6 ms·

I really don't get the excessive warnings of caution for fasting. It's not hard to try. It's not very dangerous (unless doing prolonged fasts). In the case of p

I really don't get the excessive warnings of caution for fasting. It's not hard to try. It's not very dangerous (unless doing prolonged fasts). In the case of prolonged fasts, if the patient is monitored by qualified people then there is little risk as well. I'm battling a crippling illness. Fortunately I've found the cure and the recovery is nothing short of miraculous. But it's a huge HUGE uphill battle because the medical community works incredibly hard to throw road blocks in my way. Why does the medical community work so hard to throw up as many road blocks as possible to experimental treatments that are low risk? Why do you insist on being the only group of people who can say what is and isn't tried? Why do doctors and public health officials ignore the work of biochemists? Why do you ignore millions of people battling crippling illness that say your treatments are ineffective, and that other approaches are more effective? Seriously. I don't get it. I don't believe you're a bad person, but the only explanations I can come up with are arrogance, ego, cowardice, or greed.

chiefalchemist 7y ago
> "Why does the medical community work so hard to throw up as many road blocks as possible to experimental treatments that are low risk?" Well, at least in the fasting, it's a complete break with tradition. No scripts. No Big Pharma outfit marketing it. Etc. My feelimg is, many doctors are wired to want to take action. The idea of something as simple as "I want you to fast every other" is completely foreign to them.
- PowerfulWizard 7y ago
  Another issue is compliance. If a doctor could say: eat 2000 calories a day and break a sweat for 30 minutes, and expect people to do it, the general population would look totally different.
  - chiefalchemist 7y ago
    Compliance isn't the issue. Food Inc. marketing is. As is, humans naturally assimilate to "the norm." As the waistline of the norm increase, the waistline of the norm increases. A doctor's words lose meaning when all other inputs say "Don't worry about it. You're just like everyone else." Long to short, what used to save us, is now doing us in.
Apotheos 7y ago
What do you have? If you don't mind me asking.
- wavepruner 7y ago
  I don't want to bring it up here because sometimes it invites a deluge of downvotes. If you go back through my older posts you'll find it. There's not that many.
robocat 7y ago
I don't see how your response relates to the GP's comment, and your comment ends with a personal attack. Also, you may have found a solution to your problem, but you are implying to me that you believe it is the one-true solution (rather than doing a scientific trial of solutions upon yourself, and saying "this works for me" and is worth trying).
- em-bee 7y ago
  when i read the parent comment i thought the switch to "you" was not aimed at the GP but at the doctors. iaw, while writing the poster got worked up with frustration and changed to address the doctors directly.
- wavepruner 7y ago
  You're right, I shouldn't have directed those comments that way in the end. But it's hard. Doctor's have personally attacked me over and over, to the point where I don't bother going to them anymore. I would show up to appointment after appointment asking for help with no clue as to what I had, and doctors and nurses were very quick to anger. I didn't question their intelligence. I didn't tell them theories about what I thought I had. All I did was try to describe what my body felt like. I think they thought I was faking to get drugs or something, but I really don't know. I never asked for any drugs. It was a nightmare.
  - brigandish 7y ago
    I sympathise. The number of times I've had to push doctors to do anything at all is absurd (or should be absurd). They're frequently rude and unhelpful, often I have to try and diagnose myself and find out about tests or they'll not offer more than a shrug. I have to find out about contraindications too because of the number of times they've ignored things I tell them. However, I don't think it's about doctors per se, but about people who are arrogant⁎, I've seen plenty of techies do the same when, for example, someone with less knowledge of computers than them asks for support. I think it's still possible to be helpful by at least showing you care, even if you can't find an answer or don't have the time to be as effective as you could be. People often appreciate that just as much as a fix. ⁎I define arrogance as not listening due to over confidence, not overconfidence itself. Those who don't listen can only be overconfident, so it's also not a synonym for confidence.
sn9 7y ago
Fasting is low risk in healthy populations. Let's assume you're talking about fasting as a treatment for cancer patients for the sake of argument. Let's say that studies have examined the effect in 100 patients and it seems moderately effective. What's the problem? Why shouldn't everyone do it? Well the very real concern is that when they do a more rigorous study with a much greater number of patients, maybe they find that fasting actually increases the negative outcomes. The result that was found in the weaker study was only a statistical fluke. So the thing they're trying to avoid is doing more harm than the status quo. This is a very real danger and it would be irresponsible for them to not do the due diligence. Of course, that's not to say that there aren't valid criticisms of how medical treatments get validated and how quickly they can get to patients they can help.
- scottLobster 7y ago
  That's theoretically true, but wouldn't the fact that fasting is low-risk in healthy populations indicate that the risk is more likely to be low for populations with cancer? Also, from your example if you're one of the 100, then fasting is in fact advisable. I understand that purely for legal reasons we can't advise doctors to recommend fasting as a general guideline without gold-plated evidence. However it should be noted that just because the risk has not yet been perfectly quantified does not mean it is entirely unknown. For my part if I ever contract any sort of cancer, I will never reject a potential treatment on the grounds of "well we know it's low-risk in healthy populations, and given what we know of the biology it seems like there's some potential effectiveness. But we don't have a gold-plated-chocolate-coated mass population double-blind study for your specific cancer yet, so I'd advise against trying it". Taking minor, well-thought-out risks is the least one should do when fighting for one's life. It's a good thing doctors aren't financial advisors, or they'd tell you to avoid the S&P 500 index fund and stick to your 2% savings account.
- pdonis 7y ago
  These are all arguments against the medical community advising people in cancer treatment to fast. But what if the patient just fasts? Without asking the doctor's advice, and just politely saying "Yes, I hear you, but it's my decision and I think the risk is worth it" when the doctor explains the pros and cons.
pdonis 7y ago
For treatments that involve some action on the medical community's part, I can see how they could put up roadblocks. But how can they put up roadblocks to fasting?
- wavepruner 7y ago
  Finding someone to monitor your vitals during a fast would be difficult as most doctor's don't want to risk losing their license doing something experimental. But I wasn't just referring to fasting. It's incredibly difficult to do anything that isn't approved by a doctor. Even lab tests is a huge battle unless you pay out of pocket via mail order.
  - ip26 7y ago
    Why is that surprising? Why would insurance cover a lab you ordered yourself?
    - wavepruner 7y ago
      What's surprising is that doctors are legally required to order lab tests when they are non-invasive and have 0 risk of harm. They do not need a doctor's approval and could be much cheaper by cutting them out of the loop entirely.
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > Finding someone to monitor your vitals during a fast would be difficult If a person is undergoing cancer treatment their vitals are being monitored anyway. I'm not talking about the person asking for any additional lab tests. I'm just talking about them deciding to fast.
  - DoreenMichele 7y ago
    I'm curious: What would you want monitored? And why? There are lots of low tech/no tech ways to monitor your health and people pursuing alternative remedies routinely pay out of pocket as both a cheap alternative to paying a doctor and because they often don't want a doctor involved in their health choices.
norbertog 7y ago
My experience with the medical community is exactly the same, it's frustrating. If it's difficult to diagnose and doesn't have clear visible symptoms, almost all doctors immediately say it's a psychological issue. If you show them any research and ideas what could be done they immediately dismiss it, because you are not a medical professional. Everyone that never had an issue like that has a really high image of the medical profession, so when you tell them about your problems they just think you're crazy and you should listen to the medical professionals. Would you mind telling me how you solved your issue? I found some things to make my issues a lot better, but it's not completely fixed, yet, so I'm very interested in hearing other peoples' experiences. My email is in my profile, if you don't want to discuss it here.
pfbtgom 7y ago
This reminds of the abandoned practice of women being prescribed Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) for menopause. Essentially the reasoning was "why not, it seems to improve patient health and we don't see any ill effects". It was such common sense at the time that it took over 30 years before a clinical trial was performed. That trial demonstrated a much higher rate of breast cancer and heart disease in HRT patients. The NY Times has a good write-up on it and more generally the challenges with epidemiology and causal analysis in medicine. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16epidemiology-t.html https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16epidemiology-t...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

chiefalchemist 7y ago

> "Why does the medical community work so hard to throw up as many road blocks as possible to experimental treatments that are low risk?" Well, at least in the fasting, it's a complete break with tradition. No scripts. No Big Pharma outfit marketing it. Etc. My feelimg is, many doctors are wired to want to take action. The idea of something as simple as "I want you to fast every other" is completely foreign to them.

PowerfulWizard 7y ago
Another issue is compliance. If a doctor could say: eat 2000 calories a day and break a sweat for 30 minutes, and expect people to do it, the general population would look totally different.
- chiefalchemist 7y ago
  Compliance isn't the issue. Food Inc. marketing is. As is, humans naturally assimilate to "the norm." As the waistline of the norm increase, the waistline of the norm increases. A doctor's words lose meaning when all other inputs say "Don't worry about it. You're just like everyone else." Long to short, what used to save us, is now doing us in.

Apotheos 7y ago

What do you have? If you don't mind me asking.

wavepruner 7y ago
I don't want to bring it up here because sometimes it invites a deluge of downvotes. If you go back through my older posts you'll find it. There's not that many.

robocat 7y ago

I don't see how your response relates to the GP's comment, and your comment ends with a personal attack. Also, you may have found a solution to your problem, but you are implying to me that you believe it is the one-true solution (rather than doing a scientific trial of solutions upon yourself, and saying "this works for me" and is worth trying).

em-bee 7y ago
when i read the parent comment i thought the switch to "you" was not aimed at the GP but at the doctors. iaw, while writing the poster got worked up with frustration and changed to address the doctors directly.
wavepruner 7y ago
You're right, I shouldn't have directed those comments that way in the end. But it's hard. Doctor's have personally attacked me over and over, to the point where I don't bother going to them anymore. I would show up to appointment after appointment asking for help with no clue as to what I had, and doctors and nurses were very quick to anger. I didn't question their intelligence. I didn't tell them theories about what I thought I had. All I did was try to describe what my body felt like. I think they thought I was faking to get drugs or something, but I really don't know. I never asked for any drugs. It was a nightmare.
- brigandish 7y ago
  I sympathise. The number of times I've had to push doctors to do anything at all is absurd (or should be absurd). They're frequently rude and unhelpful, often I have to try and diagnose myself and find out about tests or they'll not offer more than a shrug. I have to find out about contraindications too because of the number of times they've ignored things I tell them. However, I don't think it's about doctors per se, but about people who are arrogant⁎, I've seen plenty of techies do the same when, for example, someone with less knowledge of computers than them asks for support. I think it's still possible to be helpful by at least showing you care, even if you can't find an answer or don't have the time to be as effective as you could be. People often appreciate that just as much as a fix. ⁎I define arrogance as not listening due to over confidence, not overconfidence itself. Those who don't listen can only be overconfident, so it's also not a synonym for confidence.

sn9 7y ago

Fasting is low risk in healthy populations. Let's assume you're talking about fasting as a treatment for cancer patients for the sake of argument. Let's say that studies have examined the effect in 100 patients and it seems moderately effective. What's the problem? Why shouldn't everyone do it? Well the very real concern is that when they do a more rigorous study with a much greater number of patients, maybe they find that fasting actually increases the negative outcomes. The result that was found in the weaker study was only a statistical fluke. So the thing they're trying to avoid is doing more harm than the status quo. This is a very real danger and it would be irresponsible for them to not do the due diligence. Of course, that's not to say that there aren't valid criticisms of how medical treatments get validated and how quickly they can get to patients they can help.

scottLobster 7y ago
That's theoretically true, but wouldn't the fact that fasting is low-risk in healthy populations indicate that the risk is more likely to be low for populations with cancer? Also, from your example if you're one of the 100, then fasting is in fact advisable. I understand that purely for legal reasons we can't advise doctors to recommend fasting as a general guideline without gold-plated evidence. However it should be noted that just because the risk has not yet been perfectly quantified does not mean it is entirely unknown. For my part if I ever contract any sort of cancer, I will never reject a potential treatment on the grounds of "well we know it's low-risk in healthy populations, and given what we know of the biology it seems like there's some potential effectiveness. But we don't have a gold-plated-chocolate-coated mass population double-blind study for your specific cancer yet, so I'd advise against trying it". Taking minor, well-thought-out risks is the least one should do when fighting for one's life. It's a good thing doctors aren't financial advisors, or they'd tell you to avoid the S&P 500 index fund and stick to your 2% savings account.
pdonis 7y ago
These are all arguments against the medical community advising people in cancer treatment to fast. But what if the patient just fasts? Without asking the doctor's advice, and just politely saying "Yes, I hear you, but it's my decision and I think the risk is worth it" when the doctor explains the pros and cons.

pdonis 7y ago

For treatments that involve some action on the medical community's part, I can see how they could put up roadblocks. But how can they put up roadblocks to fasting?

wavepruner 7y ago
Finding someone to monitor your vitals during a fast would be difficult as most doctor's don't want to risk losing their license doing something experimental. But I wasn't just referring to fasting. It's incredibly difficult to do anything that isn't approved by a doctor. Even lab tests is a huge battle unless you pay out of pocket via mail order.
- ip26 7y ago
  Why is that surprising? Why would insurance cover a lab you ordered yourself?
  - wavepruner 7y ago
    What's surprising is that doctors are legally required to order lab tests when they are non-invasive and have 0 risk of harm. They do not need a doctor's approval and could be much cheaper by cutting them out of the loop entirely.
- pdonis 7y ago
  > Finding someone to monitor your vitals during a fast would be difficult If a person is undergoing cancer treatment their vitals are being monitored anyway. I'm not talking about the person asking for any additional lab tests. I'm just talking about them deciding to fast.
- DoreenMichele 7y ago
  I'm curious: What would you want monitored? And why? There are lots of low tech/no tech ways to monitor your health and people pursuing alternative remedies routinely pay out of pocket as both a cheap alternative to paying a doctor and because they often don't want a doctor involved in their health choices.

norbertog 7y ago

My experience with the medical community is exactly the same, it's frustrating. If it's difficult to diagnose and doesn't have clear visible symptoms, almost all doctors immediately say it's a psychological issue. If you show them any research and ideas what could be done they immediately dismiss it, because you are not a medical professional. Everyone that never had an issue like that has a really high image of the medical profession, so when you tell them about your problems they just think you're crazy and you should listen to the medical professionals. Would you mind telling me how you solved your issue? I found some things to make my issues a lot better, but it's not completely fixed, yet, so I'm very interested in hearing other peoples' experiences. My email is in my profile, if you don't want to discuss it here.

pfbtgom 7y ago

This reminds of the abandoned practice of women being prescribed Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) for menopause. Essentially the reasoning was "why not, it seems to improve patient health and we don't see any ill effects". It was such common sense at the time that it took over 30 years before a clinical trial was performed. That trial demonstrated a much higher rate of breast cancer and heart disease in HRT patients. The NY Times has a good write-up on it and more generally the challenges with epidemiology and causal analysis in medicine. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16epidemiology-t.html https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16epidemiology-t...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]