. Mucus is supposed to be viscous. Women self reporting on vaginal mucus also fail to distinguish vaginal "goopiness" from mucus. This is why i paid attention to anecdotal evidence that lack of vag…

I'm sorry, but no matter what you say, your experience on forums is not going to move my priors very much. Plenty of people hear plenty of things on forums. It's not an efficient way of obtaining reliable scientific knowledge. Every other person has their pet cause where they know better than doctors because they did X or Y and it helped, and they found other people on the internet who agreed with them. It's a common…

Emphasizing how very much you are convinced I'm hallucinating is not an explanation for how too much mucus makes more logical sense as an immune system failure than too little. It also cites zero sources.

Also, if you are so disinterested, why waste any time replying to me? If I'm a nutter, downvote, flag and move on. Let someone else talk to me who doesn't think I'm a total waste of their time.

Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)

#104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but no matter what you say, your experience on forums is not going to move my priors very much. Plenty of people hear plenty of things on forums. It's not an efficient way of obtaining reliable scientific knowledge. Every other person has their pet cause where they know better than doctors because they did X or Y and it helped, and they found other people on the internet who agreed with them. It's a common…

Emphasizing how very much you are convinced I'm hallucinating is not an explanation for how too much mucus makes more logical sense as an immune system failure than too little. It also cites zero sources. Also, if you are so disinterested, why waste any time replying to me? If I'm a nutter, downvote, flag and move on. Let someone else talk to me who doesn't think I'm a total waste of their time.

You asked in another part of the thread why people are downvoting and not engaging. I explained why I downvoted, and why, if I hadn't engaged, that would have been. If you don't want the answer, don't ask the question. Also, I find myself congenitally unable to let anti-scientific behavior go without comment when it comes before me.

I don't know enough about CF to know why it works how it works. But I do know enough about science and have enough experience with people with "unique" theories of disease to know that almost always, the prevailing scientific wisdom is less wrong.

Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)

#105
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A low fat diet is completely possible without the use of sugar. What's your point?

It would taste like crap and no one would eat it.

You could use artificial sweeteners. Also, there's plenty of lean meats or plant-based diets that are low in fat and sugar while remaining reasonably palatable.

Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emphasizing how very much you are convinced I'm hallucinating is not an explanation for how too much mucus makes more logical sense as an immune system failure than too little. It also cites zero sources. Also, if you are so disinterested, why waste any time replying to me? If I'm a nutter, downvote, flag and move on. Let someone else talk to me who doesn't think I'm a total waste of their time.

You asked in another part of the thread why people are downvoting and not engaging. I explained why I downvoted, and why, if I hadn't engaged, that would have been. If you don't want the answer, don't ask the question. Also, I find myself congenitally unable to let anti-scientific behavior go without comment when it comes before me. I don't know enough about CF to know why it works how it works. But I do know enough…

I don't think I asked that. I think someone else commented on the downvotes.

I'm just making the observation that you are being incredibly dismissive of me while not actually engaging any of my points.

Probably, I shouldn't have replied to such a dismissive position to begin with. The problem being I mostly get dismissive replies that don't take me seriously, so such a policy would have me not talking on HN at all, basically. And I've got no place else to go. HN is the least worst option for trying to find someone to talk with about such subjects, which happen to be a thing my very life basically depends upon. So I'm a tad stuck.

I don't know enough about CF to know why it works how it works. But I do know enough about science and have enough experience with people with "unique" theories of disease to know that almost always, the prevailing scientific wisdom is less wrong.

This was added after I hit the reply button. The word for this paragraph is "prejudice." You aren't actually qualified to rebut anything I've said, you just assume I'm a nutter because there are a lot of nutters in the world.

I refer you to Semmelweis:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)

#108
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100 Years Ago, Psuedo-Science Industry Quietly Paid Meat To Blame People (2105).

200 Years ago, Psuedo-People industry quietly paid Science to blame meat. (2205)

500 Years Ago Meat Psuedo-Blamed Meat to Pay People To Eat Science (2533)

Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)

#109
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah this argument feels very much to me like "women belong in the kitchen"

I fail to see it's remotely related.

It's a short-sighted, unhelpful attitude that's gone out of fashion because people realize how short-sighted and unhelpful it is.

Re: 50 Years Ago, the Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)

#110
post #91

Slightly related to research and meta-studies. The other day I was wondering: what stops a researcher from publishing random numbers (following some distribution they pick) as the results of their experiments?

Reproducibility. What's worrying is the surprisingly large number of papers that are not reproducible. Most of that is likely not because of fraud though.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002228281...

Post reply on HN