Oddbean

- Spiritual - My self, kriya yoga - Physical - My self and my Doctor - Mental - Stoicism - Financial - Smart Bitcoiners or mostly Mr. Kangas, founder of local bitcoins (earn, spend and replenish, Hodl) - Emotional - Stoicism For stoicism Massimo Pigliucci is around and has a great background. (Mental and emotional health)

nostr:nprofile1qqstzt0wugc7sklvr8e7fcl7ukyn63ym3ns4nmf2mnk0vqnz4l9x65qpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgqguwaehxw309aex2mrp0yhxumm5d4skuerpw3hhy7fwdaexwqgawaehxw309ahx7um5wghx66tyv3kxjmn89ekhjerwwvhx5uq9ezhgl

You shouldn't trust anyone, ever. The average health podcaster has no idea what they are talking about, yet they are quite confident in their (lack of) knowledge. Probably easy for me to talk since I am a doctor, so I can smell the bullshit, but any person owes it to themselves to verify information. People should get comfortable using pubmed and get educated on how to verify medical information. 1. Always search for RCTs and Systematic reviews of RCTs, observational studies CANNOT establish a causal link. 2. Always make sure to read the proposed effect size. If the RR of an observational study is 1.2, just ignore it and continue living your life (that's the correlation between LDL and heart disease btw). Anything under 2 is simply not worth your time. 3. Always check who funded and authored the study. I ignore any nutritional study, no matter its supposed quality, published by Loma Linda university because those people have a religious goal with promoting vegetarianism. 4. Don't trust any new drug studies, always wait for at least ~7years before taking any new drug seriously. 7 years is the average time it takes to recall a dangerous drug from the market. 5. Be very skeptical about large effect claims and surrogate markers. I don't care if a diabetic drug improves glycemic control if people die more frequently while taking it or if the mortality rate remains the same. I recommend reading Malcolm Kendrick's book "Doctoring Data" and "Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime" by P. Gotzsche to learn more. It is essential for the person to understand that medical research and medicine in general has been completely corrupted by pharmaceutical companies and governmental regulators. It is better to assume deception while reading a research study than honesty.

I am truly flattered by your offer, but I am not confident enough for the public spotlight yet. I recommend contacting dr. Kendrick (the author of the book I recommended), he might be interested in making a video. Ken Berry recently made a nostr account and he might be interested as well. Personally, I have grown very disillusioned with my profession. All I see is either profiteering off chronic disease while prostituting the profession to big pharma, or overworked colleagues who are just following whatever the guidelines say. Breaking ranks and criticizing dogma is severely punished usually, unless it leads to more drug recommendations. Always, always remember: Don't trust, verify.

I'll just say that the definition for hypertension gets updated to lower and lower values every ~15 years or so. Used to be that a systolic BP of over 140 was considered hypertensive and an indication to treat, but now... The AHA, which is probably the most corrupt health organization in America, has decided that a BP over 130 is hypertensive and should be treated. As a rule, it is probably best to ignore what the AHA has to say, since it is more of a marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies than a real medical organization. I would treat all the medical doctors working for them as prostitutes. https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5a4d5666bff20053c65b7ff2/1516402580757-E1DJ8PAMC10IIPGDO96S/Donors_v3.png?format=1500w

I enjoy Zac Bush, regardless of truth - that's hard/impossible to establish really - he says some wonderful things. Huberman is a charlattan IMO, doesn't even understand that probability isn't cumulative, eye watering stupidity. https://youtu.be/fi5vII2WO0c

Don’t trust anyone. Give more credence to people who give caveats and delineate whether things are theory, anecdotal, or have good reproducible trial data. I’ve occasionally seen patients do well with randomly generated data that chooses from among good options for them. So I think some complete junk science can at times give patients some motivation to follow a good plan that they could have done without the expensive gizmo random data. But then the gizmo gets credit for physical scientific data rather than its role in motivation and mindset. And the people selling the expensive gizmos give great podcast presentations that are quite faulty. Many studies in pubmed have fabricated data. All that being said, two thoughtful individuals outside of NOSTR are John Kempf at advancing eco agriculture and Dan Kittredge at the bionutrient food association. And for the record I don’t condone random data generation and selling it to people as fact.