But...how does Dr. Goldner have such incredible success with so many types of disease by having patients eat ala in the form of ground flax and chia and even several tablespoons of flax oil. And it isn't just autoimmune illnesses that the protocol helps. Her patients kidneys improve incredibly. She has helped thousands by now. I wish you would examine it.
I think it would be great to do Goldner with flax as control group and study a group without flax and see what happens. If Rogers is correct, Goldner is even cheaper and easier than she is making it. Everybody wins.
Dr. Rogers, just saw this video and thought it was a pretty good rebuttal to the pro-meats people. Might be a good reference for your viewers: ua-cam.com/video/JJeoYQ6FaAw/v-deo.html
He shot himself in the foot. No matter how rigorously epidemiological studies attempt to establish causation, if the results do not replicate in controlled situations, particularly in critical hospital settings, there is no way to coat it: it does not work in-world settings. The ACCELERATE trial is a classic example of people attaching high LDL to death, heart attacks and strokes, and not finding it in hospitals in high risk patients and a large group trial This study involved over 12,000 patients at high risk of heart disease. Despite achieving a 37% reduction in LDL-cholesterol with evacetrapib, the trial revealed no significant reductions in heart attack, stroke, or death.
@@aboutsupplies I'm guessing this runs both ways. One group dismisses all epidemiological studies regardless of their potential to provide good information. And it seems like those basing all their stuff on those studies disregard the controlled outcomes. This has been my contention so far, the mechanisms are interesting and useful, but there's likely more to the story. Our systems appear to be adaptable beyond the mechanisms we've discovered so far. There's probably some form of threshold (min/max doses) at work as well, and these likely tighten up as we age. So far now I'm in the "we don't know enough, yet" camp.
@@VicNorth777 Stanford METRICS Institute is a research institute that studies how to make biomedical research more reliable. That wouldn't be needed if you can take epidemiology studies and replicate in a clinical patient setting. What most people miss, including doctors commenting online, is the research studies cited calling out risk, is actually relative risk, not absolute risk. In most cases, not all the time. Absolute risk informs us on the odds of the risk replicating.
@aboutsupplies perhaps the damage has been done by the time that cohort lowered their ldl...because the small group of people with a genetic anomaly that does not allow them to produce ldl...do not ever get heart disease.
But...how does Dr. Goldner have such incredible success with so many types of disease by having patients eat ala in the form of ground flax and chia and even several tablespoons of flax oil. And it isn't just autoimmune illnesses that the protocol helps. Her patients kidneys improve incredibly. She has helped thousands by now. I wish you would examine it.
I think it would be great to do Goldner with flax as control group and study a group without flax and see what happens. If Rogers is correct, Goldner is even cheaper and easier than she is making it. Everybody wins.
Dr. Rogers, just saw this video and thought it was a pretty good rebuttal to the pro-meats people. Might be a good reference for your viewers: ua-cam.com/video/JJeoYQ6FaAw/v-deo.html
He shot himself in the foot.
No matter how rigorously epidemiological studies attempt to establish causation, if the results do not replicate in controlled situations,
particularly in critical hospital settings, there is no way to coat it: it does not work in-world settings.
The ACCELERATE trial is a classic example of
people attaching high LDL to death, heart attacks and strokes,
and not finding it in hospitals in high risk patients and a large group trial
This study involved over 12,000 patients at high risk of heart disease. Despite achieving a 37% reduction in LDL-cholesterol
with evacetrapib, the trial revealed no significant reductions in heart attack, stroke, or death.
@@aboutsupplies I'm guessing this runs both ways. One group dismisses all epidemiological studies regardless of their potential to provide good information. And it seems like those basing all their stuff on those studies disregard the controlled outcomes. This has been my contention so far, the mechanisms are interesting and useful, but there's likely more to the story. Our systems appear to be adaptable beyond the mechanisms we've discovered so far. There's probably some form of threshold (min/max doses) at work as well, and these likely tighten up as we age. So far now I'm in the "we don't know enough, yet" camp.
@@VicNorth777 Stanford METRICS Institute is a research institute that studies how to make biomedical research more reliable.
That wouldn't be needed if you can take epidemiology studies and replicate in a clinical patient setting.
What most people miss, including doctors commenting online, is the research studies cited calling out risk, is actually relative risk, not absolute risk. In most cases, not all the time.
Absolute risk informs us on the odds of the risk replicating.
@VicNorth777 thanks...it was very informative.
@aboutsupplies perhaps the damage has been done by the time that cohort lowered their ldl...because the small group of people with a genetic anomaly that does not allow them to produce ldl...do not ever get heart disease.