5 ms·

Indeed. The videos from that “Low Carb Down Under” channel are as scientifically accurate as anti-vaxxing or homeopathy.

sph 3y ago
People that believe scientists and qualified medical doctors, operating on current research, are quacks because their research deviates on 50-year old advice, simply have no idea how science works and evolves. Please point me to anti-vax and homeopathic panels going over actual peer-approved studies. Those videos I linked contain dozens of research papers and data for you to cross-reference, but given your snarky one-line dismissal with no further elaboration, I don't think there's any intelligent discussion to be had here.
- bad_user 3y ago
  I've been in the Keto community for years, until I realized that the whole community is full of quacks, indeed. There's no intelligent discussion to be had because the Keto “science” has been proven wrong repeatedly. At this point, I don't think it's worthy of respect, actually. And don't get me wrong, I don't want censorship or anything of the kind. People believing that crap will eventually realize that it hurts them, whereas a small minority will double down. The problem with the Keto “science”, and its arguments, is that the goal posts are moved, much like anything non-falsifiable, and the studies that are supposedly in their favor are cherry-picked, or misinterpreted. Whereas, they dismiss studies or reviews that prove them wrong, even if high quality (e.g., RCT, pre-registered), based on non-scientific grounds (e.g., not long enough, use of the wrong proxy markers, etc.). What's ironic is that we do have year-long, high-quality studies on nutrition. Diabetes and cardiovascular disease are understood fairly well, but they rarely attack those. They are also full of double standards, crying “conflict of interest” from the “sugar and oil industry”, while not observing the conflict of interest in their backyard, including the conflict of interest from those peddling the nonsense. And all the nonsense they spew on cholesterol is accompanied by a conspiracy theory involving Ancel Keys and his limited selection of countries to study. They conveniently ignore the facts that a selection had to be made post-world-war, as few countries had data available, and those studies are pretty good, actually, and his findings were replicated. Keto and conspiracy theories go hand in hand. When I made the comparison with anti-vaxxing or homeopathy, it's quite a literal comparison. They have conferences and are “science”-based too.
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    yeah unfalsifiable beliefs are always starting at an outcome and trying to prove that as opposed to starting at a hypothesis and accepting any result, and any future hypothesis and result modifies everything, the only question asked is whether it can be reproduced and how the reproduction went unfalsifiable beliefs have no capability of doing that, or, as you say, the goal posts keep moving. its just a flawed place to start from faith based belief systems are taking advantage of people that lack the mental faculties to understand that others aren't relying on beliefs, they're relying on reproducibility and acceptance of any outcome
  - NotGMan 3y ago
    There can be no good studies on keto since it has only recently resurged. Also big pharma and big food won't be sponsoring it any time soon. You can find many examples of people who cured what their doctors told them "uncurable illness" by following keto or carnivore diets. You can find 105 pages of testemonials how keto/carnivore helped people: https://carnivore.diet/category/success-stories/ https://carnivore.diet/category/success-stories/
    - stavros 3y ago
      Yes, but this is the best example of how the plural of anecdote is not data.
    - sph 3y ago
      "But it's only anecdotal". Then one learns that most of nutrition research is nothing more than that. No one is doing double-blind randomised nutritional studies for any significant amount of time. Who's got money, time and patience to take thousands of people, lock them in a room and control everything they eat for 2 years? And how would you do double-blind food testing? Of course the entire field is dubious, and then there's the commercial interests. This is to say, actual success stories are probably the best we've got. In my experience, carnivore is excellent, albeit very restrictive for many.
  - sph 3y ago
    There are quacks in particle physics as well. That does not mean the field is hopelessly broken, a scam, or a pseudo-science, as you originally claimed. And it's not a conspiracy theory to question the fact that since we introduced low-fat dieting, obesity has gone from being a circus attraction to common place. "We're eating too much" does not explain it either, and you just need to have read a couple papers after 1995 to see this is exactly where mainstream science is going. Calling it a conspiracy theory is not scientific rebuttal. Again, there is no discussion to be had where there's dogma, and painting everything with the same brush, and certainly not on a forum comment.
- TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
  I've had to do some research into various health issues this year and I've been shocked by how poor some of the original papers are. Tiny studies of very limited demographics, studies with questionable premises (like this one), in vitro being generalised to in vivo, conclusions that say "This effect could go either way" turned into "Don't ever..." advice, and so on. This isn't anti-vax nonsense on YouTube. These are medical papers in mainstream medical journals which define medical policy. Of course "poor" does not mean "worthless" so there's often still some signal in the noise. But "you should lower your cholesterol" is a perfect example of bad research leading to bad messaging. The science actually says you should manage LDL, HDL, triglycerides, and blood sugar and keep all of them in their healthy ranges. Some doctors will tell you that, but many won't - because many don't even know.
corethree 3y ago
Bro did you not see the results of the research paper? U-shaped curve isn't inline with medical advice from the status quo. Given that evidence... the advice given to you by doctors is literally in the same class as homeopathy and anti-vaxxing.
- groestl 3y ago
  > literally in the same class as homeopathy and anti-vaxxing. Not exactly. Medical personell is (in general) not the research branch of science, but practitioners. They follow clinical guidelines and treatment procedures, and there's a delay to be expected before new results are evaluated and established. In contrast to homeopathy and anti-vaxxing, the system is designed to be able to catch up eventually (though usually not as fast as one could wish for).
  - corethree 3y ago
    What guidelines? They all tell it like there's a single story: more cholesterol equals death. Prior to this study it wasn't known. There was literally zero studies as comprehensive as this one. So it looks like they made a guideline up out of thin air. Additionally I don't understand what kind of genius doesn't trust a YouTube channel providing more up to date and accurate information over doctors who you yourself admit are presenting false bullshit because of a delay? Looks like logic isn't being employed here. It's just blind trust in established industries you were taught to trust as a child. How does a "name" of a YouTube channel in any way shape or form associate or correlate with correctness or accuracy? Don't answer, we all know it's typical human bias at play here. I prefer to call it human genius. I'm not saying completely trust a YouTube channel. But don't deride that channel just because of its name and definitely don't trust doctors. Hippocratic oath my ass you see enough doctors you'll see not only is the science dangerously incomplete but they care about money more than your health. So a lot of doctors actually fucking straight up lie to you. It's common af. Genius.
inglor_cz 3y ago
So rejoice, the study in the original submission doesn't come from any YouTube channel and has impeccable scientific credentials. And it basically says that cholesterol limits need shifting, because lowest all cause mortality is observed in a different band that expected. A higher one, to be precase.
- bad_user 3y ago
  I am not talking about the linked study, but about the linked YouTube video of the parent. But if you want to talk science, new studies don't disprove what was found before. That's not how science works. The consensus is that LDL causes CVD (atherosclerosis). I dare say that causality was established. Here's it from “European Atherosclerosis Society”: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28444290/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28444290/ Here's one of the largest studies correlating risk markers (n.b., ApoB is the protein from LDL particles): https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2804%2917018-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... TC measurements, of which the TFA talks about, are already ignored, BTW, because it's not accurate. This study may as well be valid, and further investigation is needed. That doesn't mean previous findings aren't valid, and if you have a high LDL, chances are high for you to die of CVD. And I'm mentioning LDL specifically because that's what the Keto community cares about, since eating saturated fat directly increases LDL, with many in the population being “hyper responders” with a high risk, actually. Therefore, people that advise others to eat all the saturated fat they want, with no statins treatment or other lifestyle choices that may help, probably have blood on their hands.
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
    As the authors of the study say, patients are interested in all-cause mortality, not specifically in cardiovascular mortality. Specialists may be blinded by their own specialization, but the most important outcome for you as a person is whether you live or die, and not whether you will have a heart attack or not. If I reduce my own ACM and increase risk of a heart attack at the same time, it still looks like a good trade-off.
fsckboy 3y ago
>as scientifically accurate as anti-vaxxing I don't know what the ultimate answers are, but the arguments skeptical of the COVID [mRNA] vaccines-that-proffer-neither-immunity-nor-any-lasting-protection are on completely different grounds than what was previously called "anti-vax", being against vaccines that do provide lasting immunity. The use of the term "anti-vax" should not be used in such a confusing way, it would be like insisting on labelling a well known and safe anti-viral as "horse dewormer".
- reducesuffering 3y ago
  Ivermectin isn’t an anti-viral… People weren’t disputing that ivermectin is generally safe. They were arguing that it’s not going to help you with Covid unless you have parasites like worms. There is a real cost of lives when people eschew current best medicinal knowledge for homeopathic blog recommendations, like how Steve Jobs died of a preventable pancreatic cancer because he thought he just needed to eat fruit.
  - iinnPP 3y ago
    Isn't the placebo effect considered genuine?
    - bad_user 3y ago
      Actually, curent research suggests that the Placebo effect is just spurious results in measurements.
      - iinnPP 3y ago
        Searching for said research has proven unfruitful, perhaps a link?
  - fsckboy 3y ago
    >Ivermectin isn’t an anti-viral you don't know what you are talking about. from the NIH: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539925/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539925/ Ivermectin is an FDA-approved broad-spectrum antiparasitic agent with demonstrated antiviral activity against a number of DNA and RNA viruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

sph 3y ago

People that believe scientists and qualified medical doctors, operating on current research, are quacks because their research deviates on 50-year old advice, simply have no idea how science works and evolves. Please point me to anti-vax and homeopathic panels going over actual peer-approved studies. Those videos I linked contain dozens of research papers and data for you to cross-reference, but given your snarky one-line dismissal with no further elaboration, I don't think there's any intelligent discussion to be had here.

bad_user 3y ago
I've been in the Keto community for years, until I realized that the whole community is full of quacks, indeed. There's no intelligent discussion to be had because the Keto “science” has been proven wrong repeatedly. At this point, I don't think it's worthy of respect, actually. And don't get me wrong, I don't want censorship or anything of the kind. People believing that crap will eventually realize that it hurts them, whereas a small minority will double down. The problem with the Keto “science”, and its arguments, is that the goal posts are moved, much like anything non-falsifiable, and the studies that are supposedly in their favor are cherry-picked, or misinterpreted. Whereas, they dismiss studies or reviews that prove them wrong, even if high quality (e.g., RCT, pre-registered), based on non-scientific grounds (e.g., not long enough, use of the wrong proxy markers, etc.). What's ironic is that we do have year-long, high-quality studies on nutrition. Diabetes and cardiovascular disease are understood fairly well, but they rarely attack those. They are also full of double standards, crying “conflict of interest” from the “sugar and oil industry”, while not observing the conflict of interest in their backyard, including the conflict of interest from those peddling the nonsense. And all the nonsense they spew on cholesterol is accompanied by a conspiracy theory involving Ancel Keys and his limited selection of countries to study. They conveniently ignore the facts that a selection had to be made post-world-war, as few countries had data available, and those studies are pretty good, actually, and his findings were replicated. Keto and conspiracy theories go hand in hand. When I made the comparison with anti-vaxxing or homeopathy, it's quite a literal comparison. They have conferences and are “science”-based too.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  yeah unfalsifiable beliefs are always starting at an outcome and trying to prove that as opposed to starting at a hypothesis and accepting any result, and any future hypothesis and result modifies everything, the only question asked is whether it can be reproduced and how the reproduction went unfalsifiable beliefs have no capability of doing that, or, as you say, the goal posts keep moving. its just a flawed place to start from faith based belief systems are taking advantage of people that lack the mental faculties to understand that others aren't relying on beliefs, they're relying on reproducibility and acceptance of any outcome
- NotGMan 3y ago
  There can be no good studies on keto since it has only recently resurged. Also big pharma and big food won't be sponsoring it any time soon. You can find many examples of people who cured what their doctors told them "uncurable illness" by following keto or carnivore diets. You can find 105 pages of testemonials how keto/carnivore helped people: https://carnivore.diet/category/success-stories/ https://carnivore.diet/category/success-stories/
  - stavros 3y ago
    Yes, but this is the best example of how the plural of anecdote is not data.
  - sph 3y ago
    "But it's only anecdotal". Then one learns that most of nutrition research is nothing more than that. No one is doing double-blind randomised nutritional studies for any significant amount of time. Who's got money, time and patience to take thousands of people, lock them in a room and control everything they eat for 2 years? And how would you do double-blind food testing? Of course the entire field is dubious, and then there's the commercial interests. This is to say, actual success stories are probably the best we've got. In my experience, carnivore is excellent, albeit very restrictive for many.
- sph 3y ago
  There are quacks in particle physics as well. That does not mean the field is hopelessly broken, a scam, or a pseudo-science, as you originally claimed. And it's not a conspiracy theory to question the fact that since we introduced low-fat dieting, obesity has gone from being a circus attraction to common place. "We're eating too much" does not explain it either, and you just need to have read a couple papers after 1995 to see this is exactly where mainstream science is going. Calling it a conspiracy theory is not scientific rebuttal. Again, there is no discussion to be had where there's dogma, and painting everything with the same brush, and certainly not on a forum comment.
TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
I've had to do some research into various health issues this year and I've been shocked by how poor some of the original papers are. Tiny studies of very limited demographics, studies with questionable premises (like this one), in vitro being generalised to in vivo, conclusions that say "This effect could go either way" turned into "Don't ever..." advice, and so on. This isn't anti-vax nonsense on YouTube. These are medical papers in mainstream medical journals which define medical policy. Of course "poor" does not mean "worthless" so there's often still some signal in the noise. But "you should lower your cholesterol" is a perfect example of bad research leading to bad messaging. The science actually says you should manage LDL, HDL, triglycerides, and blood sugar and keep all of them in their healthy ranges. Some doctors will tell you that, but many won't - because many don't even know.

corethree 3y ago

Bro did you not see the results of the research paper? U-shaped curve isn't inline with medical advice from the status quo. Given that evidence... the advice given to you by doctors is literally in the same class as homeopathy and anti-vaxxing.

groestl 3y ago
> literally in the same class as homeopathy and anti-vaxxing. Not exactly. Medical personell is (in general) not the research branch of science, but practitioners. They follow clinical guidelines and treatment procedures, and there's a delay to be expected before new results are evaluated and established. In contrast to homeopathy and anti-vaxxing, the system is designed to be able to catch up eventually (though usually not as fast as one could wish for).
- corethree 3y ago
  What guidelines? They all tell it like there's a single story: more cholesterol equals death. Prior to this study it wasn't known. There was literally zero studies as comprehensive as this one. So it looks like they made a guideline up out of thin air. Additionally I don't understand what kind of genius doesn't trust a YouTube channel providing more up to date and accurate information over doctors who you yourself admit are presenting false bullshit because of a delay? Looks like logic isn't being employed here. It's just blind trust in established industries you were taught to trust as a child. How does a "name" of a YouTube channel in any way shape or form associate or correlate with correctness or accuracy? Don't answer, we all know it's typical human bias at play here. I prefer to call it human genius. I'm not saying completely trust a YouTube channel. But don't deride that channel just because of its name and definitely don't trust doctors. Hippocratic oath my ass you see enough doctors you'll see not only is the science dangerously incomplete but they care about money more than your health. So a lot of doctors actually fucking straight up lie to you. It's common af. Genius.

inglor_cz 3y ago

So rejoice, the study in the original submission doesn't come from any YouTube channel and has impeccable scientific credentials. And it basically says that cholesterol limits need shifting, because lowest all cause mortality is observed in a different band that expected. A higher one, to be precase.

bad_user 3y ago
I am not talking about the linked study, but about the linked YouTube video of the parent. But if you want to talk science, new studies don't disprove what was found before. That's not how science works. The consensus is that LDL causes CVD (atherosclerosis). I dare say that causality was established. Here's it from “European Atherosclerosis Society”: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28444290/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28444290/ Here's one of the largest studies correlating risk markers (n.b., ApoB is the protein from LDL particles): https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2804%2917018-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... TC measurements, of which the TFA talks about, are already ignored, BTW, because it's not accurate. This study may as well be valid, and further investigation is needed. That doesn't mean previous findings aren't valid, and if you have a high LDL, chances are high for you to die of CVD. And I'm mentioning LDL specifically because that's what the Keto community cares about, since eating saturated fat directly increases LDL, with many in the population being “hyper responders” with a high risk, actually. Therefore, people that advise others to eat all the saturated fat they want, with no statins treatment or other lifestyle choices that may help, probably have blood on their hands.
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  As the authors of the study say, patients are interested in all-cause mortality, not specifically in cardiovascular mortality. Specialists may be blinded by their own specialization, but the most important outcome for you as a person is whether you live or die, and not whether you will have a heart attack or not. If I reduce my own ACM and increase risk of a heart attack at the same time, it still looks like a good trade-off.

fsckboy 3y ago

>as scientifically accurate as anti-vaxxing I don't know what the ultimate answers are, but the arguments skeptical of the COVID [mRNA] vaccines-that-proffer-neither-immunity-nor-any-lasting-protection are on completely different grounds than what was previously called "anti-vax", being against vaccines that do provide lasting immunity. The use of the term "anti-vax" should not be used in such a confusing way, it would be like insisting on labelling a well known and safe anti-viral as "horse dewormer".

reducesuffering 3y ago
Ivermectin isn’t an anti-viral… People weren’t disputing that ivermectin is generally safe. They were arguing that it’s not going to help you with Covid unless you have parasites like worms. There is a real cost of lives when people eschew current best medicinal knowledge for homeopathic blog recommendations, like how Steve Jobs died of a preventable pancreatic cancer because he thought he just needed to eat fruit.
- iinnPP 3y ago
  Isn't the placebo effect considered genuine?
  - bad_user 3y ago
    Actually, curent research suggests that the Placebo effect is just spurious results in measurements.
    - iinnPP 3y ago
      Searching for said research has proven unfruitful, perhaps a link?
- fsckboy 3y ago
  >Ivermectin isn’t an anti-viral you don't know what you are talking about. from the NIH: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539925/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539925/ Ivermectin is an FDA-approved broad-spectrum antiparasitic agent with demonstrated antiviral activity against a number of DNA and RNA viruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).