Evidence-Based Medicine or Evidence-Biased?

30 comments

Leave a Reply

  • Bottom line – who funded the research?  Is there a motive for the results to sway a certain way?  Researchers are constantly getting busted for "swaying" lab results!

  • I love watching these videos, because every time I do I learn more and more. And it makes me have more reasons to stay vegan and keep educating people about this. Thanks.

  • Just noticed on a chart that a doctor was prescribing a patient to stay away from potatoes and rice due to diabetes, but continuation of the low carb diet (still with no lowering effect) was advised.  Simply put, they just don't have a clue and do what they're told.

  • 0:36 "Esselstyn got 100% drop in those who stuck to his diet."

    Sorry, but here's a example of the problems faced in analyzing such data. You can't just dismiss those who were non-compliant as if that data is meaningless. Why were some non-compliant? How did they fare? How many were there?

    If people dropped out because they hated the diet and felt worse on it, then very different conclusions must be drawn.

    Edit> It does make for interesting reading though: http://www.dresselstyn.com/reversal01.htm
    For those who have heart problems this approach seems logical. But as well as diet, it involves medication, exercise, counselling and regular monitoring/encouragement.

  • My daughter is alive today because of a gas treatment they gave her.  She was born a month early because of an emergency c-section, and during the process her lungs were not emptied of fluid or she sucked some in.  Without the gas treatment, she would certainly have died too.  I'll never forget watching her breathing before the treatment.  Her entire chest cavity was collapsing as she tried to get enough air–but could not.

  • Boom! Another outstanding video! You are a hero, keep spreading the message. It is videos like this that I hold the most hope for reaching the people who need to hear the message and see the science. 

  • I don't think that physicians are ignorant, they are well aware that diet and lifestyle changes are the most effective means for dietary disease. However, you must realize the tremendous amount of apathy that exists for promoting diet and lifestyle changes in healthcare. Simply put, physicians feel that most people don't care about nutrition/ won't change so they don't bother. If that isn't a 'valid option' on the table, then they look at other treatment options. 

  • Hi,
    I watched a lot of your videos and they inspired me to delve deeper and reconsider my dietary habits.

    There is however one issue which I find rather vague.
    The comparisons and the studies show a major difference between an "ordinary", rich in calories and fat diet, and a low calorie, low fat plant based diet.

    The benefits of eating leaner, greener meals are obvious but I couldn't find a comparison between a low calorie, low fat omnivore diet and a plant based one. Was there a video which mentioned this? Was there a study which might be relevant?
    Any info would be welcome.

    Thank you for the informative videos! 

  • Man, you really need to learn to edit out those sloppy mouth noises.  It's not that hard to do and it sounds gross and unprofessional.  Not everybody has the ability to narrate audio tracks but if you insist on doing it yourself, please work on your editing technique.

  • Too bad we stay healthy in spite of our doctors instead of with their help (for the most part).  Thank God there are wise doctors like Dr. G., keeping us informed 🙂

  • About 10000 people would be enough for a really strong study, considering some people would drop out. That should leave sample size of around 1000 (per group, see below), which is huge for this. The real question is how long the study has to be. 2-3 years perhaps in a high risk group? (Not quite ethical, but still…) 10 years in normal, older people?
    That large a study is unrealistic. It's very hard to find even a thousand or two thousand participants…

    The real question is who would fund it – definitely not big pharmaceutics companies or anyone who is sponsored by them…

    Blinding is not required. Instead some means of inducing placebo should be pursued. Call it a new experimental pill treating CHD, fill it with, say, magnesium stearate. Secondary group against lifestyle changes – tell them to excercise, which has some known effectiveness. (around 30% less events according to certain studies I can name)
    And primary groups – one with diet, another with diet + excercise. This will allow filtering out lifestyle manipulation effect, an important confounder in dietary intervention studies.

    I think it's been done in parts in a few studies, but I can't recall one that is this comprehensive.
    It's indeed not needed in my opinion, enough evidence that diets work. The remaining thing is to compare various diets with long followups in large enough groups. Again, costly. The best dietary intervention studies I've seen were limited to a year – which is often not enough to evaluate all the effects, which means we have to rely on quite inaccurate (as in imprecise) epidemiology for long term effects.

    Please provide some references to long term dietary intervention studies or ones with extended follow up, anyone of any reasonably defined diet…

  • It would be nice if we had somewhere to go to that was unbiased. Even the good Dr. Greger puts out biased videos, one just has to check the funding of each study to connect these dots.  Bottom line, plant based eating is not the cure-all it is portrayed as.  However, it is better for us than the crap most people choose to shovel down their throats.

  • i learned through christian scientists, engineers, activists and preachers that oxygen therapy helps rebuild almost dieing people, cancer, black limbs, limbs sewn back on, heart problems, lung problems, brain issues, and made bigger animals. just like with those tests of mice and puzzles with music, a control study with mice trying to go through the maze the fastes on classical, or soothing/meditating/calm/instrumental, and the no music being the normal, and then last was the metal, modern day rock music, the mice did not finish the maze but killed each other. also plants are more apt to grow with music playing, i think just having music that YOU like around these plants will support growth, it is studies we should go into obviously. also animals like certain music, like cows and whales.
    it reminds me of a world before a flood science, the oxygen was more, then changed its atmosphere with all the water falling from the 'fermement' that was around the earth. the oxygen rich, humid, greenhouse effect would have yielded more plants, and to some other degrees, animals like insects who breath through the skin would grow giant, and certain reptiles that dont really stop growing, grew giant with the atmosphere all over the earth difference.
    you can see across the earth waves, rock settlements, and cut up, fallen rocks, and certain things more as evidence of world wide floods. himalayan mountains, they found fossils of huge shells that were closed, only instent death could leave a shell closed in fossilization. 
    so much is actually, evidence biased, NOT just of medicine! nutrition, alternative therapies, and more natural, logical, and real helpful reliable science is the way to go. not just for medicine, but the science field is effected. on a whole, we should all, all nations, understand the sciences, through and with each other, ever researching with the understanding of history, HISTORY WILL REPEAT ITSELF TO THOSE WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT. old textbooks and studies showed how horrible and wrong they really were.

Follow us on Twitter

Follow us on Pinterest

Advertisement

Archives

error: Content is protected !!