What is wrong with this picture?

We have an AMA and it dispenses all kinds of official medical advice.

In their native land, free from our influences, the KUNA Indians have no formally trained doctors, no AMA, no official medical advice. Their blood pressure remains at a steady level throughout their natural lives. 2% hypertension. Exception: KUNA Indians who move to the big city and adopt a Western lifestyle. They have hypertension at roughly the same level as we do.

Roughly 33% of Americans have hypertension.

What is wrong with this picture?

It is probably at least a linear combination of two things:

  1. The AMA is dispensing some good medical advice and many Americans are not taking it.
  2. The AMA is dispensing some bad medical advice and many Americans are taking it.

Ref: 

How odd that having no AMA is more healthful than having one. By far, more healthful.

Advertisements

Maximum irony

I have based my idea that finding truths of any kind is a matter of fitting all of the available high-quality data with a proper interpretation.

If my latest thoughts are true, it is almost impossible for anyone to find a proper interpretation. Misinterpretation rules and I am likely also a slave to misinterpretation.

 

Maximum irony in action: in critical care a non-essential nutrient becomes supercritical

Glutamine is considered a non-essential nutrient since it can be synthesized from other materials. Normal demand for the amino acid is about 10 grams per day, which is what about 80 grams of mixed protein contains, although the daily requirement for protein for the average person is generally set at only about 50 grams. Perhaps the daily requirement should be set to 80 grams so that other amino acids are not being used to make additional glutamine.

In the normal course of things, the intestinal epithelium absorbs glutamine and uses some as fuel and converts some glutamine to proline for connective tissue repair and some to citrulline, which the kidneys convert to arginine (for NO synthesis and vasodilation; blood pressure control) and creatine (for muscle energy). The liver also uses glutamine to make glucose when blood sugar is falling below the threshold and of course also to make proline for connective tissue repair.

In critical care, the person is generally not consuming anywhere near enough protein to meet the needs, but the glutamine shortfall can be enormous because glutamine daily requirements can reach as high as 30 grams (240 grams of total mixed protein would contain about 30 grams of glutamine).

So right away the intestines are not getting enough glutamine to fuel themselves and one would predict a drop off in their two most basic functions, absorption and initial distribution of nutrients to the liver and synthesis of additional proline and citrulline. This is going to run the entire body down, the last thing one needs in critical care.

Consider metastatic cancer as an example of critical care: as cancer cells absorb glutamine at prodigious rates and convert it to glutamate and free fatty acids, and export both, the total demand for glutamine increases, and immune cells, which also use glutamine to fuel themselves, are weakened, and are weakened further by both glutamate and free fatty acids, and are less able to fight the cancer.

The free fatty acids excreted tend to increase insulin resistance, raising glucose baseline levels, which helps the cancer, as a prodigious consumer of glucose for fuel.

Is it possible that as proline levels fall off, connective tissue repair drops off, and it becomes easier for metastatic tumor cells to dissociate from the extracellular matrix and invade other tissues?

As creatine levels fall in response to low glutamine, does muscle wasting, already high, because they are being cannibalized to meet the body’s increased demands for protein, increase?

Do the conditions of cachexia not also decrease appetite, making the muscle wasting still more severe?

Weighing the relative truth

  1. As a group, doctors are inbred, they filter data with abandon, and consequently, they have the wrong model of health, longevity and disease, and are wrong about most things of medical importance.
  2. As a medical outsider, who abhors filtering data, I have the right model of health, longevity, and disease and am at least heading in the right direction about most things of medical importance.

I have more confidence in statement #1 than in statement #2 – I have a lot to learn, but doctors are incorrigible – they will never learn, and without a miraculous transformation, they are going to screw up our health with abandon in the coming centuries.

Maximum irony in action: Why animal results may be more reliable for healthy humans than clinical trial results

  1. A healthy human is well-nourished, just like laboratory animals, and unlike humans who are enrolled in clinical trials, who have been sick for years before enrollment. Most are past the point of reversibility of the illness. How can doctors hope to normalize the health of a diabetic who has had extensive kidney damage and damage to his circulatory system from the high sugar and the numerous nutrient deficiencies due to over-diuresis coupled with poor reabsorption of nutrients? Surgeons can some cure the diabetes even in long-term sufferers with Roux-N-Y gastric bypass, but doctors cannot subsequently normalize their health. The bodily injuries are too great. Laboratory animals are given diabetes and then immediately treated to try to reverse the diabetes and to prevent the harmful effects of diabetes.
  2. When a clinical trial shows that a high dose of some essential nutrient is useless, when it worked well in laboratory animals (for example high dose vitamin C in guinea pigs prevented atherosclerosis even on a 55% fat diet), take the clinical trial with a grain of salt, because despite huge genetic differences, healthy, well-nourished humans are more like healthy, well-nourished laboratory animals.
  3. One more similarity between lab animals and healthy humans: they have the discipline to do what needs to be done in spite of pain and discomfort. The lab animals have no choice but to follow tough regimens imposed by tough-minded, focused researchers; healthy humans are already tough on themselves. Those who are unhealthy – when it is not genetic – have mollycoddled themselves to greater weakness. Clinical trial results on these weaklings mean little: if there is the slightest discomfort to the procedure, you can be sure they are cheating to avoid discomfort.

I’m a dabster

I’m an expert at seeing the flaws in other people’s reasoning and a bungler in seeing my own flaws.

Although considered a contranym, “dabster” means both expert (UK) and bungler (US) – is not every expert also a bungler? Is the specialist not an over-specialist who is downright incompetent at many an everyday task and all-too-often blind to the basic truths of even his own field of expertise?

At the risk of becoming like Heidegger and considering words to be oracles or founts of secret, deep, and arcane wisdom, I’ll stop.

Maximum irony in action

A firm believer in religion once told me, a confirmed skeptic, to be more skeptical of my own wisdom, (which a true skeptic is by definition, as fitting data to a more comprehensive model is all-important) so that eventually I would lose all of my skepticism, and become a firm believer.

If all of the data that contradict the religious models were disproven and all existing data were shown to fit one of the religious models, then I would entertain belief, but I would always wonder if the god hypothesis is actually necessary.