Guest Suggestion : the Fat Emperor

#4
I suppose the connection is with evil! It really does seem as though the medical authorities have become more interested in money making and much less interested in health.

David
Kind of. Many of you guys are skeptical about the entire handling of the Covid-19. He has been vocal on this issue and he cites some credible sources WRT his objections. I thought you'd ask him about Covid. In essence, he agrees with many of your views on this. He has gotten flack on it.

The diet (diet=what you eat every day, not a temporary weight loss) issue, is literally killing people. The debate is out but several views are getting traction. It's actually a scientific question but no data exists to conclusively say who is right. Plant based? Low carbs? What causes type 2 diabetes. What is completely true is, the medicine is not fixing the diet based problem. Ppl exist who are visibly better with low carb. Some with plant based. Government policy, centers around the plant based claims. Sometimes it favors industries. The food pyramid favored many food industries. Drug companies make billions from drugs that are temporary fixes. Asking him about this addresses your evil point.
 
Last edited:
#5
Kind of. Many of you guys are skeptical about the entire handling of the Covid-19. He has been vocal on this issue and he cites some credible sources WRT his objections. I thought you'd ask him about Covid. In essence, he agrees with many of your views on this. He has gotten flack on it.
Here is a book that documents the links between Fauci and the Wuhan lab. It makes grim reading, and is also rather turgid because it is so thorough.
The diet (diet=what you eat every day, not a temporary weight loss) issue, is literally killing people. The debate is out but several views are getting traction. It's actually a scientific question but no data exists to conclusively say who is right. Plant based? Low carbs? What causes type 2 diabetes.
It seems clear that saturated fat (primarily of animal origin) has been demonised for no good reason. See the various books by Dr Kendrick - perhaps "Doctoring Data" is the best.

This has had the effect of pushing people's diet in a direction that is plausibly less healthy - e.g. because the energy we used to get from fat has been replaced by energy from carbohydrates, which ultimately break down into sugars.

Both of these issues reveal that the health research community doesn't seem primarily concerned with improving people's health any more!!!!!

David
 
#6
Both of these issues reveal that the health research community doesn't seem primarily concerned with improving people's health any more!!!!!

David
I think, there are 2 votes for him being worthy of Alex's show. ;)

My personal perspective is nuanced.
-- 1) I think the misalignment of incentives DOES cause bad medical advice/directives. There is some truth to your complaint. Another author I like along said lines would be the author of Freaknomics. Drug companies, food companies, profit from status quo. They fund politicians who run regulation.
-- 2) I think the other issues lies in the difficulty to verify certain assertions. It's difficult to for example verify nutritional claims. For example, does eating fst clog arteries? We can't directly meadure blockage on living ppl. Now, if a person seems to be improving with keto, we don't have the ability to prove it's an improvement directly. Nutrition science is very very very weak on it's ability to test claims.
-- 3) I'm seeing more and anecdotal evidence leading me to believe tye fat demonization was wrong as you state.
 
#7
W8th respect to honest doctors trying to help ppl, rather than profit, this ted talk is the best.

This doctor believes the fat hypothesis is total B.S but his research group is trying to improve nutrition science to the point where it can be proven. Ppl who disagree with him, also in his group.

 
#8
W8th respect to honest doctors trying to help ppl, rather than profit, this ted talk is the best.

This doctor believes the fat hypothesis is total B.S but his research group is trying to improve nutrition science to the point where it can be proven. Ppl who disagree with him, also in his group.
I think the point here is that the hypothesis was not adequately proved originally. The onus should be on medical research to prove a hypothesis that impacts on people's diet choices before cajoling people to change their diet, not afterwards. If subsequently the proof turns out to be false, the cajoling should stop at once. I.e. the onus should always be on those that want to change people's natural diet choices, to prove their case.

Dr. Kendrick thinks the fat hypothesis was helped on its way because of a totally false picture that fat would congeal in arteries, much as it can in sewers! In reality cholesterol is found in plaque, but some sources confuse fat with cholesterol!

Dr. Kendrick's view is that the fundamental problem is that the epithelium (inner wall of the artery) gets damaged, and that needs to be sealed over before it forms a blood clot. The mechanism involves cholesterol and forms a plaque that is normally ultimately drawn through the arterial wall. The plaque is analogous to a scab, but it can't be shed like a scab because that would cause an immediate heart attack or stroke! However the problem is if too much damage has to be repaired and this mechanism is overwhelmed. That may be somewhat garbled, so please read his ideas directly.

These two books are very helpful:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Great-Cholesterol-Malcolm-Kendrick/dp/1844546101

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Doctoring-Data-medical-advice-nonsense-ebook/dp/B00TCG3X4S/

They also cover a few similar issues - for example the lack of evidence that salt is in any way bad for you!

Having watched the video about diabetes (diabetes and heart disease are closely linked) I do know that a lot of people (patients and doctors) claim that a diet which is very low on carbs, but has unrestricted access to meat and its associated saturated fat seem to lose weight, cease to need drugs to lower their blood glucose, and basically recover. I'd tend to say that what is needed is a short review of this evidence followed by a gradual roll-out of that diet - the keto diet. Done that way, the unofficially acquired knowledge can save lives while the official research proceeds - probably for years!

The back story to this, of course, is that Big Pharma makes a lot of money out of blood sugar lowering drubs and nothing out of bacon, steak, cheese etc that are eaten on a keto diet.

David
 
Last edited:
#10
Dr. K would be cool, too. Scottish accents are awesome.

I think the point here is that the hypothesis was not adequately proved originally.
Agree, 100%. The cherry picking in the 7 country study is scary.

Dr. Kendrick thinks the fat hypothesis was helped on its way because of a totally false picture that fat would congeal in arteries, much as it can in sewers! In reality cholesterol is found in plaque, but some sources confuse fat with cholesterol!
Several other experts seem to agree. There must be a way to prove this.

Dr. Kendrick's view is that the fundamental problem is that the epithelium (inner wall of the artery) gets damaged, and that needs to be sealed over before it forms a blood clot. The mechanism involves cholesterol and forms a plaque that is normally ultimately drawn through the arterial wall. The plaque is analogous to a scab, but it can't be shed like a scab because that would cause an immediate heart attack or stroke! However the problem is if too much damage has to be repaired and this mechanism is overwhelmed. That may be somewhat garbled, so please read his ideas directly.
I am not a doctor but your description is consistent with several others.
 
#11
I am not a doctor but your description is consistent with several others.
I am not a medical doctor either, but I discovered Dr Kendrick after I had a bad reaction to a statin (I'm OK now, but it took a few months). I discovered, somewhat by luck, that some very bad pains I was having were from Simvastatin that I had been taking without problem for 3 years prior to that. The side effect information for this drug suggests that some people might feel 'muscle pains', which I imagined to be something like you might feel after a bout of exercise. In reality, I was getting intense cramps that were making walking difficult. I read his Cholesterol con book, and I would have dismissed it because it seemed just too extreme, but all the studies he quoted from were referenced back to the medical literature. Of course, these were behind a paywall, but I reckoned that since he is an NHS doctor, he would soon have got pulled up if he built his ideas around fake references.

I'd somehow expected that rotten science - as in 'climate science' - would not have been tolerated within medicine. However, there seems to be rather a lot of it - the support for lowering salt (other than in special situations), the war against saturated fat, the diabetes mess, and who knows what else!
More recently I also discovered from my own experience, and those of some other people I know, that acupuncture is an incredibly effective treatment for arthritis, sciatica, chronic pain, and related problems (I don't think Dr. Kendrick believes in that yet:) ).

Maybe you have explored some other areas as well? The Doctoring Data book is especially good because it discusses a lot of the ways data from studies is misrepresented.

Knowing how horrendously corrupt the big drug companies are, made me immediately suspicious of the COVID narrative - and indeed Dr. Kendrick has explored it at length on his blog.

Regarding 'proof', the problem is, if you push too hard nothing in science is really proved. For example, suppose you take some measurements to prove Ohm's law. The finite number of measurements will fit a straight line, but they would also fit a wiggling curve that happened to go through those points. You could make a fresh series of measurements, but they, taken with the original points might be considered suspect for the same reason.

That is a rather silly example, but it illustrates that if someone really doesn't want to accept your conclusion, they won't! Here is a whole series of studies of the relationship between blood cholesterol and LDL to longevity. The data covers many countries and consistently shows that people with high blood cholesterol live slightly longer than those with lower cholesterol. This is explained away by an ad-hoc hypothesis that people falling ill with unspecified illnesses will suffer a sharp drop in cholesterol just before they show symptoms and die - thus skewing the data!!!!!

https://vernerwheelock.com/179-cholesterol-and-all-cause-mortality/

David
 
Last edited:
#12
Doctoring Data book sounds like one I should read.

Hi Dave

I think, if there is a direct method of measuring atherosclerosis in people who are still alive, a lot of progress will be made. I do believe several long term studies are coming out though. Science is never total but you can definitely make it more solid. Nutrition hasn't had it's revolution yet.

I know a few people with experience similar to yours. One of my best friends in fact. At first, I was
still so convinced by the fat hypothesis but eventually, he got me to look deeper.

Multiple people say that statins are short term fixes. People who don't address root cause get worse. You will find the information in the "Diabetes Code" by Kidney dcotr from Toronto, Dr Fung consistent with the findings you've read from Dr. K.

The Beat Diabetes youtube channel has many annecdotes from it's listeners with respect to experiences from people with type two diabetes who basically cut out carbs (starches, fruits, breads, sugars) to a minimum and eventually got off statins and insulin. It's great for anecdotal evidence.
 
Top