pull down to refresh
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.
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.