Bankai wrote: ↑
Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:54 pm
There are conflicting incentives for both pharmaceutical companies and doctors.
On the one hand, helping a bit but not too much, so sick people keep coming back and paying for prescriptions. Ideally, for the rest of their lives. On the other hand, competition forces really bad firms/doctors out.
This is not unique to medicine. A new office created to solve a particular problem is strongly motivated to do enough to justify its existence, but under no circumstances should it actually solve the problem, as this would invalidate its raison d'être. Or planned obsolescence - if the fridge broke after 2 years, you'd likely buy from another company, but after 4 years you might even come back to the same manufacturer. After all, it was shiny and quiet.
In my limited experience, there are doctors who genuinely want to help. For some, it's the purpose of life. Majority of people going to medical schools do it for money/status though.
The argument that there are negative incentives in medicine is silly. This is the case for ALL professions and ALL fields. Plumbers shouldn't do too good a job, nor car mechanics, nor anyone in the world. People writing books shouldn't give out all the answers. Maybe we shouldn't trust the ERE book? Think about whatever each of your own jobs are. Better not do too good a job, so that the the customer will have to come back.
Also, coronary heart disease is a solved problem. Whole food, plant-based diet will keep cholesterol at around 150 or less and with cholesterol that low your chances of having a heart attack are practically zero. With steak only diet... oh well.
I agree, but there were studies by Dr. Esselystyn at the cleveland clinic showing reversal of coronary artery disease with a modified plant-based diet. The cholesterol of <150 and the rarity of coronary artery disease was found out in a large study on the general population, I think one of the most famous studies done in medicine. That trial had nothing to do with a plant-based diet, but it turns out that a plant-based diet causes cholesterol to go below 150. One can go on Pubmed and find a plethora of studies on plant-based diets. I would like to know what the evidence is for other things being touted.
Campitor wrote: ↑
Thu Sep 06, 2018 7:07 pm
What I find strange is that anyone would question or focus on someone's personal dietary choices, especially if those choices lead to improved health in a previously malfunctioning organ or biological process
(skin, liver, enzymatic, etc.). We all know that certain foods have negative effects on certain portions of the population: peanuts, soy, wheat, shell fish, etc.
That someone has a severe reaction to certain foods shouldn't be surprising to anyone especially when you account for the chemical brew and genetic mutation that factory farming is famous for. Perhaps Peterson's genetic expression lends itself to getting hijacked by certain phytochemicals. Some people can die just by eating straweberries: https://www.aaaai.org/ask-the-expert/an ... rawberries
But if the only refutation of Peterson's arguments is his food preferences, I would say the person needs a strong dose of anti-fallacy therapy and an immersion or re-immersion in critical thinking exercises.
As I said above, Peterson previously used extensive data to make conclusions, and he himself said recently in an interview that he did not know what to believe about anything
, based on how he changed his mind about diet based on a single personal experience. Those were his words, not mine. So if he is now questioning his own conclusions and methods, why wouldn't you question his conclusions?
Pointing out allergies has nothing to do with anything. There is someone allergic to every
substance, including water. Those persons do not live very long.
But Peterson was talking about developing reactions to things that he tolerated before, after his all-meat diet began (ie, apple cider). That has nothing to do with normal allergies.
We do not know if his choices lead to improved health after 1 month. Take low-carb diets as an example. A study came out recently looking at tens of thousands of people over decades and finding that those who adhered to a low-carb diet have a lower life expectancy. This article links to the study:
https://qz.com/quartzy/1374958/a-short- ... diets/amp/
jennypenny wrote: ↑
Thu Sep 06, 2018 6:23 pm
I don't really want to get into a debate over Peterson's diet, but I've heard him say on several occasions that he eats beef and greens. That's a modified carnivore diet, which is different than what someone like Dr. Shawn is doing.
He might have followed that diet before, but he recently said he is on a 100% beef diet.
I'm not sure why it bothers you so much that some people treat their autoimmune diseases with diet. Peterson gave traditional medicine every opportunity to help him and his daughter and it couldn't ... only then did he try different diets. It's not like he's telling people to eschew traditional medicine, just offering hope to those who haven't been helped or can't tolerate the meds. (The side effects of Humira are legion. You also can't take it if you have a history of lymphoma, and people with diseases like psoriasis are more prone to lymphoma. Immunosuppressants are risky.)
If you have severe autoimmune issues, you might not live long enough to worry about things like colon cancer anyway. These diseases aren't benign, whether medically or because of the increased rate of suicide in people who suffer from them. The risk of becoming addicted to pain meds is also very high.
I am not bothered by someone treating autoimmune disease with diet. I have a friend with autoimmune disease and he has tried everything, including diet. Because diet worked for someone, doesn't mean that it will work for someone else, and it doesn't even mean that it works at all.
As I said above, there are people touting every possible treatment for every possible condition
. There are scores of youtube videos, articles on the internet, claims, etc. Obviously they are not all true. So again, if autoimmune illness is treatable with diet, where are the studies? Why can't anyone post any reputable links? One personal account for 1 month is not data.
Giving off false hope from noneffective therapies is not okay. I have seen people have bad outcomes from trying weird therapies that someone advised on the internet. If you had personal experiences, maybe you would feel similarly. I'm not saying that using diet to treat autoimmune disease doesn't work, but I would like to know that it is reputable before I start advising it to people, and I would like to know specifically what to advise, I can't tell someone to just change their diet without having specific recommendations.
BRUTE wrote: ↑
Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:26 pm
no, brute is not saying that at all. brute is saying that the majority of individual humans in this industry don't know what the fuck they're talking about, are actively spreading untruths (lies would imply they knew better), and are suppressing research counter to what they're saying.
diabetes is a solved problem. yet millions of humans die every year from it. no conspiracy necessary, just the failure of human egos en large to admit they are wrong.
What is the cure to diabetes? If it's to lose weight, exercise, well that is well known, and I do not see the medical community hiding that, or any ignorance of that. What I see is that many people know it too, but would rather take some pills than to make very difficult lifestyle changes, especially with all the stress today.
And that is not the case for type 1 diabetes. I know someone with it who is normal weight, exercises, but has to take insulin.