The benefits of prescription drugs and procedures are commonly exaggerated 10-, 20, or 30-fold over the real benefits through statistical manipulations.
The doctor is often told, for instance, that “This statin drug reduces heart attack by 36%,” when the real value is more like 1%. But the doctor hears “Of every 100 heart attacks, 36 will be prevented,” a wild exaggeration of the real data. And that is what the doctor passes onto his/her patients.
Imagine a stockbroker told you that he could return 36% per year in your stock portfolio–you’d be thrilled . . . until he only returns 1%. You would be very upset. Yet that is done commonly, every day, in healthcare. Doctors accept such false advertising and pass it onto you.
In my new Undoctored book, I show how such misleading numbers are generated and why it is important for you to recognize such exaggerations, among the first steps you take in freeing yourself from the predatory practices of the healthcare system. Only when you accept that healthcare does not have your best interests at heart can you begin to take the steps to free yourself and live your life Undoctored.
I knew the difference between absolute risk and relative risk from my breast cancer research. A 50% reduction in relative risk often only translates into one or two people per 100 actually benefiting. Looked at another way that’s a 98-99% chance that whatever they are selling will NOT help a particular individual, and the risks of harm are often higher than any benefit.
I have to admit to shock that doctors don’t know this. They don’t get a lot of training in nutrition, we all know that. But statistics? Come on doctors! Every medical standard there is has been based on some kind of statistic. I expect the media to distort the numbers, but not my physician.
Does anyone else find it suspicious that the large meta analysis (everybody cites as evidence vindicating saturated fat) is supported by the meat and dairy industry? Ron Krauss gets funding from the meat and dairy industry. Would this have skewed the results at all?
DM wrote: «Does anyone else find it suspicious that the large meta analysis (everybody cites as evidence vindicating saturated fat) is supported by the meat and dairy industry? Ron Krauss gets funding from the meat and dairy industry. Would this have skewed the results at all?»
I presume you are referring to this 2010 paper:
AJCN: Saturated fat, carbohydrate, and cardiovascular disease (Patty W Siri-Tarino, Qi Sun, Frank B Hu, and Ronald M Krauss)
Although funding sources and affiliations are routinely worth checking, and can inform skeptical appraisal, in this case I don’t find it troubling, for several reasons:
• I personally have never relied on this paper to inform my dietary choices, and the reason for that is:
• What matters is personal outcomes, and it’s pretty easy to monitor personal results.
• The burden of proof in the diet-heart hypothesis lies with those asserting the mantra of low fat:good, sat fat:bad, PUFA fat:good, carbs:who cares, salt:bad, etc. Anyone who wants to debunk it has a lower bar. They only need to demonstrate the lack of proof. The paper at hand, from 2010, was able to do that well before we learned that two pivotal trials in support of the diet:heart conjecture hid their raw data that contradicted their own conclusions (Sydney and Minnesota).
Anyone who needs further debunking can refer to Nina’s book, The Big Fat Surprise.
________
Blog Reply Associate (click my user name for details)
I have just purchased Undoctored. I believe in this wholeheartedly. Wheat Belly reduced many of my symptoms including my wonderful check up last fall. Can’t wait to read Undoctored!
I have been off statins since August 2016 I’m still suffering the side effects of muscle cramps that at sometimes are almost debilitating . I’m choosing the wheat belly lifestyle and taking my chances of not going on anymore Statins. instead I am incorporating exercise every day my last two blood panels have shows my bad cholesterol going down and my good cholesterol going up very minimally but they’re going in the right direction. My doctor tells me I am in the 12% range of developing cardiovascular disease within the next 10 years I’m trusting in the wheat belly lifestyle at this point !
I get those horrendous cramps at times. I think mine are related to getting enough magnesium! Just an fyi!
I take the max dosages of magnesium every night. (To Bowel tolerance ). And my blood tests show my magnesium levels are good. Still get muscle cramps
Cathy, you might want to try other minerals, too, such as salt and potassium (we have a brand called “no salt” that you can add like salt). Do not be afraid of adding salt to basically everything, especially if you cook everything yourself.
The serum Mg level is not a good measure of Mg need. Mg is an intercellular mineral and will not measure in serum for total body need.
Harold Dobbs wrote: «The serum Mg level is not a good measure of Mg need. Mg is an intercellular mineral and will not measure in serum for total body need.»
Correct, which is why Dr. Davis recommends testing RBC magnesium (seek upper half of Reference Range). In the above comments, we don’t know what test was run.
I note that the Undoctored book focuses on Mg intake target and compound form. Choosing a well-absorbed/low-laxative form is important. Checking RBC Mg won’t hurt, but can be insufficient as the sole guide.
________
Blog Reply Associate (click my user name for details)
Cathy Blais wrote: «I have been off statins since August 2016 I’m still suffering the side effects of muscle cramps that at sometimes are almost debilitating.»
The top recommendation in Undoctored for cramps is Magnesium water. If you don’t have the book yet, search this blog for the recipe.
Anyone on, or formerly on a statin needs to consider supplementing CoQ10. Back in the 90s, Merck actually filed two patents on a compounded statin+CoQ10 specifically to counter muscle effects.
There are some additional things to consider for cramps in this 2015 blog comment.
re: «…my last two blood panels have shows my bad cholesterol going down and my good cholesterol going up very minimally but they’re going in the right direction.»
If you’re hearing concepts like “bad cholesterol” (presumably the fictional LDL-C) and “good cholesterol” (presumably HDL) from your doctor, who apparently completely ignored triglycerides from the lipid panel, and doubtless did not suggest an advanced lipoprotein panel, you are being fed simplistic patronizing dogma. If there is a cardiac concern, get some meaningful tests (discussed in the Undoctored book).
re: «My doctor tells me I am in the 12% range of developing cardiovascular disease within the next 10 years»
Based on what markers?
re: « I’m trusting in the wheat belly lifestyle at this point!»
What reference information are you relying on? The original 2011 book wasn’t specifically targeted at cardiovascular issues, and did not include all the current strategies (particularly gut flora).
________
Blog Reply Associate (click my user name for details)
im not sure how the doctors determine the markers. Likely based on on the ldl and h dl other factors including weight blood pressure etc I’m told I should be on a statin based on that info I live in Canada so I’m sure they have their formula for determining but as you said may not me an accurate measure. I’m relying on the wheat belly lifestyle just because of what I’ve learned in general By eliminating wheat Ive lost some weight. I’m feeling better. Doesn’t Dr Davis say wheat is the culprit for raised cholesterol ? Not good fat as once believed First all that contribute to good cardiovascular health I have not as yet read undoctored. But it’s on my radar
Cathy – I could not believe that my incredibly healthy and fit 70-year-old cousin, who eats a vegan/fish diet, exercises, is the correct weight, and has zero risk factors, takes a statin.
Google “AHA risk calculator.” Enter 70-year-old male. Then enter “great” numbers, like 185 total cholesterol, 60 HDL, and 112/70 blood pressure. Click no diabetes, and no hypertension.
AND – the calculator does not even ask your height and weight, if you exercise, and if you have heart disease in the family.
Guess what – EVERY 70-year-old male needs a medium to high dose statin. And I’m not sure what the appropriate term is for this calculator, but I call it just plain old BS.
Ditch your statin!
Yes that’s the plan ! Thanks for the feed back ! Wishing you and your cousin the best of health!
Cathy Blais wrote: «im not sure how the doctors determine the markers.»
That 15% figure was probably based the vague Framingham Risk Score (FRS).
More meaningful risk assessment includes things like:
• CT calcium scan
{which actually measures any coronary arterial calcium present},
• advanced lipoprotein panel
{which actually measures LDL subfractions},
• Lipoprotein(a)
{a familial risk factor} and
• HbA1c
{which reports running-average BG without having to do a series of BGs).
How easy these might be to obtain in Canada is not known to me.
re: «Doesn’t Dr Davis say wheat is the culprit for raised cholesterol?»
Here’s a blog article on that from last August: “Treat” cholesterol, exorcise the bogeyman
Further, my understanding is that for statins and females, the available data show zero (if not negative) benefit in all-cause mortality. If I had a doctor who prescribed a statin to anyone just based on FRS, I’d be looking for a new doctor. If they prescribe to females based on FRS, the need for competent medical counsel is even more urgent.
re: «By eliminating wheat Ive lost some weight.»
There’s more to the program than just wheat elimination. All grains need to go, along with added sugar, to get the net carbs down. The diet focuses on ample specific fats. Gut flora cultivation is crucial (and does affect lipids). Various micronutrients need deliberate supplementation. Thyroid and lifestyle issues need to be considered.
A micronutrient of particular concern for Canada is Vitamin D. Due to latitude and climate, even a young person in Canada cannot get enough D merely from sun exposure. D3 supplementation is essential, ideally fine-tuned by checking 25-OH D3 titer.
________
Blog Reply Associate (click my user name for details)
Yes, don’t forget magnesium malate!!
i’m going to try it! thanks!
I take a cancer med that causes leg cramps, and I have to take a large amount of magnesium to prevent them. If you have reached your bowel tolerance from whatever form of magnesium you are taking, there are other forms that have less of that effect. I take about 8 grams of magnesium citrate powder per day (Natural Calm brand – delivers 600mg of elemental magnesium) because that is all I can tolerate, and I add magnesium glycinate on top of that because it has less of a laxative effect. If I take less for even one day the cramps come back with a vengeance.
The powder mixed in water has an immediate effect. Like if I wake up in the middle of the night with cramps and drink it, they go away within a few minutes.
And not so surprisingly, since we’re on the subject of Undoctored – my freaking oncologist refuses to acknowledge that the magnesium does any good with regard to the leg cramps and he only half-heartedly recommends it to his patients as something that only works for a small percentage. Even after hearing of my experience and solution, he has no interest in educating himself on the different forms of magnesium, so no one gets told that they probably have to take much more than a standard dose.
I have Undoctored myself out of most of the unpleasant side effects of the med in one way or another. A lot of research and education has gone into my program, but my oncologist continues to me like a walking placebo effect, which I highly resent.
oops, accidentally dropped a word. I meant “my oncologist continues to TREAT me like a walking placebo effect.” I guess the lack of respect is mutual.
Lol, I got it the first or second way. : )
Does the same trickery apply to the new injectables like Purulent??? Are they better or worse than statins????
“These new drugs are “a powerful new way of lowering the bad form of cholesterol, and that has profound implications in dealing with the burden of vascular disease,” which can lead to heart attacks and stroke, Dr. Elliott Antman, president of the American Heart Association, said in June.”
And who pays Dr. Antman’s salary? The makers of these new drugs. Just follow the money.
Norman wrote: «Does the same trickery apply to the new injectables like Purulent??? Are they better or worse than statins????»
I presume you mean Praluent® (alirocumab), one of the PCSK9 inhibitors, which I addressed in the comments of the Big Fat Lie thread earlier this week..
You’ve added two questions today that I might be able to expand upon.
On the trickery, the answer is: less so.
Most of the propaganda that sold statins to your doctor was based on spun science prior to 2004, when the rules changed to require expanded trials disclosure. It’s now much harder to hide flat or negative all-cause outcomes. The results from the HOPE-3 statin trial may be recent evidence of current truth-in-trials (although the Summary, Press Release and press coverage spin remains the same).
Then there’s the question of who really needs a statin? Almost nobody, as far as I can tell, but for the few cases where there is some net benefit, the question becomes: would outcomes improve for those presentations, if a PCSK9 inhibitor was used instead?
The cases might include middle-aged males who have just had an MI, and/or at high CVD risk and who insist on remaining on a standard diet. The jury is still out on this, but so far, it’s not looking all that great for PCSK9 inhibitors in those scenarios.
As I indicated in my prior speculation, the more interesting question is regarding Lp(a), which, when elevated, is a significant CVD risk factor. Statins do nothing for it.
PCSK9s drive it down. For people who have taken effective diet and lifestyle steps to reduce CVD risk, and used additional strategies to address Lp(a), but for whom Lp(a) remains high, do PCSK9s provide all-cause risk reduction, and with manageable or no side effects. This is not presently known, and may never be (other than anecdotally).
________
Blog Reply Associate (click my user name for details)
Honestly, our risk of death is 100%, no matter how many drugs we take! Why lower the quality of the life taking some side effect riddled pill which you pay dearly for? Save the money and do something you ENJOY: you may get hit by a bus in the next 45 minutes!
I can imagine the typical cocktail for a nursing home patient.
A pill for blood thinning, blood pressure, blood sugar, cholesterol, anxiety, depression, digestion, pain, and a few other things. Before you know it you’re taking 10 pills. Just awful.
And to make matters worse, they feed you tasteless, salt-free, low-fat food to seal your misery.
Greentree wrote: «Honestly, our risk of death is 100%, no matter how many drugs we take!»
The question is: what’s happening in the meantime, and for how long?
What consensus diet advice and healthcare are offering is:
• accelerating risk of having kids with ASD
• weight problems from childhood on
• dental problems from an early age
• chronic non-infectious conditions rising with age
• on at least one drug by mid-40s
• strikingly high risk of utterly optional metsyn⇒T2D & complications
• strikingly high risk of mostly optional heart disease
• steady decay of health & vitality after 50
• lucky to make it to average life expectancy
• probably expire slowly, painfully and expensively of an optional ailment
• and in an institution that assures no chance of recovery
That’s what “lifespan” looks like for average people today.
What the Undoctored approach has a solid chance of offering is:
• have healthy happy kids
• never have a weight problem at any life stage
• perhaps never need a dentist
• need medical intervention only for selected immunizations, trauma, the odd infection, and perhaps countermeasures for genetic challenges
• live 20 years or more beyond standard life expectancy
• be fully active and healthy the whole time
• expire suddenly of a stroke or other rapid health decline for which no expensive interventions make any sense, really
Some dissident diet and health advocates are calling this “healthspan”. We might even beat the projections I list, but we don’t have enough people doing it yet, for long enough, to have a real sense of what the anecdotal experiences are likely to add up to.
And as Eric points out, once you’re in one of today’s extended care facilities, you’re pretty much doomed. You’ll be on an intensified version of the diet that put you there, with little choice about it. You’ll be on regimented Standard of Care. These institutions know nothing about gut flora or circadian matters. But the bottom line might be the bottom line. Many people in nursing homes today could have their optional ailments reversed to a state that allows them to leave. Try to sell that to facility management. They only want the clients to leave in an ambulance or a hearse.
________
Blog Reply Associate (click my user name for details)