pull down to refresh
How equipped are you to identify methodological flaws in published studies? The average person is very poorly equipped to do so and medicine is full of poorly designed studies, not to mention many outright frauds.
You certainly shouldn't just watch a random YouTube video and believe what it says, but there's nothing wrong with evaluating someone's body of work and concluding that they are generally reliable.
I would say, for at least my own case, I'm equipped rather well. I read and analyze reports on a regular basis. That's why I went looking through the research at the NIH for the basis of statins and went through multiple reports, not just one. But I agree, it takes practice to understand research writing and how to interpret their models. It's not like picking up People magazine and getting the whole picture of the article in 1 minute.
This would be a different question, but given that difficulty, isn't there clearly a need for independent disseminators of health information?
That means we need to be more discerning than just dismissing everyone who produces content on the subject as a fad influencer. If someone has a genuine passion for the subject and makes honest content, it would be useful to be able to identify them as such.
There is always room for "interpreters" and "disseminators." I mean, just about every news agency plays that role as well. People use the 5 o'clock news to give them summary bits because they don't have the time or know how to find the news themselves, or before the Internet, they couldn't get at it easily. The difference is in reading the source yourself versus taking someone's word for it. I find there's a huge difference in what the actual research reports say about statins versus what gets put in YouTube sound bytes or the mass media. I brought up those exact points, which forced my doctor to read the same reports herself and then others to back up her position.
I'll take one of your points as an illustration of why I see value in this sort of content.
Not all studies separate out LDL into its different types, so you could be doing your own research and agreeing with your doctor that your situation is high risk, without being aware that you have the innocuous type of LDL that only gets checked on advanced lipid panels.
There's just so much to stay on top of that really no one can, patients or doctors. That's why my process starts with this sort of general overview, followed by my own investigation, followed by asking my practitioner questions.
First off, everyone should be doing their own research versus just blinding trusting a YouTube video or similar. It's your body, and you retain the abiilty to decide what to put into it, not the latest opinion online.
The above said, there is plenty of real research at the NIH and similar on exactly how statins work for cholesterol buildup. It is well-known that the American diet is rich in processed food with high-saturated fats. All of that contributes to poorer health than a natural diet with non-processed foods. After 20-40 years of eating that stuff from burgers to twinkies to microwave food, your body is going to have a reaction. This isn't rocket science. Statins do have a long track record in reducing high risk cholesterol which also has a long track record in contributing to heart attacks and similar.
Are statins perfect? Hell, no. I take them after doing my own research and being in that age 50s category of high risk cardiac arrest. They have reduced my bad cholesterol. So has changing my diet and avoiding crap. Statins also contribute to negative effects such as muscle pain and similar. So I don't plan to stay on them longer than I have to. But I'm not making a life change based on the latest traffic-building video. I challenge my own doctor regularly, drive her nuts to analyze the NIH studies I find, and we come to agreement on interpretation. That's how medicine should work.
You don't get a pass because you pay an HMO to give you health coverage etc. You're still responsible to take care of yourself.