Sanitarium "One Square Meal"

[photohiker]

Even the program differentiated between high risk patients and the general population wayno.

This is the problem with exaggerating claims, the program has caused at risk patients to alter their medications without consultation. Irresponsible journalism, IMO.

[Picaro]

What was exaggerated ?

[GPSGuided]

This is the problem with exaggerating claims, the program has caused at risk patients to alter their medications without consultation. Irresponsible journalism, IMO.

Exaggeration and partial reporting by Catalyst, hallmarks of bad journalism. The program has lost credibility in my book.

[photohiker]

What was exaggerated ?

The program presented several overseas bloggers negative opinions about the effectiveness of statins without balance from current research or Australian context and medical opinion. Some of the bloggers opinions supported the sale of the same bloggers' online sales of books and supplements, but this was not mentioned in the program. By raising a media storm about the misuse of statins (which does exist, and largely in non cardiac patients in the US), the program has caused doubts in the minds of actual at risk Australian cardiac patients who have been prescribed statins, some of whom have removed statins from their treatment regime based on the presentation of statins as unnecessary in the Catalyst program, and without taking medical advice.

Very shortly before the airing of part two of the program, the ABC and the Catalyst presenter released a piece advising viewers to seek medical advice before changing their treatment. This IMO, is a clear indication that they knew the outcome would lead some viewers down that path and probably the legal department required a disclaimer to accompany the program.

They are playing Russian roulette with the lives of people who are cardiac patients. Many of these people are elderly and suffer some cognitive impairment.

Irresponsible journalism, IMO. I agree with GPSG, this is a credibility hit on the presenter and Catalyst.

[wayno]

just google about health problems with statins, and you'll be overwhelmed with the results. theres massive law suits going on in the states over issues with peoples health caused by them... they are a sledge hammer being used to crack a nut....

[photohiker]

just google about health problems with statins, and you'll be overwhelmed with the results. theres massive law suits going on in the states over issues with peoples health caused by them... they are a sledge hammer being used to crack a nut....

lol. Probably they are being overused in the US way more than here. If they have side effects, then you would see more reports the more doses being taken.

wayno, this is not the US. If statins bring side effects, there has to be balance between the benefits and consequences of taking them. Same goes for almost every drug, some are better, some are worse. Google is not a scientific medical research purveyor, but it is a very effective megaphone for public opinion whether it is supported by research or not.

eg: 'asprin side effects' brings 22 million hits. 'statin side effects' brings 2.4 million hits.

[wayno]

yup you dont need a prescription for asprin. you do for statins... far more people take asprin over a wider age range than statins....

[photohiker]

Thanks,

I'll take my medico's advice on both over google or Catalyst.

The issue remains that the Catalyst program has effected people at risk, whose specialists have prescribed drugs understanding their side effects with a view to improving the patients survival in the presence of heart disease.

[neilmny]

just google about health problems with statins, and you'll be overwhelmed with the results. theres massive law suits going on in the states over issues with peoples health caused by them... they are a sledge hammer being used to crack a nut....

I'm overwhelmed by your trust in Google Wayno....I hope you relaise that Google takes no responsibility for
the information you receive........it's just a search engine. It finds and collates stuff on the basis of key words.

I, as a high risk patient, like Michael will rely on my doctor and specialist to give me advice not Google.

[Picaro]

Just wondering what criteria Aussie GP's use to determine high risk. I don't actually know that, and I don't have a GP to ask.

[GPSGuided]

just google about health problems with statins, and you'll be overwhelmed with the results. theres massive law suits going on in the states over issues with peoples health caused by them... they are a sledge hammer being used to crack a nut....

Google any medication and there'll be complications and issues. That's the nature of human biology and medicine. As for law suits, breast implant recipients received massive payments for the carcinogenicity that was never proven in science. That's just the nature of the society and are not adequate evidence of wrongdoing. The true issue here is, one should commence a medication based on evidence and being sensible. Similarly, for ceasing a medication. The Catalyst program has but generated hysteria, leading to irrational decisions. That's where the fault is.

[GPSGuided]

High risk - Using a pirate dog as one's forum avatar.

[neilmny]

Just wondering what criteria Aussie GP's use to determine high risk. I don't actually know that, and I don't have a GP to ask.

In my case a massive heart attack that I obviously survived together with a family history of CAD = high risk.

[Picaro]

Yeah I know that there is solid numbers to show lowered risk of further attack for folk after an initial event.

Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk

[LandSailor]

I, as a high risk patient, like Michael will rely on my doctor and specialist to give me advice not Google.

Even if that advice might be damaging your health? The episodes on Catalyst may not have been balanced but that doesnt mean that some of the points made are being taken more and more seriously by some pretty eminent people including cardiologists and the Swedish Board of Health. And the fact that some of the people interviewed have published books is not particularly damning. Thats what people do when they are concerned about an issue. I mean Charles Darwin and Isaac Newton both wrote books?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... eries.html

"Dr Malhotra said the government’s obsession with cholesterol ‘has led to the over-medication of millions of people with statins’.
But why has there been no demonstrable effect on heart disease trends when eight million Britons are being prescribed cholesterol-lowering drugs, he asked."

My own view is that if you want to stick to the standard recommended low-fat, high-carb diet then perhaps there is some benefit in using statins to suppress all the negative consequences of that diet. But if you really want to fix the problem you are much better off fundamentally changing what you eat.

"Adopting a Mediterranean diet after a heart attack is almost three times as powerful in reducing death rates as taking a statin, which have been linked to unacceptable side effects in real-world use, he added."

[Picaro]

High risk - Using a pirate dog as one's forum avatar.

Got a good chuckle going for me there!

Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk

[wayno]

just google about health problems with statins, and you'll be overwhelmed with the results. theres massive law suits going on in the states over issues with peoples health caused by them... they are a sledge hammer being used to crack a nut....

I'm overwhelmed by your trust in Google Wayno....I hope you relaise that Google takes no responsibility for
the information you receive........it's just a search engine. It finds and collates stuff on the basis of key words.

I, as a high risk patient, like Michael will rely on my doctor and specialist to give me advice not Google.

i'm not suggesting google is gospel but there is enough information there about issues with statins to make me wonder about how safe they really are

[neilmny]

Landsailor do you have CAD or the family history risk?

I have no side effects from any of my medication, I am healthier, stronger, have more stamina than at any time in my life and I'm 59 years old.
You also assume I haven't done anything other than take Statins??????????????

People also write books when they want to make a dollar, just like the drug companies in the US that are reportedly (by Catalyst) lining the wallets of medical practitioners that
prescribe their products.

Also note that Catalyst are on the run with disclaimers all over the place saying they are not offering medical advice, I wonder was this disclaimer on the original
progam, I think they know they've stuffed up big time and they could be in the poop. Time will tell.

[photohiker]

My own view is that if you want to stick to the standard recommended low-fat, high-carb diet then perhaps there is some benefit in using statins to suppress all the negative consequences of that diet. But if you really want to fix the problem you are much better off fundamentally changing what you eat.

I think I missed something here. How will a stain suppress all the negative consequences of a low-fat, high-carb diet ?

I agree with modifying lifestyle and food balance as a strategy for better health before and after heart events. In fact, especially before. From watching people around me, I can see that after is not always that successful so the medicos have no choice but to use what they've got to extract the best result.

I will point out that I am not suffering from heart disease, but after hearing from neilmy, we are reminded that with the right attitude and advice it doesn't have to end badly.

Also note that Catalyst are on the run with disclaimers all over the place saying they are not offering medical advice, I wonder was this disclaimer on the original
progam, I think they know they've stuffed up big time and they could be in the poop. Time will tell.

If I remember correctly, it was not on the first program, but preceded the second and was included in the second program (I think at the start, but it may have been repeated).

[GPSGuided]

High risk - Using a pirate dog as one's forum avatar.

Got a good chuckle going for me there!

Then I can guarantee you that you have just lowered your risks, through your chuckles!

But to seriously answer your questions on high risk, I would suggest taking one step back and understand that risks are incremental through various sources. It's not a binary event. In the meantime, medical health scientists have to work out a statistically reasonable set of indications for any particular drug and treatment therapy. As such, there'll always be a significant grey area that's subject to judgement. Further, not all studies concludes exactly the same. So amongst the sea of research literature, it's up to the intelligent health professional to decipher the specific indication they'll use any particular treatment. In practice, professional bodies such as the Heart Foundation, College of Physicians, FDA and others come out with a set of simplified guidelines to assist their members. That's what the great majority of medical prescribers will apply.

One example on the definition of high risk is in this PDF brochure from the UK (search "high risk").
http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/1 ... /40675.pdf

Life is a statistical risk. Death is a statistical risk. Medical treatment is also a statistical risk. One pick and choose actions to ensure the risks are stacked away from oneself and then wish the odds are there when the actual dice is rolled. Even with the best odds, one may just get very unlucky. That's called life.

[photohiker]

And the fact that some of the people interviewed have published books is not particularly damning. Thats what people do when they are concerned about an issue. I mean Charles Darwin and Isaac Newton both wrote books?

So Charles Darwin had a website peddling his opinion and selling supplements? No, he developed an hypothesis, wrote a scientific work and backed it up with years of evidence.

Contrast:

Dr Michael Eades: http://www.metabosol.com/ http://www.proteinpower.com/

Dr Johnny Bowden: http://www.jonnybowden.com/ http://www.rockwellnutrition.com/

Dr Earnest Curtis wrote the book 'The Cholesterol Delusion'. Looks like a good read on Cholesterol from the reviews. No blogsite that I have seen.

Dr Steven Sinatra: http://www.heartmdinstitute.com/ http://www.drsinatra.com/

I have nothing against these people having books and websites. Good luck to them. I do have problems with them being selected as oracles of medical opinion as they are clearly biassed for publicity and income based on that publicity.

I'm not handing drug companies a free pass either, but if we are going to run a supposedly scientific show on heart disease and medication then we should have more of the likes of Dr David Sullivan who was the sole credible voice for medical science on the show IMO.

[GPSGuided]

It's a sad day for our science education system when adults can't differentiate proper science, pseudo-science, "wacko" ideas and charlatans. Yet again, we always had them throughout human history. Those on the fringes just got smarter in the way they presented their wares, through their education.

[Moondog55]

It's a sad day for our science education system when adults can't differentiate proper science, pseudo-science, "wacko" ideas and charlatans. Yet again, we always had them throughout human history. Those on the fringes just got smarter in the way they presented their wares, through their education.

Yep The charltans are now better educated [ perhaps they always were] than the people they are scamming

[GPSGuided]

Yep The charltans are now better educated [ perhaps they always were] than the people they are scamming

Yep, there are no stupid charlatans. Any half decent charlatan are invariably well above average in intelligence or they'll never survive the job on hand. Then they have more than half of the population as their potential customer base.

[LandSailor]

[Edit] This conversation is becoming a bit too smug and self-satisfied for my taste.

[geoskid]

[Edit] This conversation is becoming a bit too smug and self-satisfied for my taste.

Ahh, but where is it not true, that is the question. Otherwise, the objection is about hurt feelings, and there is no end to that!

[LandSailor]

[Edit] This conversation is becoming a bit too smug and self-satisfied for my taste.

Ahh, but where is it not true, that is the question. Otherwise, the objection is about hurt feelings, and there is no end to that!

Where is what not true? I cant find any substantial criticism of their message.
Just an indirect ad-hominem "they have a web site or sell stuff".

I just had a look at the full unedited interviews of the various people who appeared on Catalyst (you know..the charlatans expousing pseudo-science and
"wacko" ideas because they have a web site).
Maybe Im a stupid, gullible fool but they actually sound quite credible to me.
Experienced people with a real interest in the subject matter talking about both the science (or lack of it) and their own personal experiences after decades in
the medical profession. Nothing like the greedy snake oil salesman that some have inferred here.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/heartoft ... efault.htm

I agree that Catalyst should have provided more balance in their program but that doesnt mean what they said had no value.

I would be interested to hear what people have to say about the actual points they make.
Whether they have a web site or not, is not really relevant.

[GPSGuided]

but they actually sound quite credible to me...

That's what every conned victim said...

[photohiker]

Just an indirect ad-hominem "they have a web site or sell stuff".

If pointing out that someone has bias is ad hominem, then there are no standards to the discussion.

Catalyst brought a bunch of people with an axe to grind to the program but failed to reveal their bias and failed to balance them with science. Forgive me for pointing that out.

They may well have some good points, but we may never know. Their opinions have been let loose with no bounds or balance. They may 'sound quite credible' but in a scientific discussion credibility is not based on impressions, it's based on research and results which is severely lacking from the web book and supplement salesmen that took over the show.

I agree that Catalyst should have provided more balance in their program but that doesnt mean what they said had no value.

It had a lot of value to the at risk people who discontinued their medication. They found it more credible than their specialist advice. Will Catalyst attend and apologise at their next heart event?

Irresponsible journalism.

[wayno]

friend of mine is a naturopath, patients who come to him on statins for the lengthiest period of time all have serious health isues and he has improved their health by treating them with nutrition and removing them from statins