[lol] It's so obvious that humans are carnivores.

[M A J I]

18 hours ago, Eyowey said:

There's an agenda for people to eat meat as far as I can tell. Children eat fruit shaped candy made from pork fat instead of actual fruit. They are made to be so sweet that actual fruit seems boring in comparison. Only the devil would invent something like this.

Its ridiculous right, but this is why there are two types of people. Those under the spell and those freed from it. Cannot control free-thinkers.

[Michael569]

39 minutes ago, LfcCharlie4 said:

8 years here, blood tests verified by Michael here. 

Perfectly healthy, train 5 days a week, work an active job & have zero issues. 

Don't see myself ever going back

[undeather]

Quote

Yes, I'm slowly beginning to realise this. if a patient comes to you with elevated LDL -C and elevated non-HDL, cholesterol, how do you tell if they would benefit from ApoB testing as well? Age? Ethnicity? Other risk factors? (alcohol, smoking) 

LDL-C and non-HDL-C are (in general) perfectly fine indicators for cardiovascular disease risk, especially in "the average" population.
LDL-C can be determined directly using enzymatic methods or calculated from the other parameters using the Friedewald formula:
LDL-C = Total-C – HDL-C – (TG/2,2) in mmol/L

If you have a very sick patient with a high metabolic burden (high triglycerides, diabetes, obesity..), then the Fridewald formula should not be used to determine LDL-C because the result might be inaccurate. Enzymatic methods are better but also not perfect in that regard.
-> Most physicians don't know this!

Non-HDL-C is a very good marker which is also used in out best risk stratification tools like SCORE-2. 
In most patients, Non-HDL-C will present a very accurate picture of individual risk.

The reason why ApoB is superior is because at the end of the day, LDL-C & non-HDL-C are surrogate markers.
There is also evidence thgat an additional ApoB measurement as an extension of the standard profile can also detect increased particle counts, which often cannot be identified on the basis of LDL-C or even non-HDL-C alone.
-> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23068583/

In most patients, this is not an issues - especially if you do a rough lipid screening which usually doesn't end in a different therapeutic decision. However, if you really want to go full health nerd, then ApoB is the way to go! 

 

Quote

does LP(a) change over lifetime or is it moslty set like APoE4, if you have it, you have higher odds of ending up really fucked if you are not careful. 

As far as I know, its pretty much set for life. It's important to point out that there is some disconcordance in the data - some individuakls with high Lp(a) dont seem to get the the same level of fucked upness. I have seen people getting stressed out over high Lp(a) values and frame it as the unavoidable death sentence, which it isn't. 

Nevertheless, high Lp(a) individuals should be treated more agressively - just in case! 

Edited April 27, 2023 by undeather

[Schizophonia]

On 26/04/2023 at 3:15 PM, undeather said:

It takes years - sometimes even decades for measureable atherosclerotic plaques to form. 
Most modalities, especially vascular-ultrasound are very crude measurement techniques with very low specificity.
MRI-angiography would be a gold standard but is expensive and sometimes difficult to interpret.
Calcium-scores are useful, but it comes with a shitload of limitations: Calcification is a late-stage process of atherogenesis, soft plaques are much

agree

On 26/04/2023 at 3:15 PM, undeather said:

more common in young people, there are a shitton of heart attacks in young people with CAC=0.

do you have sources? I'm interested

On 26/04/2023 at 3:15 PM, undeather said:

Funfact: Statins tend to increase CAC-Scores but decrease the rate of heart attacks. Funnily enough, more calcified plaques tend to rapture less frequently - which makes sense if you think about it. 

Statins are a last resort

On 26/04/2023 at 3:15 PM, undeather said:

hs-CRP and other acute phase proteins CAN correlate with atherogenesis but it's a terrible proxy because it's regulated by all sorts of processes. If somebody sneezes in front of you, your CRP will go up - good luck decoupling this from tiny changes in plaque formation.

I wasn't saying that in relation to atherosclerosis, I wanted to know if with the same lifestyle (difficult to qualify), a "carnivorous" diet would decrease or increase the markers of inflammation.
The testimonies that I have seen here and there are contradictory.

[integral]

I loss my erections on veganism's and determined the cause was a issue with fat absorption so I need to eat foods high in cholesterol like eggs to get it up. 

[Asayake]

15 minutes ago, integral said:

I loss my erections on veganism's and determined the cause was a issue with fat absorption so I need to eat foods high in cholesterol like eggs to get it up. 

Are you serious? This sounds like a meme but if you're serious I think it's highly unlikely it was because of low cholesterol, that sounds more like carnivore propaganda in my ears rather than scientifically sound. Perhaps you ate too little calories because vegan foods tends to be less calorically dense and eating too little could increase your cortisol levels and perhaps mess with your erections.

Edited April 27, 2023 by Asayake

[Michael569]

11 minutes ago, Asayake said:

Perhaps you ate too little calories because vegan foods tends to be less calorically dense

agreed with this, sounds like a half-arsed vegan diet @integral bro  I don't think you tried hard enough. 

I am no longer vegan but when I was for 4 years, the first few months until I figured out how to do it properly I was like Walking Dead, then my energy came back and afterwards everything was as it was previously, digestive regularity was definitely better. 

Edited April 27, 2023 by Michael569

[integral]

17 minutes ago, Michael569 said:

agreed with this, sounds like a half-arsed vegan diet @integral bro  I don't think you tried hard enough. 

I am no longer vegan but when I was for 4 years, the first few months until I figured out how to do it properly I was like Walking Dead, then my energy came back and afterwards everything was as it was previously, digestive regularity was definitely better. 

28 minutes ago, Asayake said:

Are you serious? This sounds like a meme but if you're serious I think it's highly unlikely it was because of low cholesterol, that sounds more like carnivore propaganda in my ears rather than scientifically sound. Perhaps you ate too little calories because vegan foods tends to be less calorically dense and eating too little could increase your cortisol levels and perhaps mess with your erections.

Lmaoo, its possible yes, could be undereating and high cortisol. it doesn't fully explain why 1 egg is enough to get the erection back and stamina even If im still undereating. 

Edited April 27, 2023 by integral

[undeather]

Quote

do you have sources? I'm interested

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.014310
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34529050/
https://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(20)30378-6/fulltext
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/epub/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.045026
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2785586
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2795671
 

Quote

Statins are a last resort

Statins are second instance right after lifestyle changes.
I am all for avoiding drugs until it's just absolutely necessary - but sometimes that's the way to go. 
Especially older folks experience difficulty getting into a acceptable ApoB-ranges just with exercise & diet alone. 
Also, let me tell you this with years of experience practicing internal medicine, most people just don't give a shit and prefer the drug over lifestyle.

Contrary to the opinion of youtube & twitter university doctors, Statins are incredible safe. 
I remember being very uncertain about Statins because of all the online hysteria I came in contact with. 
But once you start reading into it rationally and actually have your hands on patients (and I have propably perscribed hundreds of not thousands doses of Statins so far), you will realise that most of them tolerate Statins really well and there is nothing to worry about. 
I think the worst side effect i have ever encountered was a significant rise in liver enzymes, which went away after discontinouing the drug, 

 

Quote

I wasn't saying that in relation to atherosclerosis, I wanted to know if with the same lifestyle (difficult to qualify), a "carnivorous" diet would decrease or increase the markers of inflammation.
The testimonies that I have seen here and there are contradictory.

There will a huge interindividual difference with almost no pre-test predictibility. 
Welcome to complex systems. But again, most inflammatory markers are not eligible for suchpurpose - a more accurate assessment would be through Ig-specification after eating a consuming a certain meal. 

If you believe Jordan Peterson's story (which I tend to do), then he propably reduced his inflammatory response by cutting out most food groups. 
Personally, I feel best on a mixed, whole food diet with a strong emphasis on plants and some high quality pieces of meat & fish. But then, I also like to enjoy life and indulge in some junk food as well

Edited April 27, 2023 by undeather

[integral]

@undeather There's another dimension, yes if your old and its absolutely nessisariy statins have purpose but because of the availability of statins they are 99.9% of the time used when not nessisariy. Making statins a drug that is better off not existing and we can extend this to the majority of drugs that exist, the benefits of there existence is outweigh by there drawbacks. We are better off if guns where never invented and nukes, just like we would be better off if the majority of drugs where never invented. More options is not always better. From the big picture perspective anti-biotics and pain killers are the very few drugs whos benefits outweigh drawbacks. Its crewl but the majority of people that genuinely need these other drugs should just not have access to them, just like the people who genuinely need a gun should not have access to them because the whole outweighs that one circumstance. 

Edited April 27, 2023 by integral

[undeather]

13 minutes ago, integral said:

@undeather There's another dimension, yes if your old and its absolutely nessisariy statins have purpose but because of the availability of statins they are 99.9% of the time used when not nessisariy. Making statins a drug that is better off not existing and we can extend this to the majority of drugs that exist, the benefits of there existence is outweigh by there drawbacks. We are better off if guns where never invented and nukes, just like we would be better off if the majority of drugs where never invented. More options is not always better. From the big picture perspective anti-biotics and pain killers are the very few drugs whos benefits outweigh drawbacks. Its crewl but the majority of people that genuinely need these other drugs should just not have access to them, just like the people who genuinely need a gun should not have access to them because the whole outweighs that one circumstance. 

With all due respect, but this is in an insanely short-sighted, reductive and plain out stupid take.
I am outright shocked to read such words from a moderator.
 

[integral]

22 minutes ago, undeather said:

With all due respect, but this is in an insanely short-sighted, reductive and plain out stupid take.
I am outright shocked to read such words from a moderator.

I'm not seeing why, lets pick a random invention whos introduction into our society did more harm then good. Some people genuinely benefit form that invention but at the same time it hurt the majority. We can say that Its better if it was never introduced to begin with. 

What we are disagreeing on is how bad the health care industry is screwing up. From your perspective these drugs are more beneficial then harmful. I think if we remove the majority of these drugs from the system overall health will improve. 1 out of 10 prescription of statins distributed everyday was the right decision. The entire situation is barbarique. While your world view is that 7/10 times it was the correct choice or something along does lines.

Edited April 27, 2023 by integral

[integral]

Quote

Another study based on data from IQVIA, a health information company, reported that atorvastatin (sold under brand Lipitor) was the most prescribed drug in the United States in 2019, with 24.5 million prescriptions or 7.5% of the population4. It was one of many statin medications listed, which are used to prevent cardiovascular disease and treat abnormal lipid levels4.

 

[undeather]

7 minutes ago, integral said:

I'm not seeing why, lets pick a random invention whos introduction into our society did more harm then good. Some people genuinely benefit form that invention but at the same time it hurt the majority. We can say that Its better if it was never introduced to begin with. 

What we are disagreeing on is how bad the health care industry is screwing up. From your perspective these drugs are more beneficial then harmful. I think if we remove the majority of these drugs from the system overall health will improve. 1 out of 10 prescription of statins distributed everyday was the right decision. The entire situation is barbarique. While your world view is that 7/10 times it was the correct choice or something along does lines.

Sure. let's not even look far - let's pick Statins.
I agree with you that the "health care industry" is limited by it's own epistemic standard. That's why my private practice generally consists of an integral approach that combines both the allopathic, guideline-oriented practice with an alternative, complex-system informed framework. Ia m not shy disagreeing with mainstream medical advice and I have had multiple debates with colleagues about all sorts of stuff.

That said, my problem with most of the "alternative medicien" crowd is that almost without exception dont know shit about about evidence and data. This is a problem because it results in all sorts of crazy theories and nonsense. I mean, just look at the shitshow that's influencer medicine on youtube and twitter. People like "Dr" Eric Berg have millions of subscribers while talking nothing but nonsnse. And I think a statement like yours is a further symptome of this paradigm.

Anyway, please put down your argument for why Statins are doing more harm than good. 
I can shower you with data that says otherwise - I can give you multiple lines of arguments, from biomechanics to epidemilogy to controlled trails. I can give you an argument that involves patient psychology and a spiral dynamics/Wilberian integral perspective on this. 

Iam listening with interest...

[integral]

@undeather We agree that statins are over prescribed. The position your making is that your use of them is correct and your distancing your self from the mainstream. That's reasonable, I'm not doubting your approach is a good one. but your approach is 0.1% or less of practitioners. The environment is a business that over prescribed every drug and statins not existing would improve the quality of life of the majority. 

Weather statins are of any actually value or not is a different discussion. 

4 hours ago, undeather said:

I have propably perscribed hundreds of not thousands doses of Statins so far), you will realise that most of them tolerate Statins really well and there is nothing to worry about. 

Take them yourself and ill respect what you have to say.

Thousands? What do you think your accuracy rate is on that? The thing is you don't even think it matters if they need it or not because you think there are no side effects, its harmless. The foolishness of the entire industry is revealed right there.

How do you know you helped any of does people with statins? How exactly do you know? 

Edited April 27, 2023 by integral

[undeather]

Quote

We agree that statins are over prescribed

Yes and no. 
Again, we laugh about statements like these because it shows the naiveté of a person who does not have any clinical experience.
 

Quote

The environment is a business that over prescribed every drug and statins not existing would improve the quality of life of the majority. 

That's just wrong. No doctor in my hospital get's money from perscribing a statin. Nobody ever told me I have to perscribe a certain drug over recommending lifestyle modification. The truth is that statins are a terrible way of making money as a pharmaceutical company - it's an old drug and generic versions are all over the place. The drugs which make you money, like PCSK-9 inhibtors, are highly regulated. 

Also, iff you would read any current guideline, you will notice that lifestyle is still the basis of any further intervention. Only in high risk indivudals, further drug treatment is necessary. All this is based on actual data and we can talk about this as well if you want. 
 

 

Quote

Take them yourself and ill respect what you have to say.

I would immediatly if I had to.
I take antihypertensive medicine because I have a rare genetic disroder - and guess what, I feel completely fine. 

 

Quote

Thousands? What do you think your accuracy rate is on that? The thing is you don't even think it matters if they need it or not because you think there are no side effects, its harmless. The foolishness of the entire industry is revealed right there. 

Yes, propably. 
I have been practicing for years as an internal med. doctor and statins are one of the most perscribed drugs. I perscribe them at least once a day when I am doing rounds. Any older person with a fucked up lipid profile gets a statin for protection. That adds up. 

Of course they have side effets. Every drug does. No drug is harmless. But thats not the point. 
The data is showing a benificial effect is just overwhelming. Not implementing a statin would do more harm. Again, if people manage to get to their ApoB goal without statins, than thets even better - cheers to that. But that's just not how it works outreality. People need drugs and it's good that we have them. If you have a good coutnerpoint to that, then please tell me.

Whats your experience with side effects? How many people have you treated?
Your point of view would change if you are actually involved with patients every day, trust me. 

Edited April 27, 2023 by undeather

[integral]

42 minutes ago, undeather said:

Again, we laugh about statements like these because it shows the naiveté of a person who does not have any clinical experience.

42 minutes ago, undeather said:

That's just wrong. No doctor in my hospital get's money from perscribing a statin. Nobody ever told me I have to perscribe a certain drug over recommending lifestyle modification. In fact, if you would read any current guideline, you will notice that lifestyle is still the basis of any further intervention. Only in high risk indivudals, further drug treatment is necessary. All this is based on actual data and we can talk about this as well if you want. 

If does patients where left alone with not treatment what would happen? 

There is no need for financial incentive, your already prescribing them once a day based on your belief system. The business component effects culture that effects the paradigm doctors view health. 

42 minutes ago, undeather said:

I would immediately if I had to.

Take them while your healthy. 

42 minutes ago, undeather said:

I have been practicing for years as an internal med. doctor and statins are one of the most perscribed drugs.

How can they possibly not be over prescribed, its very clear that your not intimate with any of these patients over the long term and likely see them occasionally, you asses there state as "still alive" and go on with your life.

42 minutes ago, undeather said:

if people manage to get to their ApoB goal without statins, than thets even better - cheers to that.

How could they be given a chance to do that when the moment they come into contact with you they are put on drugs. 

42 minutes ago, undeather said:

People need drugs and it's good that we have them. If you have a good coutnerpoint to that, then please tell me.

Yes, your not following up on any of them, you dont understand the effects any of these drugs had on the quality of there life or mental state. If they die or have complications you don't believe it has anything to do with your practice, in fact you believe you helped them live longer. 

There is no indication that putting them on statins changed anything. They lived there entire lives with out statins up to the point they met you, now they suddenly need intervention? Why would that intervention be better then nothing at all?  

42 minutes ago, undeather said:

Whats your experience with side effects? How many people have you treated?
Your point of view would change if you are actually involved with patients every day, trust me. 

My father was put on statins and blood pressure medication at 15, his brother rejected the doctor advice, they both had very high blood pleasure. At 40 my father had a stroke, his brother didnt. At 60 my father is on 30 different medications, his brother is on 1 anti-rejection. They both have polycystic kidney disease and had there kidneys removed and donor transplant. From this experiment I came to the conclusion that statins or blood pressure medications cause hardening of the arteries (father) for long term use. I also came to the conclusion that doing nothing can be better or wiser then intervention. 

How do you know statins don't raise cortisol? Contributing to mood issues (anger)? Are a stressor and agitant on the system. The statin needs to be tested on healthy people and metric not related to cholesterol need to be tracked. 

Edited April 27, 2023 by integral

[undeather]

Quote

 

If does patients where left alone with not treatment what would happen? 

There is no need for financial incentive, your already prescribing them once a day based on your belief system. The business component effects culture that effects the paradigm doctors view health. 

 

We dont need to ask the question - we have the answer.
Thats what randomized, controlled trials are for. You randomize patients in 2 homogenous groups and treat one with statins, the other with placebo. Then you follow them up for some years and ovserve what happens. This has been repeated propably hundreds of times - different groups, pharma-independent and completely in concordance with epidemiological observations (increased life-span in countries with increased healthcare output).

See, I dont need a believe system. It's you that creates the believe. I base my decision on the best available data & my expereince as a docotor.
I agree with you that culture effects the paradigm doctors view health - but then again, this is exactly the issue I described in my previous post: Dont throw the baby out with the bathwater. True integral medicine INVOLVES studies, data & drugs and does not shunt it on any way or form. 

Quote

How can they possibly not be over prescribed, its very clear that your not intimate with any of these patients over the long term and likely see them occasionally, you asses there state as "still alive" and go on with your life.

If you have a lung infection with a deadly bacteria, do I need to know you intimately to perscribe you an antibiotic? No, of course not. It will just help because we know it helps. 

It's generally true that our modern medical system lacks in interpersonal relationships between doctors and patients but thats a different issue. 
Also, this is not always the case. I grew up on the countryside and there was 1 general practitioner responsible for the whole village. He was part of everyone's family basically - and guess what, he was perscribed all the medications as well - because he saw it helped. 
 

Quote

How could they be given a chance to do that when the moment they come into contact with you they are put on drugs

Again, a complete misconception of actually practicing medicine.
I dont just "put them on drugs" - I think about their risk profile and tell them the smartest choiced based on all the evidence and my experience. This ALWAYS involves lifestyle modification as the most important pillar because it's highly effective. But I dont know at this moment in the hopsital how far they are willing to go with that - and frankly, if you had ANY experience at all, you would know that most people just dont give a shit. 

Also, it's perfectly fine to go off a statin medication once they implemented healthy lifestyle behaviour. Maybe they can reach their lipid goals without them, maybe they wont.

Quote

 

Yes, your not following up on any of them, you dont understand the effects any of these drugs had on the quality of there life or mental state. If they die or have complications you don't believe it has anything to do with your practice, in fact you believe you helped them live longer. 

There is no indication that putting them on statins changed anything. They lived there entire lives with out statins up to the point they met you, now they suddenly need intervention? Why would that intervention be better then nothing at all?  

 

Of course we are following up patients - university hopsitals have statistics about all sorts of stuff.
Private practice physicians see the same patients all the time and that includes when they report medication side effects. Do you think we are idiots? 

Yes, there is a shitload of data showing that statins WILL change things. How can you ignore all the studies just like that? 
But I guess this is all big industiry sponsered right? (Which is not the case if you had any clue at all). 

What do you mean lived the entire lives without statins? This is about RISK and PREVENTION in the FUTURE. 
We want to PREVENT that heart attack that's been building up for years in the coronary artery.
We want to PREVENT that stroke that would create a big hole in the family. 
This is insane logic my friend. 

 

Quote

 

My father was put on statins and blood pressure medication at 15, his brother rejected the doctor advice, they both had very high blood pleasure. At 40 my father had a stroke, his brother didnt. At 60 my father is on 30 different medications, his brother is on 1 anti-rejection. They both have polycystic kidney disease and had there kidneys removed and donor transplant. From this experiment I came to the conclusion that statins or blood pressure medications cause hardening of the arteries (father) for long term use. I also came to the conclusion that doing nothing can be better or wiser then intervention. 

How do you know statins don't raise cortisol? Contributing to mood issues (anger)? Are a stressor and agitant on the system. The statin needs to be tested on healthy people and metric not related to cholesterol need to be tracked. 

 

See, this is a perfect example how you create your believe system. From 1 ancedote. 
You father and your brother do not have the same genetics - even if they were twins, there are many more components that would make such correlations extremely complicated. I can come up with dozens of counter-examples. It literally doesn't matter. Anecdotes are valuable but you can't just pull up a whole worldview from them. 

I cant help you if you think this is good sensemaking. 

Statins have been tested on healthy people. Again, you lack knowledge.
No I can not preclude any weird side effects that might occur in some patients - I have to take the (sometimes imperfect) data we have and work with it. And that data clearly shows that statins safe lives.

 

Edited April 28, 2023 by undeather

[M A J I]

18 hours ago, Asayake said:

Are you serious? This sounds like a meme but if you're serious I think it's highly unlikely it was because of low cholesterol, that sounds more like carnivore propaganda in my ears rather than scientifically sound. Perhaps you ate too little calories because vegan foods tends to be less calorically dense and eating too little could increase your cortisol levels and perhaps mess with your erections.

@integral There is some truth to this because once you let go of "animals" your consciousness rises to the (higher-chakras) more so, so you are less stimulated and activated in the (lower energy centers) and become more (heart based). This is why after years of veganism you feel much more compassionate, understanding, loving and caring, and much less aggressive and animal-like, by consuming plants you are actually becoming (HUMAN) while most people are still (ANIMAL) hence the need and craving for animal products. Its the easier route to take in the modern day.

Now on a metaphysical/spiritual level, this is just the plants teaching you (energetically) that sex is a 'lower conscious behavior' when there is no 'true love' behind it. When you find someone you truly love, you will be turned on but not sexually aroused and erections will be more meaningful rather than premature erections with excess animal/substance in your system.

Edited April 28, 2023 by M A J I

[integral]

@undeather Studies provide data that is interpreted by the paradigm they view health. Its a interpretation problem and a misunderstanding of what that data is pointing to. Improved blood tests is not a good indication of improved health. Statins will improve one metric in the system while unbalancing another that is not being tracked. 

The problem with all data focused approach's is what a study says at face value is not the issues its the epistemology behind the observer (you). There are conflicting interpretations of all these studies, the more conscious the observer the more counter-intuitive and ambiguous these studies start to become, they are not pointing to what you think they are pointing to. 

 

5 hours ago, undeather said:

Yes, there is a shitload of data showing that statins WILL change things. How can you ignore all the studies just like that? 

What do you mean lived the entire lives without statins? This is about RISK and PREVENTION in the FUTURE. 
We want to PREVENT that heart attack that's been building up for years in the coronary artery.
We want to PREVENT that stroke that would create a big hole in the family. 
This is insane logic my friend. 

Medication for prevention paradigm is a bad strategy. It doesn't work in practice or at scale. They still have heart attacks on or of statins, they will still have heart attack with perfect blood tests. Long term effects of medication is poorly tracked. 

5 hours ago, undeather said:

See, I dont need a believe system. It's you that creates the believe. I base my decision on the best available data & my expereince as a docotor.

Anecdotes are valuable but you can't just pull up a whole worldview from them. 

Its not that your worldview is based on data, its data is used to support your worldview. its backwards. At some point from life experience and preferences led you to think about health in a specific way then data was there to provide support for it, that mixed with believing what these studies suggest with out realizing the deceptive nature of truth.

Every carnivore diet doctor will interpret studies to show cholesterol is healthy and lowing it with statins doesn't work. People believe what ever they want to believe with this data. A better approach is to try to learn from every camp and see what results each one is getting.

A doctors position prevents them from doing any real inquiry into truth, there job is a practical matter and have to work with what they have and what they where thought up to that point. With thousands of diseases to worry about its impossible to figure out what part of there education is true or not. There are only a handful of doctors that are deeply question what they know and carefully figuring out what works and what doesn't, but because of the Eco chamber and demonization of any doctor with a new perspective all progress ignored.

I'm sure there are plenty of treatment methods you disagree with like how mainstream doctors handles crohn's diseases or any digestive issue is basically shrouded in ignorance.

So why are statins so firmly true in your eyes and not these other treatment methods coming out of the mainstream? A interpretation of studies? Experience? A more holistic perspective? 

 

5 hours ago, undeather said:

Statins have been tested on healthy people. Again, you lack knowledge.
No I can not preclude any weird side effects that might occur in some patients - I have to take the (sometimes imperfect) data we have and work with it. And that data clearly shows that statins safe lives.

Data doesn't show anything, your creating the truth.

Edited April 28, 2023 by integral