You either misunderstand or obfuscate, I don’t know which. Your statement is accurate, bad diet caused the diseases and good diet brought back health and thanks Mom and Dad for the good genes.
You might have noticed how often I mentioned Ancel Keys, government sponsored food pyramids, and government demonizing fat. But you seem to think that no one ever paid any attention to this, specially not the food industry that replaced demon fat with angel high fructose corn syrup and salt.
You seem to think that people ate poison on purpose starting in the 20th century for some unknown reason.
Which, of course were for free. No one ever made money selling unnecessary medication and all the doctor calls were also free.
That much is obvious. Not necessarily anything wrong with that, except it can tend to colour how you look for information and how you use it. Admitting to bias doesn’t necessarily mean that one can recognise this phenom.
Long before Denny offered his helpful hint on how to use Google, I’d realised that the wording of any question you put in a search engine’s search bar has a really strong influence on the answers that come up. With the inevitable result that bias begets bias……even before reading and analyzing the articles you get that way. The links you’ve provided are a perfect example…..headlines that appear to support the notion that statins are heavily over prescribed and for the wrong people even when the body of the publication does not. That there are so many such articles sloshing around on the internet……and presumably forming part of the information soup that LLMs dip into for their insight…..it’s no surprise that statin (or any other medication) phobia is so prevalent. At least in the old days of the Google Bamboozle, dodgy info from even dodgier publications could be discerned with a bit of effort and critical thinking. Now, even double checking the “AI overview” with another LLM is likely to reinforce any bias.
Additionally…..since you used the Attia-esque moniker of “Medicine 2”….I’ll point out that, in spite of the addition of eGFR, BMI, and a few other bits and bobs, this risk calculator is nowhere near the “Medicine 3” model. Barely even reaching Medicine 2.125! The lipid values used to determine risk are still the same….plain ole LDL-C …. and the time scale for the calculation is still 10 years.
And to link dump another article I’ve posted frequently from the same site (and the one that convinced me to get the scan…..imagining I’d have the same result as the flaneur )
)