obesity
For several decades, eggs were commonly portrayed as a major cause of raised cholesterol and cardiovascular disease. That position has been substantially revised: current evidence suggests that dietary cholesterol has a relatively modest effect on blood cholesterol in most people, whereas saturated and trans fats are more important determinants of LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular risk.
The physiology is more nuanced than the older “cholesterol-in, cholesterol-out” model implied. The liver does synthesise cholesterol endogenously, and many people compensate for increased dietary cholesterol by reducing hepatic production, but the degree of compensation varies considerably between individuals. For that reason, eggs are not best understood as “heart-healthy” in all circumstances, but rather as a food whose impact depends on the wider dietary pattern and the individual’s metabolic risk profile.
There is stronger support for improving lipid profiles by changing the quality of dietary fat and increasing fibre intake. Replacing saturated fats with unsaturated fats, particularly polyunsaturated fats, is associated with lower LDL cholesterol and a reduced risk of cardiovascular events, while soluble fibre helps lower LDL cholesterol by interrupting enterohepatic bile acid recycling. In practical terms, this means that foods such as olive oil, nuts, seeds, legumes, oats, vegetables, and oily fish are more consistently supported than a narrow focus on single items such as eggs.
Low-carbohydrate and ketogenic diets are more complex. Many people lose weight on them, which may improve some cardiometabolic markers, but a subset of lean individuals show pronounced rises in LDL cholesterol and related atherogenic markers during carbohydrate restriction. Emerging evidence also indicates that gut microbial changes may contribute to altered lipid metabolism, although this area is still developing and should not be overstated.
Highly restrictive “detox” or “alternative” dietary programs are unsupported by clinical evidence and may be nutritionally unbalanced and thus harmful. They might be claimed to “purify” the body or reset metabolism, but heart health is better served by sustainable patterns that improve LDL cholesterol, support fibre intake, and minimise excess saturated fat.
What does all that mean in practice? Here are a few simple rules that follow from the new insights:
- Do not over-emphasize dietary cholesterol (e.g., eggs) as a primary driver of cardiovascular risk.
- Focus instead on reducing saturated and trans fat intake.
- Replace saturated fats with unsaturated fats, especially polyunsaturated fats (e.g., use olive oil, eat nuts and seeds).
- Increase intake of soluble fibre (e.g., oats, legumes, vegetables) to help lower LDL cholesterol.
- Consider overall dietary patterns rather than judging single foods in isolation.
- Recognize that individual responses to dietary cholesterol vary; tailor intake accordingly if lipid levels are a concern.
- Include foods with consistent cardiovascular benefit, such as oily fish, plant-based foods, and whole grains.
- Be cautious with low-carbohydrate or ketogenic diets, particularly if lean, and monitor lipid profiles if following such diets.
- Prioritize sustainable, balanced eating patterns over restrictive or extreme diets.
- Avoid “detox” or alternative dietary regimens lacking clinical evidence, as they are ineffective or harmful.
Key references
- Carson JAS, Lichtenstein AH, Anderson CAM, et al. Dietary cholesterol and cardiovascular risk: a science advisory from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2020;141:e39–e53.
- Estruch R, Ros E, Salas-Salvadó J, et al. Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with a Mediterranean diet. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1279–1290.
- Hooper L, Martin N, Jimoh OF, et al. Reduction in saturated fat intake for cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;(5):CD011730.
- British Heart Foundation. Healthy eating – reduce your risk of developing heart disease. 2023. – Search
- NHS. Facts about fat. 2022. – Search
- Ketogenic Diet reduces friendly gut bacteria and raises cholesterol levels
- Gut bacteria can break down cholesterol | Nature Reviews Cardiology
- Healthy eating: applying All Our Health – GOV.UK
Trump and his allies have produced many claims that experts have flagged as false, misleading, or dangerously unscientific. Below is a (probably incomplete) selection:
- In April 2020, Trump suggested during a press briefing that scientists explore whether injecting or “bringing disinfectant inside the body” could treat COVID‑19. Medical experts immediately warned that this would be dangerous or lethal.
- At the same briefing, he also floated the idea of “hitting the body with a very powerful light,” including using UV light inside the body to kill the virus, a suggestion that clinicians stressed had no scientific basis and could be harmful.
- Throughout 2020, Trump repeatedly claimed the virus would “just disappear” like a “miracle,” even as case counts and deaths surged.
- He heavily promoted hydroxychloroquine as a “game changer” long after clinical trials had shown it to be ineffective against COVID‑19 and associated with serious adverse effects.
- In February 2020, Trump claimed the number of COVID‑19 cases in the US would soon be “down to close to zero.”
- Trump frequently claimed that COVID‑19 was “just like the flu,” despite the fact that its mortality rate and impact on health systems were substantially higher.
- In late 2025 and early 2026, the Trump administration falsely claimed that acetaminophen use during pregnancy was linked to a much higher risk of autism, despite the lack of clear evidence and warnings from experts that this messaging was misleading.
- The administration also promoted leucovorin as a treatment for autism, a claim that has little robust evidence and is not supported by mainstream medical guidelines.
- Following the appointment of RFK Jr. to HHS in late 2024, federal vaccine guidance was rolled back in several areas, including flu recommendations for some groups and changes to how RSV and other vaccines were positioned. This created confusion and encouraged a further “decoupling” of some state health policies from traditional CDC guidance.
- Trump has claimed that the noise from wind turbines causes cancer, a statement that has no credible scientific basis.
- Trump has claimed that sea levels will rise by only “1/8 of an inch over the next 200 to 300 years,” contradicting widely accepted projections that show substantially higher rise even over the next 30 years along US coasts.
- Trump has also claimed that the human body is like a battery with a finite amount of energy, and that exercise is harmful because it “depletes” that energy, a view that runs counter to mainstream physiology and public‑health guidance.
- Trump claimed that drinking fizzy diet soda “kills cancer cells” because the drinks kill grass when spilt, implying they might do the same to cancer inside the body.
- In 2026, Dr. Mehmet Oz, as head of CMS, falsely claimed that 5 million New Yorkers were using Medicaid personal‑care services—nearly 75% of all enrolees—when the actual figure is far lower.
- RFK Jr. has spent decades claiming that thimerosal, a mercury‑based preservative in some vaccines, causes autism. Thimerosal was removed from nearly all childhood vaccines in 2001 as a precaution, yet autism rates continued to rise, and large studies have found no causal link.
- RFK Jr. frequently claims that no vaccines have ever been tested against a true saline placebo. In fact, many vaccines have been tested against saline placebos in clinical trials, and others were tested against earlier versions or standard care, in line with evolving ethical standards.
- RFK Jr. pushed for the removal of fluoride from all US water systems, falsely labelling it an “industrial waste” and a key cause of lower IQ, bone fractures, and cancer, despite the bulk of evidence supporting its safety and dental benefits at standard levels.
- RFK Jr. has also falsely claimed that polyunsaturated fats such as canola or soybean oil are toxic and the primary driver of obesity and inflammation in America, a view that contradicts large‑scale dietary and epidemiological data.
- RFK Jr. has falsely claimed that WiFi causes “leaky brain” and that 5G is a tool for mass surveillance and causes cancer, assertions that have no support from mainstream science.
- RFK Jr. has become an advocate for the federal legalisation of raw milk, downplaying the risks of Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria. Yet pasteurization remains a cornerstone of public‑health measures to prevent foodborne illness.
- RFK Jr. has wrongly suggested a link between the use of SSRIs and the rise in mass shootings, a claim not supported by credible data.
- Janette Nesheiwat (JN), a Fox News contributor and Trump’s nominee for US Surgeon General, withdrew her nomination in May 2025 following allegations that she had significantly misrepresented her credentials. Her official bio and LinkedIn profile claimed she received her medical degree from the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences; in fact she attended the American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine in St. Maarten.
- JN repeatedly described herself as “double board‑certified,” but investigators found verified certification only in family medicine.
- Casey Means (CM), Trump’s nominee for Surgeon General, is a Stanford‑educated physician who left surgical residency before completion and whose medical license has been inactive since 2019. She has not practiced clinical medicine in years and has limited experience overseeing large‑scale public‑health systems.
- CM has built a profile as a health‑tech entrepreneur and co‑founder of Levels, promoting “functional medicine” and the MAHA movement.
- CM has made strong claims that continuous glucose monitoring and metabolic optimization can prevent or “cure” a wide range of modern diseases, a view that overstates the evidence and oversimplifies complex chronic conditions.
As indicated in the title of this post: if you waant to say healthy, it is wise to ignore the incompetent president and his equally incompetent cronies.
Easter is the time to surprise our fellow humans, preferably with something nice. One does not need to be a clairvoyant to predict that many of us will use chocolate for this purpose. Overindulgence in chocolate is therefore not a rare event today.
How bad is that for your health?
Chocolate has both potential benefits and risks for our wellbeing. What makes the difference between good and bad are:
- the type (dark vs. milk/white),
- the quantity,
- individual health factors.
Its high (cocoa >70%) content antioxidants may improve heart health by lowering blood pressure, enhancing blood flow, and reducing LDL cholesterol oxidation. Some studies link moderate intake of dark chokolate (e.g., 20-45g weekly) to lower cardiovascular disease risk, better cognitive function, and mood boosts via endorphins and theobromine. It might also aid insulin sensitivity and reduce stroke risk in observational data. Some studies suggest small amounts (e.g., 30g daily of 70%+ cocoa) may reduce depressive symptoms by 50-70% compared to non-chocolate-eaters, via compounds like phenylethylamine, theobromine, and serotonin precursors that boost endorphins and calm inflammation. But, be warned: the evidence is promising but not definitive; large trials show inconsistent results, and overeating negates perks via weight gain.
Its high calorie, sugar and fat content promote weight gain, obesity, and tooth decay. Regular consumption can trigger migraines in sensitive people due to tyramine and phenylethylamine, and may weaken bone density over time. Multiple studies link chocolate consumption to increased acne lesions, especially in young adults. One study found men eating chocolate capsules developed more comedones, papules, and pustules within days, with dose-dependent effects. Mechanisms include sugar-induced insulin spikes boosting sebum, cocoa’s promotion of inflammation (e.g., IL-1β) and corneocyte desquamation, plus bacterial colonization on skin surfaces.
The conclusion, I guess, is that our habit of stuffing ourselves with chocolate over Easter is not altogether healthy, particularly if we consider that Easter eggs are often filled with the worst type. Yet it might still be healthier than what they do in Papua New Guinea.
In this country, “Easter tobacco trees” replace chocolate eggs, unsuited to the tropical climate, with trees or branches adorned by tobacco sticks and cigarette packets as communal offerings. The churches erect these “Easter tobacco trees” for Easter Sunday services. Congregants then decorate the trees with tobacco products before distributing them post-service as gifts or “treats,” akin to egg hunts elsewhere. Feasts of leftovers follow, blending Christian ritual with cultural adaptation.
Personally, I must say that I prefer chocolate overindulgence to proven carcinogens.
If there’s one thing Robert F. Kennedy Jr. knows how to do, it’s to turn public health into performance art. This year’s most expensive commercial—airing during Super Bowl LX—wasn’t about cars, beer, or even crypto. It was about butter. And beef tallow. The ad, titled “The Fight of My Life,” showed a misty‑eyed Mike Tyson reminiscing about his sister’s death, his own struggles with junk food, and his new “fight” for America’s health. Then came the punchline: “Processed Food Kills.” As the tear streaks dried, the nation was directed to Realfood.gov, the Kennedy‑backed campaign for dietary redemption.
It may have looked like a public‑service announcement but, in truth, it was a $10 million morality play written by the Make America Healthy Again Center, a nonprofit fundraising off the idea that kale and ketosis can save civilization. Tyson might have been in black‑and‑white, but Kennedy’s fingerprints—messianic, conspiratorial, and slightly greasy with butterfat—were everywhere.
The Realfood.gov guidelines mark Kennedy’s biggest policy move yet: an official endorsement of meat, lard, and “ancestral eating.” The new pyramid, or as Kennedy calls it “the Flipped Pyramid,” positions steak above grains—literally and figuratively. Sugar is treated like a biological weapon, while “seed oils” are branded the new nicotine. It’s a nutrition plan designed for the modern age—if the modern age were 1826. The rhetoric of “real food” has a populist ring, but the science behind it is as wobbly as a gelatin mold. Nowhere are there meaningful public‑health solutions for Americans who can’t afford grass‑fed ribeye or artisanal butter.
Then came the twist only 2026 could deliver: Kennedy’s nutrition crusade teamed up with Elon Musk’s AI, Grok, to help Americans “get real answers about real food.” What could possibly go wrong? Plenty, it turns out! Within days, Grok was trending for explaining which vegetables are safest for “alternative use,” prompting Musk to tweet that “vegetables are best enjoyed orally.” The government quietly deleted Grok’s name, a digital walk of shame across cyberspace. It was the perfect metaphor for Kennedy’s health vision: self‑righteous, tech‑obsessed, and totally incapable of predicting the obvious glitch.
When critics pointed out that 70% of the American food supply is ultra‑processed because people can’t afford fresh alternatives, Kennedy’s defenders shouted “Big Food propaganda.” When nutrition experts questioned the pseudoscientific obsession with “ancestral fats,” they were accused of suppressing the truth. The result is a movement that treats dietary policy like a crusade, replacing science with sanctimony and public health with personality cult. Kennedy isn’t reforming nutrition—he’s branding it.
In the end, the MAHA campaign isn’t really about saving Americans from junk food. It’s about saving Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from irrelevance. By mixing Super Bowl spectacle, Silicon Valley tech, and nostalgia for the “real food” of an imagined past, Kennedy has served up his own special dish: a reheated and stale serving of populist showmanship seasoned with pseudoscience and self‑importance.
Obesity is, as we all know, a huge public health issue. We therefore must no be amazed that the ‘SCAM brigade’ has collectively jumped on this bandwaggon – even auricualar acupressure is being promoted as a solution!
This study aimed to evaluate the impact of auricular acupressure on obesity and sleep quality in middle-aged Korean women. The single-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial included participants aged 40-65 years with a Body Mass Index (BMI) of 25-34 kg/m 2 , divided into an experimental group (n = 30) and a control group (n = 29).
The intervention involved 8 weeks of auricular acupressure using ear seeds on five acupoints associated with obesity and sleep. Obesity outcomes were assessed using anthropometric indices (body weight, BMI, waist circumference, body fat mass, body fat percentage), while sleep outcomes were evaluated using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and actigraphy. Measurements were taken thrice: before the intervention, and at 4 and 8 weeks post-intervention start.
The experimental group demonstrated a significant reduction in obesity measures and improvement in sleep quality over time compared to the control group.
The authors suggest that their findings suggest that auricular acupressure may serve as an alternative nursing intervention for managing obesity and improving sleep quality in middle-aged women.
I have to admit that firstly I do not subscribe to ‘HOLIST. NURSE. PRACT.’ and secondly I am not willing to spend my money on buying this article. This means that I only can read the abstract of this paper. Thus my following explanations are speculative [but, as always, I am happy to change my tune once someone shows me that I was wrong].
So, how can a single- [presumably patient-] blind, sham controlled RCT of auricular acupuncture produce a positive result?
Fraud?
Not necessarily!
More likely, I think, is a phenomenon called ‘de-blinding’. For the above trial, this would mean that the control patients were treated with a sham procedure that was deemed to be indistinguishable from the verum by the trialists. But, in fact, patients managed to tell the difference between verum an sham. As the investigators did not check the success of their blinding procedure, they were able to call their study a ‘single-blind trial’, while in reality it was at least partly deblinded. If I am correct, the patients who were treated with the sham intervention fellt cheesed off for not receiving a real therapy and thus kept on eating, while the verum group did as told and controlled their diet a bit better.
In addition, ‘single-blind’, as applied to the patients, means that the therapists were not blinded. As they had a strong interest to generate a positive result, they would have used their verbal and non-verbal communication skills to influence their verum patients to reduce their obesity measures, e.g. by persualding them to excercise more and eat less.
In turn, these mechanisms together had the effect that “the experimental group demonstrated a significant reduction in obesity measures and improvement in sleep quality over time compared to the control group”.
QED
Alternatively, ‘single-blind’ might mean that the therapists were blinded. But, in this particular case, I don’t quite see how this would be possible.
Yes, there is yet another alternative: auricular acupressure might be effective in reducing obesity. If that is so, the current trial does not prove it!
Aging trajectories are influenced by modifiable risk factors, and prior evidence has hinted that mult-ilingualism may have protective potential. However, reliance on suboptimal health markers, small samples, inadequate confounder control and a focus on clinical cohorts led to mixed findings and limited applicability to healthy populations.
With this analysis, researchers developed biobehavioral age gaps, quantifying delayed or accelerated aging in 86,149 participants across 27 European countries. National surveys provided individual-level positive (functional ability, education, cognition) and adverse (cardiometabolic conditions, female sex, sensory impairments) factors, while country-level multi-lingualism served as an aggregate exposure.
Biobehavioral factors predicted age (R2 = 0.24, r = 0.49, root mean squared error = 8.61), with positive factors linked to delayed aging and adverse factors to accelerated aging. Multi-lingualism emerged as a protective factor in cross-sectional (odds ratio = 0.46) and longitudinal (relative risk = 0.70) analyses. Mono-lingualism increased risk of accelerated aging (odds ratio = 2.11; relative risk = 1.43). The effects persisted after adjusting for linguistic, physical, social and sociopolitical exposomes.
The authors concluded that these results underscore the protective role of multi-lingualism and its broad applicability for global health initiatives.
Research into aging is understandably active. Thus plenty of factors have been idenfified that might slow down the process. Here is a quick summary.
Factors That Delay Aging
- Healthy Diet: Consuming a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, legumes, fish, and lean proteins, while limiting red and processed meats, saturated fats, and added sugars.
- Calorie restriction: reducing total calorie intake while maintaining nutrient density, and intermittent fasting have shown promise in promoting longevity in some studies.
- Regular Physical Activity: Engaging in moderate to vigorous physical activity (e.g., brisk walking, strength training) consistently. This helps preserve muscle mass, bone density, and cardiovascular function.
- Maintaining a Healthy Weight: Avoiding obesity and excessive body fat reduces strain on organs and limits chronic inflammation.
- Optimal Cardiovascular Health: Actively managing and maintaining healthy blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar levels.
- Quitting Smoking/Avoiding Tobacco Use: Completely abstaining from all forms of tobacco.
- Moderate Alcohol Consumption: Limiting alcohol intake or abstaining altogether.
- Quality Sleep: Getting sufficient, restorative sleep (typically 7-9 hours per night) with a consistent sleep schedule.
- Stress Management: Utilizing techniques like meditation or therapy to effectively manage stress and anxiety.
- Strong Social Connections: Nurturing healthy relationships and avoiding loneliness, which is linked to chronic stress.
- Life Purpose/Mental Stimulation: Having a sense of meaning or purpose and engaging in activities that challenge the brain (e.g., learning new skills).
- So-called alternative medicine (SCAM)? The evidence is mixed and often unconvincing. The most effective SCAMs for delaying aging might be a healthy lifestyle, the use dietary supplements based on sound evidence, as well as relaxation therapies where appropriate.
As you see, multi-lingualism, as suggested by the above paper, does not even feature in the list. Yet, the concept of cognitive reserve can explain why two people with similar age-related brain changes (like volume loss or plaque buildup) can have different cognitive abilities and patterns of aging. A higher cognitive reserve acts as a buffer against aging; specifically it can:
- Build Cognitive Reserve: Engaging in intellectually challenging activities throughout life, such as higher education, complex occupations, and continuous learning, creates a more resilient and flexible network of neural pathways. This reserve allows the brain to compensate for damage and maintain function longer.
- Promote Neuroplasticity: Learning new, complex skills—like another language, playing a musical instrument, or taking challenging courses—stimulates the creation of new neural connections and enhances neuroplasticity.
- Reduce Risk of Cognitive Decline: High levels of mental engagement lowers the risk of cognitive decline in older age.
So, the new study adds to and affirms the already existing knowledge: speaking several languages is likely to slow the aging process that we are all facing – a finding that, I have to admit, suits me fine!
The German Magazine FürSie recently published an article on homeopathy. To be exact it is an article on how to lose weight with homeopathy. Here are a few excerpts:
Globules are used in homeopathy and are said to be able to alleviate complaints. Some globules are also said to have a positive effect on weight loss. We present them to you below.
Which globules help with weight loss?
Calcium carbonicum D12 helps against eating out of grief and frustration and brings body and soul back into balance. Dosage and intake: 5 globules 3 times a day.
Fucus vesiculosus D2 stimulates the metabolism and reduces appetite. Dosage and administration: 5 globules 3 times a day. Important: The remedy should not be used for thyroid disorders.
Coffea D6 promotes fat burning and helps you lose weight. Dosage and intake: Melt 3 globules on the tongue in the morning before breakfast.
Is your weight loss stagnating? Then Capsicum D4 can help. Metabolism and fat burning are boosted. It also produces happiness hormones. Dosage and intake: 5 globules 3 times a day.
Lycopodium D12 helps against an unpleasant bloated stomach. The remedy stimulates fat metabolism and regulates digestion. Dosage and intake: 5 globules twice daily.
Argentum nitricum D12 has a balancing effect and curbs cravings in stressful situations. Calorie intake is regulated. Dosage and intake: 5 globules 3 times a day.
Taking Petroselinum D6 will make you look slimmer. The ingredients support the elimination of excess water in the body. Dosage and intake: 3 globules 5 times a day…
Slimming globules are particularly impressive because they contain active ingredients that are satiating, boost the metabolism and stimulate fat burning. Another positive aspect is that, as is usual in homeopathy, the globules are purely herbal remedies. Chemical-free, they are regarded as virtually risk-free miracle pills.
Slimming processes, the disappearance of annoying kilos and a good sense of well-being can be achieved more quickly with homeopathic remedies.
I find this article so very remarkable because the author(s) (who is/are not named) managed to make all the above statements without a single one of them being true, supported by evidence or even remotely plausible. The only way one might lose weight by using homeopathy is, if one pays for it with a handful of coins from ones pocket. There is not a shred of sound evidence that homeopathy reduces body weight.
The magazine includes this disclaimer: “This article contains, among other things, product recommendations. When selecting the products, we are free from the influence of third parties. For a referral via our affiliate links, we receive a commission from the relevant service provider/online shop when a purchase or referral is made, with the help of which we can continue to offer independent journalism.”
Independent journalism?
I beg to differ: this is not independent nor is it journalism.
The question I ask myself is this: are such magazines allowed to publish any nonsense, or is there an authority that might control or reprimand them in an attempt to protect consumers?
Yes, that would be nice!
You want to lose weight?
Just take a few pills an Bob’s your uncle!
There is, of course no shortage of such pills – but do they work?
This study aimed at quantifying and ranking the effects of different nutraceuticals on weight loss. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science to November 2022 were searched and all randomized trials (RCTs) evaluating the comparative effects of two or more nutraceuticals, or comparing a nutraceutical against a placebo for weight loss in adults with overweight or obesity were included. A random-effects network meta-analysis was conducted with a Frequentist framework to estimate mean difference [MD] and 95% confidence interval [CI] of the effect of nutraceuticals on weight loss.
One hundred and eleven RCTs with 6171 participants that investigated the effects of 18 nutraceuticals on body weight were eligible. In the main analysis incorporating all trials, there was high certainty of evidence for supplementation of spirulina (MD: -1.77 kg, 95% CI: -2.77, -0.78) and moderate certainty of evidence that supplementation of curcumin (MD: -0.82 kg, 95% CI: -1.33, -0.30), psyllium (MD: -3.70 kg, 95% CI: -5.18, -2.22), chitosan (MD: -1.70 kg, 95% CI: -2.62, -0.78), and Nigella sativa (MD: -2.09 kg, 95%CI: -2.92, -1.26) could result in a small improvement in body weight. Supplementations with green tea (MD: -1.25 kg, 95%CI: -1.68, -0.82) and glucomannan (MD: -1.36 kg, 95%CI: -2.17, -0.54) demonstrated small weight loss, also the certainty of evidence was rated low.
The authors concluded that supplementations with nutraceuticals can result in a small weight loss in adults with overweight or obesity.
The authors tell us little about the methodological quality of the studies. All they did report was this:
Among trials with a low risk of bias, only chitosan (mean difference: −1.72 kg, 95%CI: −3.37, −0.06) and green tea (mean difference: −1.61 kg, 95%CI: −3.14, −0.09) were effective for weight loss compared with placebo. There was no significant weight loss following increased consumption of other nutraceuticals in trials with a low risk of bias.
In view of the lack of reliability of the primary studies, I feel that the conclusions drawn by the authors are not justified. Even though far from recent, I much prefer our own conclusion of a similar data set:
The evidence for most dietary supplements as aids in reducing body weight is not convincing. None of the reviewed dietary supplements can be recommended for over-the-counter use.
In other words, if you want to lose weight, don’t rely on dietary supplements!
It is not only practitioners of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) who can be fraudulent charlatans. The study of medicine does not protect you from joining in. Here is an impressive case in point:
It has been reported that a former doctor convicted of fraudulently submitting nearly $120 million in claims related to the 1-800-GET-THIN Lap-Band surgery business has been sentenced to seven years in federal prison.
Julian Omidi, 58, of West Hollywood was sentenced Monday by U.S. District Court Judge Dolly M. Gee. The judge also imposed a five-year probation period on Surgery Center Management LLC, an Omidi-controlled Beverly Hills-based company. In the coming weeks, Gee is expected to hold a separate hearing to decide on restitution and forfeiture in the case, along with setting a fine for the Beverly Hills company.
“Mr. Omidi made millions at the expense of the multiple victim companies he defrauded, and he violated his oath to ‘do no harm’ by callously misleading patients about the need for a sleep study and subsequent weight loss surgery,” said Donald Alway, the assistant director in charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles field office.
Omidi controlled several entities in the GET-THIN network. Prosecutors say Omidi incentivized employees to ensure patients underwent sleep studies and then falsified the results to show that patients had obstructive sleep apnea to help them qualify for insurance coverage for the weight loss surgery. Those results were then filed with insurance companies to pre-approve the Lap-Band weight-loss surgeries. The 1-800-GET-THIN business received approximately $41 million for those procedures, according to prosecutors. While not all patients were approved to receive the surgery, prosecutors say GET-THIN would bill the patient roughly $15,000 for each sleep study, totaling $27 million in payments from insurance providers.
Omidi and his Beverly Hills-based company, Surgery Center Management, were found guilty of 28 counts of wire fraud, three counts of mail fraud, and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. Omidi was also found guilty of two counts of making false statements relating to healthcare matters, one count of aggravated identity theft, and two counts of money laundering after a 48-day trial in downtown Los Angeles.
“As found by the jury, the defendant Julian Omidi deliberately and repeatedly acted with an eye towards business and profits, rather than in the interest of GET-THIN’s medical patients, by inducing patients to undergo medical treatment premised on fraud rather than medical necessity, including surgeries that carry significant risks and life-long health impacts,” said U.S. Atty. Martin Estrada. A series of Los Angeles Times columns from 2010 to 2014 detailed how five patients died after they received Lap-Band surgeries at clinics affiliated with 1-800-GET-THIN. During a 2009 inspection, the Department of Health and Human Services found unsanitary conditions, inoperative scrub sinks, one-time-only equipment being reused, and several other deficiencies. The inspector shut down the clinic for a day, but further action was not taken at the time.
Omidi’s medical license was revoked in 2009, and he was arrested. In 2014, federal agencies seized more than $110 million from the 1-800-GET-THIN network in securities and funds.
______________________________
This is a spectacular case, of course. Yet, I fail to see how it differs in principle from the many instances we see on a daily basis in the realm of SCAM. Let me give you just a few examples:
- A chiropractor diagnoses subluxation and subsequently treats his patient with a series of spinal manipulations.
- A naturopath uses iridology to diagnose a weakness of the liver and subsequently treats it with herbal remedies.
- An acupuncturist diagnoses a blockage of chi and follows it up with a series of acupuncture sessions.
- A Heilpraktiker employs bioresonance to diagnose an intoxication which he then treats with a detox program.
The strategy is always the same:
- Charlatans use bogus diagnostic methods.
- They make bogus diagnoses with them.
- They then start expensive and often dangerous treatments.
- They make good money by defrauding the system.
Could someone please explain what the difference in principle is between the case of the fraudulent surgeon and the average SCAM practitioner?
The ‘keto diet’ is a currently popular high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet; it limits the intake of glucose which results in the production of ketones by the liver and their uptake as an alternative energy source by the brain. It is said to be an effective treatment for intractable epilepsy. In addition, it is being promoted as a so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) for a wide range of conditions, including:
- weight loss,
- cognitive and memory enhancement,
- type II diabetes,
- cancer,
- neurological and psychiatric disorders.
Now, it has been reported that the ‘keto diet’ may be linked to higher levels of cholesterol and double the risk of cardiovascular events. In the study, researchers defined a low-carb, high-fat (LCHF) diet as 45% of total daily calories coming from fat and 25% coming from carbohydrates. The study, which has so far not been peer-reviewed, was presented Sunday at the American College of Cardiology’s Annual Scientific Session Together With the World Congress of Cardiology.
“Our study rationale came from the fact that we would see patients in our cardiovascular prevention clinic with severe hypercholesterolemia following this diet,” said Dr. Iulia Iatan from the Healthy Heart Program Prevention Clinic, St. Paul’s Hospital, and University of British Columbia’s Centre for Heart Lung Innovation in Vancouver, Canada, during a presentation at the session. “This led us to wonder about the relationship between these low-carb, high-fat diets, lipid levels, and cardiovascular disease. And so, despite this, there’s limited data on this relationship.”
The researchers compared the diets of 305 people eating an LCHF diet with about 1,200 people eating a standard diet, using health information from the United Kingdom database UK Biobank, which followed people for at least a decade. They found that people on the LCHF diet had higher levels of low-density lipoprotein and apolipoprotein B. Apolipoprotein B is a protein that coats LDL cholesterol proteins and can predict heart disease better than elevated levels of LDL cholesterol can. The researchers also noticed that the LCHF diet participants’ total fat intake was higher in saturated fat and had double the consumption of animal sources (33%) compared to those in the control group (16%). “After an average of 11.8 years of follow-up – and after adjustment for other risk factors for heart disease, such as diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity, and smoking – people on an LCHF diet had more than two times higher risk of having several major cardiovascular events, such as blockages in the arteries that needed to be opened with stenting procedures, heart attack, stroke, and peripheral arterial disease.” Their press release also cautioned that their study “can only show an association between the diet and an increased risk for major cardiac events, not a causal relationship,” because it was an observational study, but their findings are worth further investigation, “especially when approximately 1 in 5 Americans report being on a low-carb, keto-like or full keto diet.”
I have to say that I find these findings not in the slightest bit surprising and would fully expect the relationship to be causal. The current craze for this diet is concerning and we need to warn consumers that they might be doing themselves considerable harm.
Other authors have recently pointed out that, within the first 6-12 months of initiating the keto diet, transient decreases in blood pressure, triglycerides, and glycosylated hemoglobin, as well as increases in HDL and weight loss may be observed. However, the aforementioned effects are generally not seen after 12 months of therapy. Despite the diet’s favorable effect on HDL-C, the concomitant increases in LDL-C and very-low-density lipoproteins (VLDL) may lead to increased cardiovascular risks. And another team of researchers has warned that “given often-temporary improvements, unfavorable effects on dietary intake, and inadequate data demonstrating long-term safety, for most individuals, the risks of ketogenic diets may outweigh the benefits.”
