4 ms·

misinformation is hard to characterize. This week I was reading about how cholesterol studies are funded by the egg industry 60% of the time. They have a finan

by mfer 5y ago

misinformation is hard to characterize. This week I was reading about how cholesterol studies are funded by the egg industry 60% of the time. They have a financial interest in the studies going their way and those studies do. Yet, many studies not funded by them go a very different route. Is it misinformation when you speak out against them? The same can be said for a lot of things. You need to dig into the details to have an understanding of what's going on. The other day I was listening to an edge theory on something. I didn't know I would be hearing one when I first took the time to listen. The theory was based on evidence, the case was logical and well reasoned, and what was different was assumptions. The conclusion was not the majority. Is that misinformation? We don't tend to go deep anymore so how can we tell where misinformation really exists? Who decides what's a kind of hard that needs to be stopped? There is so much depth to this topic.

sleepingadmin 5y ago
>This week I was reading about how cholesterol studies are funded by the egg industry 60% of the time. They have a financial interest in the studies going their way and those studies do. Yet, many studies not funded by them go a very different route. The lipid hypothesis used to be a theory. A significant portion of the 'science' has been revealed to be illegitimate. Cholesterol had a 'scientific consensus' that it was evil causing virtually all cardiovascular disease. Used to... So what happened? In 2005 you now have to declare your conflicts of interest. Dieticians suddenly started falling bigtime to conflicts of interest. Virtually all of them publishing that cholesterol was evil had conflicts. They were funded heavily by the cereal companies. Science started looking at the lipid theory and it's all fraud. Cholesterol is no longer a boogy man. The lipid hypothesis has been downgraded to an invalid hypothesis. If you're taking statins, go talk to your doc and get off them. >Is it misinformation when you speak out against them? When the statin patents expired in 2016. It's not a surprise that the keto movement reformed in 2017. That cholesterol became a hypothesis and we found out what's really going on. Ancel Keys much later in life acknowledged that dietary cholesterol has absolutely nothing to do with blood cholesterol. The even more interesting since the conflict of cinterest change. People have been trying to understand what the actual real data says. Cholesterol may be real problem, but why? You'll notice... this was also published in 2017. https://blogs.webmd.com/from-our-archives/20170710/how-sugar-really-affects-your-cholesterol https://blogs.webmd.com/from-our-archives/20170710/how-sugar... Sugar in your diet damages cholesterol and makes your body struggle at cleaning it up. They found however, sugar isn't exactly the culprit. It's refined sugars and mostly candy and related high sugar things that are causing the problem. >The same can be said for a lot of things. You need to dig into the details to have an understanding of what's going on. Censorship is hard. Anything being labelled misinformation is immediately considered something that must be evaluated.
- 1415926535 5y ago
  >The lipid hypothesis used to be a theory >Science started looking at the lipid theory and it's all fraud. I'm sorry, but even the most cursory of google searches indicates that this is not at all correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_hypothesis#Consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_hypothesis#Consensus
  - sleepingadmin 5y ago
    Might I point out that 'hypothesis' is no better than 'guess' https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis In fact, the lipid hypothesis having used to be a theory and being downgraded to hypothesis probably makes it far less than a hypothesis. The wikipage uses a single source for this 'consensus' and look again that magical date of 2017. What does this 'consensus' really conclude? >Consistent evidence from numerous and multiple different types of clinical and genetic studies unequivocally establishes that LDL causes ASCVD. The 'consensus' is that LDL causes illness. I dont believe that's in contention. What we are discussing is what causes LDL to cause illness and we are discovering decades of bad science.
- mfer 5y ago
  I've heard this before. There has been a large uptake in publications on cholesterol from the egg industry. But, you have to look beyond direct funding for a study. For example, I was looking at how one company give money to a non-profit they control. The non-profit funds the studies. Studies don't say they were funded by the company. Money was effectively laundered. Drug companies wanted to sell people on statins so they funded studies. Egg companies want people to eat eggs that are high in cholesterol so they fund studies. It's a mess of advertising. High cholesterol is know to lead to atherosclerosis[1]. It's one of the things that is involved in forming the plaques that build up in arteries which lead to forms of heart disease. What caught my attention was the long term studies around the people of loma lima. There are many vegans and vegetarians there who have been involved in long term studies. They have the same jobs as others in the area, live in the same area, and have many of the same habits of others with different diets. This has been great for looking at how diet affects things. Through those studies they've learned a lot about how diet affects cardiovascular disease. [1] https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/atherosclerosis https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/atherosclerosis

by mfer 5y ago

sleepingadmin 5y ago

>This week I was reading about how cholesterol studies are funded by the egg industry 60% of the time. They have a financial interest in the studies going their way and those studies do. Yet, many studies not funded by them go a very different route. The lipid hypothesis used to be a theory. A significant portion of the 'science' has been revealed to be illegitimate. Cholesterol had a 'scientific consensus' that it was evil causing virtually all cardiovascular disease. Used to... So what happened? In 2005 you now have to declare your conflicts of interest. Dieticians suddenly started falling bigtime to conflicts of interest. Virtually all of them publishing that cholesterol was evil had conflicts. They were funded heavily by the cereal companies. Science started looking at the lipid theory and it's all fraud. Cholesterol is no longer a boogy man. The lipid hypothesis has been downgraded to an invalid hypothesis. If you're taking statins, go talk to your doc and get off them. >Is it misinformation when you speak out against them? When the statin patents expired in 2016. It's not a surprise that the keto movement reformed in 2017. That cholesterol became a hypothesis and we found out what's really going on. Ancel Keys much later in life acknowledged that dietary cholesterol has absolutely nothing to do with blood cholesterol. The even more interesting since the conflict of cinterest change. People have been trying to understand what the actual real data says. Cholesterol may be real problem, but why? You'll notice... this was also published in 2017. https://blogs.webmd.com/from-our-archives/20170710/how-sugar-really-affects-your-cholesterol https://blogs.webmd.com/from-our-archives/20170710/how-sugar... Sugar in your diet damages cholesterol and makes your body struggle at cleaning it up. They found however, sugar isn't exactly the culprit. It's refined sugars and mostly candy and related high sugar things that are causing the problem. >The same can be said for a lot of things. You need to dig into the details to have an understanding of what's going on. Censorship is hard. Anything being labelled misinformation is immediately considered something that must be evaluated.

1415926535 5y ago
>The lipid hypothesis used to be a theory >Science started looking at the lipid theory and it's all fraud. I'm sorry, but even the most cursory of google searches indicates that this is not at all correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_hypothesis#Consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_hypothesis#Consensus
- sleepingadmin 5y ago
  Might I point out that 'hypothesis' is no better than 'guess' https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis In fact, the lipid hypothesis having used to be a theory and being downgraded to hypothesis probably makes it far less than a hypothesis. The wikipage uses a single source for this 'consensus' and look again that magical date of 2017. What does this 'consensus' really conclude? >Consistent evidence from numerous and multiple different types of clinical and genetic studies unequivocally establishes that LDL causes ASCVD. The 'consensus' is that LDL causes illness. I dont believe that's in contention. What we are discussing is what causes LDL to cause illness and we are discovering decades of bad science.
mfer 5y ago
I've heard this before. There has been a large uptake in publications on cholesterol from the egg industry. But, you have to look beyond direct funding for a study. For example, I was looking at how one company give money to a non-profit they control. The non-profit funds the studies. Studies don't say they were funded by the company. Money was effectively laundered. Drug companies wanted to sell people on statins so they funded studies. Egg companies want people to eat eggs that are high in cholesterol so they fund studies. It's a mess of advertising. High cholesterol is know to lead to atherosclerosis[1]. It's one of the things that is involved in forming the plaques that build up in arteries which lead to forms of heart disease. What caught my attention was the long term studies around the people of loma lima. There are many vegans and vegetarians there who have been involved in long term studies. They have the same jobs as others in the area, live in the same area, and have many of the same habits of others with different diets. This has been great for looking at how diet affects things. Through those studies they've learned a lot about how diet affects cardiovascular disease. [1] https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/atherosclerosis https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/atherosclerosis