viss jau būtu labi, ja ne "High heme intake is associated with increased risk of several cancers, including colorectal cancer, pancreatic cancer and lung cancer. Likewise, the evidence for increased risks of type-2 diabetes and coronary heart disease associated with high heme intake is compelling."

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

viss jau būtu labi, ja augshmineetais apgalvojums buutu ceelies no RCTs, nevis epidemiologjisku peetiijumu apcereejumiem :D

P.S. "Cancer is a Metabolic Disease" -Prof. Thomas N. Seyfried
https://youtu.be/06e-PwhmSq8

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

viss būtu labi, ja tu atkal nenodarbotos ar dezinformāciju. (;

Abstract
Red meat and processed meat intake is associated with a risk of colorectal cancer, a major cause of death in affluent countries. Epidemiological and experimental evidence supports the hypothesis that heme iron present in meat promotes colorectal cancer. This meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies of colon cancer reporting heme intake included 566,607 individuals and 4,734 cases of colon cancer. The relative risk of colon cancer was 1.18 (95% CI: 1.06–1.32) for subjects in the highest category of heme iron intake compared with those in the lowest category. Epidemiological data thus show a suggestive association between dietary heme and risk of colon cancer. The analysis of experimental studies in rats with chemically-induced colon cancer showed that dietary hemoglobin and red meat consistently promote aberrant crypt foci, a putative precancer lesion. The mechanism is not known, but heme iron has a catalytic effect on (i) the endogenous formation of carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds and (ii) the formation of cytotoxic and genotoxic aldehydes by lipoperoxidation. A review of evidence supporting these hypotheses suggests that both pathways are involved in heme iron toxicity. Cancer Prev Res; 4(2); 177–84. ©️2011 AACR.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Epidemiological ievirzes rakstinji neskaitaas. Kur ir RCTs?


"..meta-analyses evaluating the effects of red meat intake have generated mixed findings and do not formally assess evidence strength. "

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01968-z

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

The analysis of experimental studies in rats with chemically-induced colon cancer showed that dietary hemoglobin and red meat consistently promote aberrant crypt foci, a putative precancer lesion. The mechanism is not known, but heme iron has a catalytic effect on (i) the endogenous formation of carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds and (ii) the formation of cytotoxic and genotoxic aldehydes by lipoperoxidation. A review of evidence supporting these hypotheses suggests that both pathways are involved in heme iron toxicity. Cancer Prev Res; 4(2); 177–84. ©️2011 AACR.

eksperimentāli pētījumi tiek uzskatīti par spēcīgāko kauzalitātes evidenci.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

no kādas RCT nāk šie dati, ko tu prezentē?: "..15% to 35% of heme iron is absorbed..... non-heme - 2% to 20%"

(Reply to this) (Parent)

76% pēdējo pāris gadu laikā publicēto RCT ir farmokoloģijas industrijas finansēti pētījumi ar būtiski pozitīvākiem rezultātiem nekā industrijas nefinansētie RCT (publication bias). neredzu pamatojumu dot priekšroku RCT kā pētījumu formai, kaut vai skatoties uz SSRI pētījumu fiasko.


Background: There has been substantial interest from the pharmaceutical industry to study and develop new biologic agents. Previous studies outside of the biologics field have demonstrated that industry funding has the potential to impact the design and findings of clinical trials. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of industry funding on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy of biologic therapies. Methods: A review of all RCTs involving biologic therapies in top impact factor medical journals from January 2018 to December 2020 was performed. The relationship between industry funding and the presence of statistically significant primary outcomes and the use of active comparators were analyzed. Results: Among the 157 RCTs included, 120 (76%) were industry funded and 37 (24%) declared no industry funding. Industry-funded studies were significantly more likely to report a statistically significant positive primary outcome compared to studies without industry funding (85% vs. 67%, χ2 = 5.867, p = 0.015) and were significantly more likely to utilize placebo or no comparator than non-industry-funded trials (78% vs. 49%, χ2 = 4.430, p = 0.035). Conclusions: Industry-funded trials investigating biologic therapies are more likely to yield statistically significant positive outcomes and use placebo comparators when compared to non-industry-funded biologic therapy trials in high-impact medical journals.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Gazendam, A.M., Slawaska-Eng, D., Nucci, N., Bhatt, O. and Ghert, M., 2022. The impact of industry funding on randomized controlled trials of biologic therapies. Medicines, 9(3), p.18.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

>> neredzu pamatojumu dot priekšroku RCT kā pētījumu formai, kaut vai skatoties uz SSRI pētījumu fiasko.

Neiesaistoties pārējā diskusijā, šis ir aplams secinājums. Par antidepresantu vājajiem rezultātiem jau mēs zinām, tikai pateicoties RCT. Nekādus citus pierādījums regulatori jau vispār neņems vērā, jo salīdzinājumā viss pārējais ir fufelis. Protams, big pharma centīsies šmaukties arī ar RCT, bet nu tāpēc jau ir vajadzīga kritiska izvērtēšana, nevis vienkārši citēšana – “lūk, šis (ārkārtīgi zemās kvalitātes) RCT saka to un to, tāpēc tā ir vienīgā patiesība”.

(Reply to this) (Parent)