photohiker wrote:This is the problem with exaggerating claims, the program has caused at risk patients to alter their medications without consultation. Irresponsible journalism, IMO.
Picaro wrote:What was exaggerated ?
wayno wrote: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....
wayno wrote: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....
wayno wrote: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....
Picaro wrote: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.
neilmny wrote:I, as a high risk patient, like Michael will rely on my doctor and specialist to give me advice not Google.
GPSGuided wrote:High risk - Using a pirate dog as one's forum avatar.
neilmny wrote:wayno wrote: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.
LandSailor wrote: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.
neilmny wrote: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.
Picaro wrote:GPSGuided wrote:High risk - Using a pirate dog as one's forum avatar.
Got a good chuckle going for me there!
LandSailor wrote: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?
GPSGuided wrote: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 wrote:Yep The charltans are now better educated [ perhaps they always were] than the people they are scamming
LandSailor wrote:[Edit] This conversation is becoming a bit too smug and self-satisfied for my taste.
geoskid wrote:LandSailor wrote:[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 wrote:but they actually sound quite credible to me...
LandSailor wrote:Just an indirect ad-hominem "they have a web site or sell stuff".
I agree that Catalyst should have provided more balance in their program but that doesnt mean what they said had no value.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests