Before we begin to cover current articles, we’re going to dive into some of the topics that are particularly rich veins for the churnalist. The coverage of nutrition research is an obvious place to start.
What's funniest is when health journalists recognize the confounding, but relegate it to the last paragraph. I remember years ago, before I got into med-school, reading a headline along the lines of "egg consumption associated with X% higher mortality", and it was only in the last paragraph that the writer mentioned that those who ate more eggs also smoked more, and exercised less!
And that last association may well be true largely because health "experts" had been saying for decades already that eggs were unhealthy!
"Exposure risk can be mitigated through nonpharmaceutical interventions, including improving ventilation, use of masks or respirators indoors, and testing"
Still the stupid emphasis on mitigating exposure risk. And since physics research into masking dynamics wrt viral capture was born in Jan. 2022, the CDC must be basing its recommendation about masking on blind faith. Maybe on some hope, too. Maybe we will figure out how to make masks work and their limitations--but the physics isn't there yet to even be able to figure out whether current masks are effective.
And, yes, testing will help prevent exposure, because testing comes before exposure--or is it the other way around?
"The risk for medically significant illness increases with age, disability status, and underlying medical conditions but is considerably reduced by immunity derived from vaccination, previous infection, or both"
Except that the UK data shows that vaccine efficacy eventually goes negative. [grimace at weirdness]
Ba.5 has a mutation in the spike that enables it to escape immunity from prior infection and it is the dominant strain now in the US. So the protection from previous infection is reduced (as my family found out).
"CDC’s public health recommendations change in response to evolving science"...like whiffs of wind emanating from the White House?
"CDC’s public health recommendations change in response to evolving science, the availability of biomedical and public health tools, and changes in context, such as levels of immunity in the population and currently circulating variants." Cue the Broken Clock adage.
"Efforts to expand access to vaccination and therapeutics, including the use of preexposure prophylaxis"
Only the science isn't there yet regarding changes in pharmacokinetics of therapeutics after prolonged dosing. Perhaps the body learns to clear a medication more quickly with prolonged dosing. Another faith/hope-based statement.
"Medications to treat COVID-19. Antiviral medications (Lagevrio [molnupiravir], Paxlovid [nirmatrelvir and ritonavir], and Veklury [remdesivir]) and monoclonal antibodies "
Notice that there is no recommendation to only give antivirals before the virus is cleared, preferably before max viral load is attained (mean of 72 hours for mild cases). Studies have shown that severe covid cases often had achieved viral clearance before the cases progressed from mild to moderate phase. Gotta keep pumping hospital use of remdesivir, tho. $$$
There is a therapeutic research aggregation site... https://c19hcq.com/ ...you can select which treatment you want to look at and you will get a list of studies with analysis and links to journal articles...you will see warts and all.
Medical articles should not be cited unless they are peer reviewed medical articles. Covid taught us why this should be the case. News media should be banned from such reporting unless the headline includes a disclaimer that this is an Opinion piece. Who is going to start that lawsuit?
Am loving Sensible Medicine, thank you for creating this. As a retired RN that loves research (esp covid research), I welcome the debate and difference of opinion. Keep it coming.
Oh, and commenters MD MPH and Tom Hogan...I could say the same to you two! ....keep it coming
Please check the difference between relative risk and absolute risk in the statin studies. Then please reconsider your statement that statins are the greatest drug ever invented for heart disease.
Reminds me of the recent media hype re: isolation of a bio marker (paraphrasing) that “causes SIDS”. It was all over TikTok (which, honestly, should be the first sign it’s bs 😂.
Thank you for this. 1. Nutrition science has been "captured" so one cannot rely on the mainstream sources, many times, for valid information. 2. Have you read the Big fat surprise? If not, then I encourage you to look at it. Overall, it is a history of the capture of nutrition science. 3. I would like to use some of your churnalism series in the courses I teach (Assoc Prof in an RN-BSN program).
Do I have your permission to do so? Is there a way your content can be put into a PDF or is it okay for me to copy and paste it myself? I usually try to insert a link directly to a source I am using so that students can see the source in its "native habitat" :) How would you like me to cite you?
Very good points. Statin example works only if you haven’t analyzed research on statins as your readers point out below. You’ve got some tough smart followers! Good on you for that!
Indeed! You say "The cholesterol lowering statin medications are the most effective medications ever developed for treating cardiovascular disease." This is massive generalization. The article refers to high risk people, meaning people with congenital high cholesterol that have had CVD! This certainly does not suppor the fact millions are given statins as "preventive"... just like the new leaky covid "vaccines"...
As a clinical Registered Dietitian of over 20 years the nutrition "churnalism" drives me batty!! So much garbage "research" and even worse reporting. Especially if anyone ever bothers to read the study the conclusion, the recommendations -often they are in direct conflict: study doesn't show what authors recommend or even in the conclusion-mask studies were the worst I've ever seen on this "proving" masks work" when it was ONLY the authors "recommendations" despite the study showing no such evidence
What's funniest is when health journalists recognize the confounding, but relegate it to the last paragraph. I remember years ago, before I got into med-school, reading a headline along the lines of "egg consumption associated with X% higher mortality", and it was only in the last paragraph that the writer mentioned that those who ate more eggs also smoked more, and exercised less!
And that last association may well be true largely because health "experts" had been saying for decades already that eggs were unhealthy!
The CDC put out another lol guidance doc.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7133e1.htm?s_cid=mm7133e1_w
"Exposure risk can be mitigated through nonpharmaceutical interventions, including improving ventilation, use of masks or respirators indoors, and testing"
Still the stupid emphasis on mitigating exposure risk. And since physics research into masking dynamics wrt viral capture was born in Jan. 2022, the CDC must be basing its recommendation about masking on blind faith. Maybe on some hope, too. Maybe we will figure out how to make masks work and their limitations--but the physics isn't there yet to even be able to figure out whether current masks are effective.
And, yes, testing will help prevent exposure, because testing comes before exposure--or is it the other way around?
"The risk for medically significant illness increases with age, disability status, and underlying medical conditions but is considerably reduced by immunity derived from vaccination, previous infection, or both"
Except that the UK data shows that vaccine efficacy eventually goes negative. [grimace at weirdness]
Ba.5 has a mutation in the spike that enables it to escape immunity from prior infection and it is the dominant strain now in the US. So the protection from previous infection is reduced (as my family found out).
"CDC’s public health recommendations change in response to evolving science"...like whiffs of wind emanating from the White House?
"CDC’s public health recommendations change in response to evolving science, the availability of biomedical and public health tools, and changes in context, such as levels of immunity in the population and currently circulating variants." Cue the Broken Clock adage.
"Efforts to expand access to vaccination and therapeutics, including the use of preexposure prophylaxis"
Only the science isn't there yet regarding changes in pharmacokinetics of therapeutics after prolonged dosing. Perhaps the body learns to clear a medication more quickly with prolonged dosing. Another faith/hope-based statement.
"Medications to treat COVID-19. Antiviral medications (Lagevrio [molnupiravir], Paxlovid [nirmatrelvir and ritonavir], and Veklury [remdesivir]) and monoclonal antibodies "
Notice that there is no recommendation to only give antivirals before the virus is cleared, preferably before max viral load is attained (mean of 72 hours for mild cases). Studies have shown that severe covid cases often had achieved viral clearance before the cases progressed from mild to moderate phase. Gotta keep pumping hospital use of remdesivir, tho. $$$
There is a therapeutic research aggregation site... https://c19hcq.com/ ...you can select which treatment you want to look at and you will get a list of studies with analysis and links to journal articles...you will see warts and all.
Medical articles should not be cited unless they are peer reviewed medical articles. Covid taught us why this should be the case. News media should be banned from such reporting unless the headline includes a disclaimer that this is an Opinion piece. Who is going to start that lawsuit?
A really good article. Thank you.
Am loving Sensible Medicine, thank you for creating this. As a retired RN that loves research (esp covid research), I welcome the debate and difference of opinion. Keep it coming.
Oh, and commenters MD MPH and Tom Hogan...I could say the same to you two! ....keep it coming
Great piece of work. But this one was quite long.
Just a thought but a slightly shorter article that debunked one study at a time would be easier to digest.
Looking forward to the next one!
Thank you!
Dr. Prasad, would you please comment on the following: https://www.cochrane.org/MR000034/METHOD_comparing-effect-estimates-of-randomized-controlled-trials-and-observational-studies
Please check the difference between relative risk and absolute risk in the statin studies. Then please reconsider your statement that statins are the greatest drug ever invented for heart disease.
Reminds me of the recent media hype re: isolation of a bio marker (paraphrasing) that “causes SIDS”. It was all over TikTok (which, honestly, should be the first sign it’s bs 😂.
Thank you for this. 1. Nutrition science has been "captured" so one cannot rely on the mainstream sources, many times, for valid information. 2. Have you read the Big fat surprise? If not, then I encourage you to look at it. Overall, it is a history of the capture of nutrition science. 3. I would like to use some of your churnalism series in the courses I teach (Assoc Prof in an RN-BSN program).
Do I have your permission to do so? Is there a way your content can be put into a PDF or is it okay for me to copy and paste it myself? I usually try to insert a link directly to a source I am using so that students can see the source in its "native habitat" :) How would you like me to cite you?
Sincerely,
Sheila Crook-Lockwood MSN-Ed, RN, IHP2
Very good points. Statin example works only if you haven’t analyzed research on statins as your readers point out below. You’ve got some tough smart followers! Good on you for that!
“Most observational studies demonstrate correlation, not causation.”
But sometimes observation is all we got.
Take, for example, recent vaccine injuries and deaths.
Indeed! You say "The cholesterol lowering statin medications are the most effective medications ever developed for treating cardiovascular disease." This is massive generalization. The article refers to high risk people, meaning people with congenital high cholesterol that have had CVD! This certainly does not suppor the fact millions are given statins as "preventive"... just like the new leaky covid "vaccines"...
One of the best discussions of contemporary journalistic excess that I've read. It should be required reading. Thanks!
As a clinical Registered Dietitian of over 20 years the nutrition "churnalism" drives me batty!! So much garbage "research" and even worse reporting. Especially if anyone ever bothers to read the study the conclusion, the recommendations -often they are in direct conflict: study doesn't show what authors recommend or even in the conclusion-mask studies were the worst I've ever seen on this "proving" masks work" when it was ONLY the authors "recommendations" despite the study showing no such evidence