undeather

The book seems to be more an indroductory/overview of Wilber's work - with a pragmatic twist and a focus on practices. If you are already familiar with his concepts, then you will encounter a lot of repetition. That said, I enjoy the audiobook - will keep it and recommend to friends who are not familiar with integral theory.

That's your addiction speaking. Look how you are desperately trying to look for reasons to keep that behaviour alive. Every smoker loves the sensations tabacco gives them, that's why they do it. I work at a Gastrointestinal-clinic, which also includes liver-patients - most of them due to alcohol. While the poison is a different one, the excuses are the same. "What if I just drink at parties?" - "But I like the easiness alcohol gives me in social situations" - "It helps with bearing life" ... I think the right way for you is to stop completely and look for healthier mechanisms to deal with said mental issues. Your future self will thank you for it.

Jason, we already had a lengthy exchange about this topic like 6 months ago - so I will keep it short! 1) The reason the LDL-C targets are constantly lowered is because of the mounting evidence that lower is better. Trial after trial show additional benefits of more aggressive lipid lowering - the feared J-curve or U-curve effect just does not appear. Blood pressure recommendations show a similar pattern, which also makes sense. 2) Smoking, diabetes and hypertension are 3 huge risk factors of atherosclerosis - mainly because of their propensity to cause endothelial activation. Chemical modification (aka oxidation or glycolisation) of lipoproteins is an important part of atherogenesis and especially smoking strongly increases the proportion of ox-LDL - which makes them enter the arterial even easier. There are multiple risks factors that can modify ASCVD-risk through various mechanisms. Of course there are! But one thing that still stands above all of them - if you take away the ApoB-particles - even in presence of smoking or diabetes - then plaque burden reduces DRASTICALLY! - Far more than what quitting the cigarettes would have done on it's own. People with lifelong low ApoB (through genetic mutations) just don't develop the same quantity/quality of atheroclerosis, even in context of other risk factors like diabetes, smoking, hypertension etc. This has been shown again and agian in mendellian randomization studies. Of course, the aim for me as a doctor is to improve all risk factors - first through lifestyle intervention whenever possible - but lipids are just such a major player in this whole game. Observations just fit the model perfectly. 3) I don't know if feeding someone ox-Cholesterol would do something - especially because much of the dietary cholesterol doesn't really get absorbed - not sure how the NPC1L1-transporter in the intestines would deal with ox-Cholesterol. But I get your hypothetical: Of course, if you would increase ox-LDL in the blood, then yeah, you would see an increased tendency of those particles to enter the arterial wall - which would likely end up with more atherogenesis. I am not saying oxidation is not important! If you want to reduce the general oxidative bruden (through diet, movement, stress reduction...)- then Iam with you. But the problem with that hypothesis (the true culprit being oxidation) is that histopathological/biochemical observations (mechanisms of plaque build-up/oxidation happening mainly in the arterial wall), mendellian randomziation data, and many, many intervention trials (increasing antioxidative potentials) just don't show the effect sizes if said hypothesis was true. On the other side we have a SHITTON of evidence - propably one of the most studied areas in the field of medical sciences - that reducing Apo-B particles is causally correlated with a highly reduced ASCVD-risk. 4) Net plaque deposition occurs when the rate of build up exceeds that of removal! Yes! Yes, hypotheically, if we had zero ApoB in our system - atherosclerosis propably wouldn't occur. Without ApoB- there wouldn't be any lipoproteins left, except HDL. Supraphysiolgoical, meaning "more than our body can handle". Our lipid-profile is, to a large degree, genetically determined - someone with a very, very bad lifestyle can improve their Apo-B around 30-40% (on average). Yet if everyone would live a healthy lifestyle, we would still see Apo-B concentrations above the atherogenic-threshhold. Antagonistic pleitropy (in the evolutionary sense) can explain this pretty well imo. Anyway, I will be on vacation for the next week - so not gonna respond any further! Cheers

It's not really "my" position - it's what 170 years of atherosclerosis research and discoveries have led us to conclude about humanities biggest killer, cardiovascular diseases. The lipid model of atherosclerosis fits like a glove onto a wide array of observations. Our understanding is, as almost anything in science, incomplete - but the basics are incredibly consistent with reality. Yes, Apo-B particle number is the best predictor of plaque progression on a population level. For individuals, we look at a complex spectrum of pathophysiological circumstences - meaning that for some people, ApoB is less of a concern than it is for others. 2 patients with the exact same ApoB exposure can develop different degrees of atherosclerosis - one might have a different phenotype for a specific receptor that allows the ApoB to get into the arterial wall even easier, while the other has an inherited enzyme defficiency which leads to lower rates of oxidation. There are thousands of controlling elements, and also other risk factors that would go into that equation. But one thing they all have in common - if you lower ApoB-particles with drugs, lifestyle, genetic mutations (like PCSK9-mutations) or even apheresis, people slow down - stop - or even reverse some of their atherosclerotic progression. This is ultra consistent across various models and also works the other way around (like in people with familial hypercholesterolemia or a progression of plaque when drugs are stopped) No, the oxidation of Apo-B is not inevitable - many factors influence the rate of oxidation. The problem is that most antioxidants mainly deal with oxidative processes in the lumen but not necessarily in the arterial wall. This is a bit of a grey area and more reserach needs to be done - but so far, levels of antioxidants don't correlate with plaque reversal to the degree they should if there was something to the oxidation hypothesis. We know that Reverse Cholesterol Transport happens in every human - HDL particles are able to fish cholesterol particles out of the lesions -however, this is only possible in earlier stages of atherosclerosis. That's why, in general, higher HDL particle numbers are associated with lower cardiovascular risk. No, atherogenesis is not unidirectional - there is a constant build up and removal. But the body can't really keep up with all the supraphysiological levels of Apo-B particles that are present in our blood streams. Once LDL-C (which is a great proxy for ApoB) goes below 70mg/dL (maybe even below 55mg/dL) - we kinda observe a equilibrium where atherosclorosis just doesn't happen in it's usual magnitude.

All ApoB-containing lipoproteins <70 nm in diameter can cross the endothelial barrier, especially in the presence of endothelial dysfunction. In the early stages of atherosclerosis, negatively charged proteoglycans (structural components ) in the arterial wall trap apoB-lipoproteins. This happens because of electrostatic interactions with specific positively charged amino acid residues on the ApoB-proteins. After that happens, the process of atherosclerosis continues as usual! The trapped lipoproteins will go through oxidiation which creates a inflammatory response, macrophages will enter the arterial wall and start sucking up that delicious cholesterol (which came in through the lipoproteins). Since those macrophages are hungry little scamps and can't stop eating, they will turn into foam cells. This is when you can macroscopicly observe so called "fatty streaks" in the artery. From then on, the plaque continues to grow through various mechanisms until it ruptures and creates in infarct. Voilà - that's how plaque formation works!

"21 years old, computer-engineer, loves to travel and outdoor activitives - 10/10 genotype: PCSK9-mutation carrier (LDL below 5th percentile)"

Pretty sure you have some sort of genetic thing going on since your HDL is also very low. But yeah, with a LDL-C of 52 you barely going to develop any significant cardiovascular issues until very, very old age. (at least the chanes are high!)

Statins are one of those medications that really start showing a benefit after years of use. The number needed to treat (meaning the number of patients you need to put on a statin to prevent one cardiovascular event) really ramps up after 1-5 years. The longer people are on it, the stronger the effect size - which makes sense, since it doesn't really remove the plaque already build up in the arteries but slows down/stops it's progression. You see the same effects with blood pressure or diabetes medication - same principle at work. That's why some doctors (not me) think about giving statins to 20-30 year olds - because they want to prevent ANY atherosclerosis in the long run. If you give someone a statin for, let say, 2 months, then the effect will be miniscule/non existent, while you expose the patient to potential side effects (which are rare and usually subside after you stop taking the drug - but still!) If I put a patient on a statin, then that's usually a life long decision! It's very important to know that >90% of my patients who actually get on that drug are either a) severely high risk - usually after a myocardial infraction or stroke or b) suffer from a genetic disposition (familial hypercholesterolemia) if someone wants to stop the drug, then we can do that as well - but I will make sure he/she knows the consequences - so they can make that decision with informed consent.

You are doing AMAZING! Good job, man! You just cut your cardiovascular risk in half - whatever you are doing seems to work incredibly well! Statins are never out of option, especially in presence of other risk factors or already manifest cardiovascular disease. One could argue that by decerasing your cholesterol even further, you will gain additional benefits. That said, judging from your blood lipids alone, I don't see a reason to put you on lifelong medication. We don't take statins short term. As Michael already mentioned - there is a slight aberration in your red blood cell/hemoglobin count (which show a very light anemia) - it's common and nothing really to worry about - but might veil some sort of defficiency (most likely Iron! - which would explain the mild anisocytosis/poikilocytosis). Definitely check it out with your GP!

Oh my sweet summer child I would invite you to follow any of his claims to their conclusion and try to find palpable evidence for what he is saying.# Be interested in his ideas, but don't hesitate to dismiss it if there is no substance behind it. Designing a fancy drone does not make all your ideas right - this is simple epistemology. Anyway, I am done with this!

No, normal drones can move in literally any direction by tilting their thrust-angle. There are even drones who can adjust their motors in-flight to do exactly what Howard's can do. How is building something that can fly with 6 degreees of freedom a new model of understanding reality and physics? It's simple aerodynamics you can calculate using high-school maths. By the way, EVERY modern Airplane has 6 degrees of freedom. Brother, you are making the case for him - so be ready to encounter pushback! Just take a sober look at those videos - does this really scream "ground shattering new science" to you? I am not even against this drone - stuff! That looks fine and dandy! But to take this as a defense for all the "crazy" ideas he is having is just preposterous. Either there is substance, or there isn't - and so far it's just a bunch of empty talk. And again, I want this to be true as everyone else - new physics is always exciting!

What has this to do with anything? This is a paper about drone design using a particular geometric approach. It doesn't even do anything special. Here is a video of that thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO33PNYhjFg&ab_channel=ChristianMolter How is this proof of ANY of his claims?

Everyone has ideas - there are literally thousands of self proclaimed TOEs (theories of everything) by all sorts of individuals, laymen and universal geniuses, throughout the history of mankind up to this day. I agree with you that it's entertaining and also important to engange with new ideas, even if they might sound "ridicolous" at first glance - Moreover, "paradigm shifts" tend to happen in such manner. But then again - most ideas are also wrong. For every true, paradigm -shattering idea, there are millions of falsehoods. And this guy is just not passing the initial smell-test: He has nothing to show except a ridicolously flawed "paper" (1x1=2) and some animations on the computer - where is the data? where are the precise formulations? where are the predictions? where is ANY kind of observational evidence? - it's all just vague gesturing and smart sounding words. This is why scientists don't give him a chance - there is nothing to work with. If you have a universe-breaking idea, then you should be able to do something with it. The only reason we take this guy and his ideas seriously is because he was on the Joe Rogan experience. Again, there is nothing discuss and he is not dismissed without any basis - when he says that "DNA is wrapping around the arsenic molucule" - then what is there to discuss? This is just not how DNA works, this has never been observed in the history of biology - where is his evidence? If he says that he has some sort of new propulsion technology - then show something - make a go-fund me with a prototype - idk ANYTHING! I am all for being open minded towards new ideas - but not that open minded that your brain falls out. This guy gives me strong narcissist vibes - plus, again - this is a pattern - there is a history of abuse and mental health issues. It's a pretty easy wager if you ask me!

After spending a bit more time on it... I think this issue is a great example of the pre/trans fallacy. A lot of people see Howards ideas as these mystical, quasi-ethereal, science breaking truths from a higher plane of existence - when in reality, it's PROPABLY not much more than the next psychotic narcissist who uses complicated sophistry. The reason why so many people fall for it is because it "sounds smart" - but it just isn't. So much of what he says directly contradicts what we know: Arsenic is toxic because of a variety of very specific intracellular mechanisms and there are 100 years of biological reserach behind that fact - if you think the toxicity stems from "DNA wrapping around the Arsenic-molecule" (lol), then bring some sort of proof for it - don't just say it - show us! Look, I want those things to be true as much as the next guy - because it sounds interesting as fuck - but let's be real, it's highly likely just nonsense as we have seen again and again. We, as a community of spiritually inclined individuals, should distance ourselves from lunatics. The ideas that actually are likely to be valid (primacy of conciousness, NDEs, Reincarnation..) have no chance of getting a wider recognition if we are constantly associated with crazy people.

The ethics of veganism have always been of great interest to me. In fact, my personal take is that veganism is the truly superior position and to this day, I have not seen many good arguments that would allow someone to win a debate as a meat-eater. I had been vegan for years in the past and felt great on it - but at one point, one has to just be honest that by cutting out eggs, meat and dairy - you will abstain from the most delicious parts of the food ecosystem. Substitute products are just not it. For me, delicious foods are such an integral part of life and so I decided to go back to animal products - despite the "unnecessary" suffering it creates. That said I still have a fetish following vegan content creators and watching debates. One thing that I observe again and again is that the biggest obstacle of spreading a vegan message are vegans themselves. Many of them come across as batshit crazy lunatics - just individuzals I would stay away from in real life. A recent debate between the austrian activist "The militant vegan" and the Carnivore "Doctor" Shawn Baker is a perfect example of this dynamic. While I mostly agree with her philosophical stance, her behaviour and overall vibe is just repugnant. This debate is going viral in vegan circles because from their perspective, she doestroyed him (which is kinda true from a debate bro perspective). The broader picture however is that most people who will watch this will think differently. Likeability and temperateness can go a long way and are inherently important in such encounters. Most people will view Baker as the sane one on this debate. Anyway, what is your take?

Curt is going to have him on his TOE-podcast Since the guy seems to be a serial-wife beater with a record of mental-health saliences, my money is on kook.

My condolences - hope he is recovering well! It's always hard to understand when someone apperently healthy suffers a severe medical event like a myocardial infarction. Your relatives case highlights the complex nature of heart disease. Despite good health habits, genetic predispositions and chance still play significant roles. Even with stable blood sugar, blood pressure, and lipids, and no chronic diseases or smoking, the risk of heart disease can't be entirely eliminated. Genetics can predispose someone to heart issues regardless of their lifestyle. Additionally, unpredictable factors like plaque formation in arteries or the body's response to stress can lead to unexpected outcomes. Medicine can reduce these risks but can't eliminate them completely. In essence, while a healthy lifestyle reduces the risk, it doesn't guarantee immunity. It's just one of those things in life...

Fair enough

Who is passing the beer check for you? Meaning who would you rather have a beer and some food with - the clearly delusional carnivore MD or the militant vegan girl? Curious to here your opinion

lol what Sure I will debate you (or anyone else) on any health-related topic But we need rules and moderators - online debates tend to derail into gibberish-battles First and foremost because one party is usually completely off when it comes to adequate epistemics Been there, done that

If things don't significantly improve under PPI-therapy, there is no way around a deeper diagnostic process. You need to see a GI-doc

Not a classical trap, but the "Zombie fungus" is definitely my favourite

Some people do, most don't.

While the general point is obviously correct, there is much more nuance to this topic than we give it credit for. Taking Rolex as the prime example for luxury items being "mind-scams" is a bit short sighted in my view. Rolex watches are hyper percisely handcrafted, prime exemplars of human engineering. It takes someone thousands of hours of mastery to become a watchmaker capable of building such machines. There is a huge difference between that, and some Gucci bag sewed together in a chinese sweatshop. Both are overpriced "luxury items" but there is clear difference in substance behind them. We don't need these items - but that can be said about almost anythign we own. While luxury won't bring you lasting happiness, there is definitely a component of "apprechiation" which is often overlooked in such discussions. I mean, Leo - you buy tribal masks from auctions - something that can be deemed completely useless in context of the same argumentative framework. Yet I would argue that gathering such artefacts is something that authentically speaks to you. You can have the same sense of apprechiation about expensive cars, watches, alcoholic beverages, clothes, paintings, phones.. - but from a standpoint of maturity. When I think of luxury items being a mind-scam, then what comes to mind is usually something like this: