Sanitarium "One Square Meal"

[GPSGuided]

GPS that's the whole point!
The guidelines are a lot of bollocks!

I think that's putting it a bit too strong, and depends on which specific guideline you are talking about. Guideline may be there but way more people are enthusiastic about fad and specialty diet than just following government guidelines.

[photohiker]

Yep, excess salt ain't good, no argument from me, but I hadn't heard it was an artery clogger before.

When you look at processed foods, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that food companies are trying to kill off their customers.

[GPSGuided]

When you look at processed foods, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that food companies are trying to kill off their customers.

Nay! They want to suck your wallet dry and get you to reproduce for the next generation of buyers. After all that, you become worthless.

[icefest]

Yep, excess salt ain't good, no argument from me, but I hadn't heard it was an artery clogger before.

When you look at processed foods, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that food companies are trying to kill off their customers.

That's like saying cigarette companies are trying to kill their customers, when actually all they want to do is make money.
...unless they also own a large amount of funeral services (although even then killing customers is just another way to make money).

[photohiker]

True. Perhaps 'blatant disregard for customers health' would be better.

[perfectlydark]

There would have been many cost/benefit analysis done for sure. Cost always won

[wayno]

part two of catalyst series
cholesterol

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3881441.htm

[photohiker]

Interesting episode.

Apart from the hammering the drug companies took for their management of clinical trials and the change to the accepted Cholesterol limit from 6.5 to 5.0, the other thing that struck me was that there were comments in this episode that ran against the thrust of the first episode.

eg: Rita Redburg. "Its bad for your health to eat processed food, to eat trans fats and have a regular diet of fast food hamburgers"

(she doesn't mention the saturated fats in fast food hamburgers which were the enemy in last week's episode)

Prof Abraham: " Exercise and a Mediterranean style diet is the best way to prevent heart disease, virtually everyone agrees with that"

These diets are low in saturated fat but high in mono- and polyunsaturated fats, which are found in olive oil and vegetable seed oils.

Again, this episode did not provide a balanced viewpoint, and painted any MD who prescribes statins as a possible criminal. There were about 6 people against statins, and a lone Dr Sullivan standing up for current medical practice. Poor bloke!

Bottom line: Keep Exercising or you're toast!

[GPSGuided]

I think that the media (even ABC) has found how "fun" it can be to sensationalise a highly technical field and bring it out for "public debate" and as a "service" to the public. Think climate debate, think childhood vaccination. These subjects really should stay as matters for the experts to argue and debate at their conferences. Bringing it out in such a manner will just confuse and potentially harm the public. A serious dis-service to the community. But great for web site page hits and TV ratings.

Yes, that's the Dr David Sullivan I know. I take his words above all else. Credible, sensible and a steady hand clinically.

[Moondog55]

Well it will be interesting if, in the future, our current increase in the incidence of Alzheimers is related to; and linked to: the rash of statin prescribing.

Drugs are not the answer to lifestyle decisions, unless of course the lifestyle decision is the drugs themselves

[icefest]

I have not yet had a chance to see the video about statins.

From a medical perspective though, we have learnt that exercise and weight loss are much more effective than any statin in reducing cardiovascular risk.
How many people listen to their doctor telling them to loose weight and exercise though? Often statins are prescribed because the patient refuses to do anything else and wants a 'quick fix'.

[GPSGuided]

Well it will be interesting if, in the future, our current increase in the incidence of Alzheimers is related to; and linked to: the rash of statin prescribing.

Highly doubt it. For the size of population, statin use is still relatively limited. In any case, it's only normal to see more dementia of all form when life expectancy increases.

[photohiker]

How many people listen to their doctor telling them to loose weight and exercise though? Often statins are prescribed because the patient refuses to do anything else and wants a 'quick fix'.

+1

Patient wouldn't see it that way though. They mostly listen all right, but they struggle to change habits of a lifetime. There is a certain self-deception going on when you can quietly ignore your regular consumption of a bag of chips or <insert your fast processed food here> while telling the doc you're following his instructions...

In the end, I guess the Doc has no choice but to apply the bandaids.

[GPSGuided]

Correct. Doctors can't babysit a patient. Even when prescribing tablets, compliance remains to be a major issue.

[Strider]

Time to split the topic, perhaps?

[Nuts]

Oh.. sorry, i did start reading... please, fair call but can someone suggest where to split and what to call the new topic?

[GPSGuided]

Oh.. sorry, i did start reading... please, fair call but can someone suggest where to split and what to call the new topic?

After the third post?

[photohiker]

Could be a bit of a barney coming up between the HF and the ABC.

Heart Foundation 'shocked' at ABC decision to run Catalyst program on cholesterol drugs statins

Good points raised regarding the lack of Aussie context.

[wayno]

abc can do what they like, HF can just deal with it.... big money instead of real science has swayed the powers that be in the medical establishment.

[GPSGuided]

Hard call there! ABC reporters aren't experts in the field but fly-in, fly-out reporter on a specific subject and can easily twist the consensus view of the scientific community. I'd place significantly more weight on what the HF has to say on this subject. It's not right to highlight the influence of businesses as HF's views have to be heavily referenced by the body of scientific research and is subject to debates and reviews by all experts in the field. A news report often lack that oversight.

[Moondog55]

I would have said the ABC report was merely highlighting our reliance on drugs to solve a lifestyle issue. Drugs that may or may not be beneficial, certainly all the practicing clinical nurses in my family tell me to avoid them like the plague and simply get more exercise and loose a little weight, also anecdotally; low cholesterol levels lead to all sorts of problems

[photohiker]

I think it's a fair call to claim that medico's are influenced to some extent by drug companies. They are part of the medical ecosystem if I can call it that.

What is not fair without supporting evidence is to claim that Statins are overprescribed for non heart disease patients to the extent they are in the US. Playing US adverts to us to paint the drug companies is a bit of a straw man tactic- relevant for the US, but not here. Direct prescription medicine advertising is not legal in this country. I do have to ask why the reporter felt the need to gather most of her evidence in the US to play in Australia.

GPSGuided, I wouldn't play down the reporter's credentials without checking them first. She has a Phd in med research and a bunch of experience in research, she's not really a fly-in reporter.

Moondog, Agree with your lifestyle comments, couldn't agree more. I recently listened to a blog talk online with a Sydney cardio, Ross Walker and he listed 5 principles to stay healthy:

1) No Addictions
2) Cultivate good sleeping habits
3) Eat good quality food and less of it. (Eat less and eat more naturally)
4) Exercise 3-5hrs every week.
5) Happiness, peace and contentment.

He reckons you can expect to have 70% less diseases if you follow these guidelines. I don't know of this doc, but that makes a lot of sense to me.

[Moondog55]

US is very relevant to Australia as we seem to follow on, it's the time lag that confuses us, and that is getting shorter and shorter.

Can you not see laws changing to allow drug/prescription/medical advertising?

[wayno]

mate of mine is a naturopath, and one of the biggest problems he faces is people who are on statins with all sorts of health problems, and thers a patterns with the drugs and the problems, he get them on a good diet, wens them off the drugs and he gets result with time.... he thinks statins are using a sledge hammer to crack a nut.. my head had a minir heart arhythmia, he walked miles and miles and miles he was put on statins and beta blockers, one day out of the blue his heart stopped, he'd never had a serious problem with clogged arteries, he didnt eat a lot of fat and cholesterol. he was a vegetarian, watched what he ate carefully, his health went downhill rapidly after he was put on the drugs, i was alarmed, i think he could have been left off the drugs and coped for years longer than he did....

[photohiker]

US is very relevant to Australia as we seem to follow on, it's the time lag that confuses us, and that is getting shorter and shorter.

Can you not see laws changing to allow drug/prescription/medical advertising?

I kinda doubt the laws will change anytime soon, but I guess anything is possible. Basic reason is the PBS where the government sponsors a range of medications, including those that would be heavily advertised if the laws were relaxed. Budget says no.

The facts are that there are no changes to the laws mooted, so the current situation shows the playing of that advert in the doco as irrelevant to the current Australian situation which is purportedly what the doco is about.

[GPSGuided]

I would have said the ABC report was merely highlighting our reliance on drugs to solve a lifestyle issue. Drugs that may or may not be beneficial, certainly all the practicing clinical nurses in my family tell me to avoid them like the plague and simply get more exercise and loose a little weight, also anecdotally; low cholesterol levels lead to all sorts of problems

I think that's a good take home message. Fact is, every medication can potentially kill, along with numerous potential side-effects. We know this because there's science behind it. However, there are proper indication for the use of those medications and there are times when they aren't suited. That's an important call the professionals can make in consultation with the patient. Read and discuss is the desired approach.

[GPSGuided]

GPSGuided, I wouldn't play down the reporter's credentials without checking them first. She has a Phd in med research and a bunch of experience in research, she's not really a fly-in reporter.

There are PhD in medical research and PhD in medical research. Scientific subjects these days are highly focused and unless one specialises in a particular field, it's like night and day. Hence, one needs to know who the experts in a particular field is and take guidance from it. People outside of a particular field can easily mis-interpret for their lack of perspective in that subject. Instant expert by reading a few reviews and making a few interviews just doesn't happen. Further, a PhD in medical research (likely science background) typically lack the clinical perspective. The considerations b/n of a lab scientist can be very different to that of someone who crosses both lab and clinicals.

In any case, objective has been achieved, in generating a high level of public interest, involvement of professional bodies and hit rate on the ABC. However, I am not sure the wider public is the beneficiary out of this, leaving with a sense scepticism.

Last edited by GPSGuided on Sat 02 Nov, 2013 11:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

[wayno]

the results of experiments get massaged through all sorts of formulas, they can be massaged to suit the results you want to a certain extent especially when the drug company is funding the research and only using the data they want to use, in the way they want to use it. ... theres a lot of money and pressure riding on getting the drugs to market to make a return, as they said it can be a couple of billion to develop a drug, its a major pressure on the drug company to get the drug to market to get a return. if they couldnt do that they wouldnt stay in business...

[GPSGuided]

US is very relevant to Australia as we seem to follow on, it's the time lag that confuses us, and that is getting shorter and shorter.
Can you not see laws changing to allow drug/prescription/medical advertising?

Very complicated. I do not like the US model but they do have influence on us. At the same time, I doubt out medical system will match their. There still are fundamental differences.

True that drug/prescription/medical advertising are changing. But I'd say a bit part is not so much the pharmaceutical industry working on the medical profession but their influence on our political establishment. Outside of drugs, if you look at medical advertising, you'll often find that the company that owns those adverts are health providers, but often owned by big business, run by non-medical CEOs. Private investors are buying up big in the medical and dental fields. Many medical doctors and dentists, even with their brass still outside the door, they are in fact working for corporate businesses. As for the government, they are not just easily influenced by big business spenders, but they are primarily interested in reducing their health expenditure. Heavy reduction in medical consultation fees, esp. GPs, simply makes long consultation unviable. To my knowledge, despite their willingness and tries hard, many GPs simply can't afford it. If they join a medical centre, the pressure from the business directors to keep consultations short is even greater. Hence, finding a good traditional GP who is willing to spend his/her time to consult is like finding gold in our current health environment. At the same time, many patients aren't willing to wait in the consultation room for these traditional GPs, and takes their Medicare card to those quick in-out medical centres. So, the problem isn't one sided.

[GPSGuided]

the results of experiments get massaged through all sorts of formulas, they can be massaged to suit the results you want to a certain extent especially when the drug company is funding the research and only using the data they want to use, in the way they want to use it. ... theres a lot of money and pressure riding on getting the drugs to market to make a return, as they said it can be a couple of billion to develop a drug, its a major pressure on the drug company to get the drug to market to get a return. if they couldnt do that they wouldnt stay in business...

You are absolutely correct in that, and pharmaceutical companies do apply their influences at all levels, from government policy to PBS approval to GPs. However, it's also important to recognize that knowledge on efficacy of a particular drug aren't all based on drug company sponsored trials. Many research groups apply for independent funding to examine new drugs. A well trained doctor would actively search and consider these in their clinical decision making. Even with drug company sponsored trials, especially those conducted for registration through the FDA, you'd be amazed by the level of regulations on them. It's not easy at all for companies to influence results and not get picked up. The penalties are severe. There are also many many heavily invested drugs that could not demonstrate efficacy following such a trial. Bottomline, people need to have confidence in the overall health system and not get carried away by incidental events that get inflamed by the media and others.