5 ms·

> there are no scientific studies If this treatment could be turned into a drug that had billions of dollars in revenue, as some arthritis drugs have, then th

> there are no scientific studies If this treatment could be turned into a drug that had billions of dollars in revenue, as some arthritis drugs have, then there would be endless studies. Sadly, that's not the world we live in. "Lack of studies" in many cases is code for "there's no money to be made here." This is too bad, because many extremely effective and effectively free treatments are ignored by scientists because they can't fund the research.

esperent 4y ago
This oft-repeated view is frustrating, because a huge number of studies on exactly this kind of thing are done. Should there be more? Of course! But the money has to come from somewhere. For a study on potatoes and inflammation it has to come from the taxpayer or a non-profit institute. For a study on a new drug that has a potential to make a huge profit, of course it's much easier to find someone besides those to fund it. There are many problems with the modern medical system but I don't think this aspect is totally broken, definitely not to the degree that nay sayers would have you believe.
- jackmott 4y ago
  [dead]
bqmjjx0kac 4y ago
> If this treatment could be turned into a drug that had billions of dollars in revenue, as some arthritis drugs have, then there would be endless studies. This is a thought-terminating cliche. It's entirely possible nobody has studied it yet. It's also worth pointing out that drug companies have no incentive to research subtractive diets. They want to find additive treatments that keep symptoms at bay.
- pasquinelli 4y ago
  > It's also worth pointing out that drug companies have no incentive to research subtractive diets. maybe i'm a bad reader but i believe that's what the person you're replying to is saying
  - bqmjjx0kac 4y ago
    Wow, I wonder if I completely misread the parent. A few sibling comments seem to have made the same misinterpretation. Maybe it was edited after I responded?
- andreareina 4y ago
  It's also possible that it has been studied, but it only works for a few people so the positive signal is swamped out by all the nonresponders.
ABCLAW 4y ago
Lazy thinking. Governments that provide and purchase healthcare services are also in the business of funding research. In what world do we not see an alignment of interests for studies from nutritionists and dieticians on this topic? We have a LOT of studies on low fodmap diets and their health effects.
- boplicity 4y ago
  Unfortunately, this thinking came about through my direct experience as someone seeking treatment for a chronic disease. For the specific disease I have, there are endless studies about various drugs, and very, very few studies about non-drug treatments, many of which are known to be effective in the patient community, but lack enough "studies" to be part of the standard treatments recommended by doctors. Instead, we're offered drugs that cost $10,000+ per month. (Drugs which are backed by many, many studies, and yet are only around 25% effective after 2 years.)
  - Broken_Hippo 4y ago
    Drugs which are backed by many, many studies, and yet are only around 25% effective after 2 years First things first: Don't you think that if we had better drugs for whatever you have, that we wouldn't go with that in general? (I know there are exceptions that say that we wouldn't, but these are exceptions). Second: 25% effective is better than nothing. I have MS. The first real drugs - all injections with plenty of side effects - were around 33% effective or something like that and might have reduced severity of the stuff it didn't stop. This wasn't after 2 years, this was the out-of-the-box effectiveness. And it was still worth it. This is because an imperfect solution is better than no solution whatsoever. Know what happens in MS when you have fewer flares? You have less risk of permanent damage. It meant your risk of bad events is less. You have less chance of not being able to walk or not controlling your bowels or having full vision. The drugs were imperfect because our knowledge was (and is) imperfect. That was the best we had at the time. But then again, it was the foundation for modern drugs which are more effective (and easier to take than an at-home injection). Cost is still an issue, but single-payer systems still pay for them because the overall cost is less than the cost of unchecked disease. Most, if not all of the diets advertised for MS have not proven themselves, despite the claims of the folks writing the books (most of which have had other interventions and might have just been lucky with their disease progression, like I have been so far). TLDR: An imperfect drug that helps a little is better than no help at all.
jvanderbot 4y ago
I believe there has been decades of study around diabetes (limit sugar), cardiovascular disease, (limit sat fat), skin cancer (limit sun) and so on. Why is it hard to believe the incentives for simple subtractive prevention isn't there (e.g. limit tomatoes)? More likely the ailment isn't one of the top X deadly things yet.

esperent 4y ago

This oft-repeated view is frustrating, because a huge number of studies on exactly this kind of thing are done. Should there be more? Of course! But the money has to come from somewhere. For a study on potatoes and inflammation it has to come from the taxpayer or a non-profit institute. For a study on a new drug that has a potential to make a huge profit, of course it's much easier to find someone besides those to fund it. There are many problems with the modern medical system but I don't think this aspect is totally broken, definitely not to the degree that nay sayers would have you believe.

jackmott 4y ago
[dead]

bqmjjx0kac 4y ago

> If this treatment could be turned into a drug that had billions of dollars in revenue, as some arthritis drugs have, then there would be endless studies. This is a thought-terminating cliche. It's entirely possible nobody has studied it yet. It's also worth pointing out that drug companies have no incentive to research subtractive diets. They want to find additive treatments that keep symptoms at bay.

pasquinelli 4y ago
> It's also worth pointing out that drug companies have no incentive to research subtractive diets. maybe i'm a bad reader but i believe that's what the person you're replying to is saying
- bqmjjx0kac 4y ago
  Wow, I wonder if I completely misread the parent. A few sibling comments seem to have made the same misinterpretation. Maybe it was edited after I responded?
andreareina 4y ago
It's also possible that it has been studied, but it only works for a few people so the positive signal is swamped out by all the nonresponders.

ABCLAW 4y ago

Lazy thinking. Governments that provide and purchase healthcare services are also in the business of funding research. In what world do we not see an alignment of interests for studies from nutritionists and dieticians on this topic? We have a LOT of studies on low fodmap diets and their health effects.

boplicity 4y ago
Unfortunately, this thinking came about through my direct experience as someone seeking treatment for a chronic disease. For the specific disease I have, there are endless studies about various drugs, and very, very few studies about non-drug treatments, many of which are known to be effective in the patient community, but lack enough "studies" to be part of the standard treatments recommended by doctors. Instead, we're offered drugs that cost $10,000+ per month. (Drugs which are backed by many, many studies, and yet are only around 25% effective after 2 years.)
- Broken_Hippo 4y ago
  Drugs which are backed by many, many studies, and yet are only around 25% effective after 2 years First things first: Don't you think that if we had better drugs for whatever you have, that we wouldn't go with that in general? (I know there are exceptions that say that we wouldn't, but these are exceptions). Second: 25% effective is better than nothing. I have MS. The first real drugs - all injections with plenty of side effects - were around 33% effective or something like that and might have reduced severity of the stuff it didn't stop. This wasn't after 2 years, this was the out-of-the-box effectiveness. And it was still worth it. This is because an imperfect solution is better than no solution whatsoever. Know what happens in MS when you have fewer flares? You have less risk of permanent damage. It meant your risk of bad events is less. You have less chance of not being able to walk or not controlling your bowels or having full vision. The drugs were imperfect because our knowledge was (and is) imperfect. That was the best we had at the time. But then again, it was the foundation for modern drugs which are more effective (and easier to take than an at-home injection). Cost is still an issue, but single-payer systems still pay for them because the overall cost is less than the cost of unchecked disease. Most, if not all of the diets advertised for MS have not proven themselves, despite the claims of the folks writing the books (most of which have had other interventions and might have just been lucky with their disease progression, like I have been so far). TLDR: An imperfect drug that helps a little is better than no help at all.

jvanderbot 4y ago

I believe there has been decades of study around diabetes (limit sugar), cardiovascular disease, (limit sat fat), skin cancer (limit sun) and so on. Why is it hard to believe the incentives for simple subtractive prevention isn't there (e.g. limit tomatoes)? More likely the ailment isn't one of the top X deadly things yet.