Dan Ostermayer 's avatar
Dan Ostermayer
ostermayer@primal.net
npub1gc64...uyek
physician metabolic health maximalist πŸ“š co-sleeping https://a.co/d/0itAvPV the simple world https://a.co/d/5u4BdMU πŸ“š
Dan Ostermayer 's avatar
ostermayer 3 weeks ago
i have helped run a wiki for emergency medicine since i was a resident and of all the things that I have done in medicine, bringing open access medical knowledge to clinicians around the world has brought me the greatest joy. No paywalls. No fees. Available at the bedside globally. at wikem.org we have created the greatest open medical textbook for clinicians. we are now using LLMs to translate every page into spanish at a speed i could have never imagined
Dan Ostermayer 's avatar
ostermayer 3 weeks ago
right now healthcare practices make money when people get sick, imagine a healthcare practice that you pay for that keeps you healthy and sick visits are free. the physician has a financial interest to keep your healthy since the less sick you are the less time they need to spend with you in the office and the less time the patient has to take time off of work to see the doctor.
Dan Ostermayer 's avatar
ostermayer 3 weeks ago
ground water filtration is a time dependent process and data centers can very easily overwhelm that process high localized water usage essentially reverses the normal filtration process taking place with the soil. data centers aren't adding nitrates but are "hyper concentrating them" by using the water faster than normal ground filtration can support image
Dan Ostermayer 's avatar
ostermayer 0 months ago
here is an example of how a pharmaceutical company can create a trial to make a drug ( in this case xofluza) look good while being essentially useless. many urgent cares are giving flu patients this med to "treat their flu". first they create a primary subjective outcome (time to symptom improvement) that endpoint showed "29 hr time" benefit for symptom improvement but when looking at return to pre-illness health it showed no significant difference compared to placebo (126.4h vs 149.8h, p=0.46) they will choose healthy patients and exclude those who may suffer adverse effects - and they exclude hospitalized patients who may not even show a benefit they will also focus on surrogate outcomes such as viral load irrespective of symptoms correlated to viral load then they will bury a red flag deep in the paper where 9.7% of baloxavir-treated patients with H3N2 developed resistance mutations during treatment. then they will perform a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis and exclude 2.6% of patients from non-GCP-compliant site to potentially minimize data on patients with side effects that prevent their trial participation all of this creates a publication that can headline as a great drug but really fails to improve patient health compared to placebo. https://files.ostermayer.co/ison2020.pdf
Dan Ostermayer 's avatar
ostermayer 1 month ago
a common refrain of preprint papers is that they "haven't undergone peer review" this is a reminder to anyone who can read and understand scientific publications "WE ARE THE PEER REVIEW" here is my review of this paper: This prospective cohort study evaluates the effectiveness of the 2024-2025 influenza vaccine among 53,402 employees of the Cleveland Clinic Health System. Using a time-dependent covariate Cox proportional hazards model, the authors report that they were unable to identify a protective effect of the vaccine. There is a strong likelihood that the results are driven by unmeasured residual confounding, specifically differential healthcare-seeking behavior and detection bias. Ther defense against this bias (Figure 2 analysis) is not great. The authors admit in the results (are driven by vaccinated individuals being significantly more likely to undergo PCR testing than unvaccinated individuals. They argue that because the test positivity rate was similar between groups (Figure 2), the higher case count involves true infection rather than PCR test seeking behavior. If the vaccine has low or null effectiveness and the vaccinated population is tested at a rate 1.5x or 2x higher than the unvaccinated population, the observed incidence rate will be higher in the vaccinated group simply due to increased case ascertainment. A similar test positivity rate across groups, combined with higher testing volume in one group, means we would expect to find more cases in the high-testing group. The study is really just measuring the "incidence of detected influenza," which appears to be a function of testing and they were unable to adjust for "propensity to seek care." It is not possible to associated increased cases of influenza with vaccination but there is no doubt from this data set that the influenza vaccine had little to zero protective effects. and therefore raises the requesting of are potential adverse effects worth it.
Dan Ostermayer 's avatar
ostermayer 1 month ago
from last year's flu vaccination season "Among 53402 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, we were unable to find a protective influence of influenza vaccination during the 2024-2025 respiratory viral season and found a significantly higher risk of influenza with vaccination when influenza activity was high." image
Dan Ostermayer 's avatar
ostermayer 1 month ago
i exclusively wear altra running and vivo barefoot shoes wide toe box always image
Dan Ostermayer 's avatar
ostermayer 1 month ago
pretty good summary of all of the great knowledge that emerged (and has been been forgotten) from the Swedish-Amoris study https://ecancer.org/en/journal/article/555-metabolic-serum-biomarkers-for-the-prediction-of-cancer-a-follow-up-of-the-studies-conducted-in-the-swedish-amoris-study/pdf most summary articles still interpret the findings from the lens of lipids and glucose synergistically drive risk risk rather than glucose drives lipid pathology and also drives cardiovascular and cancer risk
Dan Ostermayer 's avatar
ostermayer 1 month ago
the swedish amoris (Apolipoprotein-related MOrtality RISk) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313385633_The_AMORIS_cohort this landmark study showed how elevated blood glucose levels are driving the pathology that is associated with cholesterol. when humans have normal blood glucose their body thrives off of cholesterol and when they have diabetes, cholesterol becomes fuel for their internal derangements image
↑