POT POURRI II

Little does it matter that contrary to what he claims alcohol consumption has decreased in Canada since 2004, the Nova Scotia Chief Medical Officer, Robert Strang is launching a crusade against alcohol . 

Alors que l’O.M.S. nous annonce qu’ ‘’en matière de boisson, il n’existe aucun seuil de sécurité’’ une étude norvégienne effectuée auprès de 149 729 personnes nous confirme qu’une consommation modérée d’alcool serait bénéfique pour le cœur et réduirait les risques de décès par maladies coronariennes de 40 %.  Le Canada pour sa part, adopte désormais des nouvelles normes de consommation d’alcool. 

The myth that smokers and the obese are burdening the healthcare system has once again been debunked.  ‘’ A leading actuary has lampooned health lobby figures on the costs of smoking and obesity as being extravagantly inflated and based on suspect methodology.’’

‘’Smokegate’’ happened long before climategate as we can read from this 1995 letter from one of Australia’s top anti-smoker activists to his colleagues.    http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/ETS1.jpg
http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/ETS2.jpg

 

Climategate 2.0: Une nouvelle publication de courriers électroniques refait tanguer le débat 

sur le réchauffement climatique.

Chemins de fer autrichiens : le retour du compartiment fumeurs.  ‘’En bon businessman, 

l'ancien directeur  des CFF a compris qu'on ne peut se priver impunément d'une clientèle qui représente  30 % de la population: les fumeurs.’’

The British Medical Association (BMA) retracts original press release that uses bad science to justify car smoking bans.  Brian Monteith: BMA’s ‘facts’ prove to be all smoke and mirrors 

Un juge fédéral américain a émis une injonction préliminaire bloquant  les avertissements graphiques sur les produits de tabac, jugeant que ceux-ci enfreignaient les droits constitutionnels des compagnies de tabac. 

 Irvin Leroux, the beleaguered taxpayer who suffered financial ruin following a nightmare audit by Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), has won the right to continue his lawsuit against the CRA in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

 

Le Canada part en croisade contre le sel malgré qu’une telle campagne peut être néfaste 

pour la santé d’un bon nombre de personnes.  Lire notre analyse (en anglais) à http://cagecanada.blogspot.com/2011/11/is-sodium-reduction-campaign-worth-ones.html 

MEDICAL STUDIES ARE MOSTLY UNRELIABLE ACCORDING TO DR. JOHN IOANNIDIS

C.A.G.E. has often commented how scientific studies reported by the mainstream media either contradict each other or are not coherent with what we observe in our day to day life to a point where we are now so confused about what is good or bad for us we just don’t pay notice anymore.

Those of us who totally ignore the medical findings that we read or hear, are probably the ones with the right attitude observes Dr. John Ioannidis who has spent his career challenging his peers.

The following article and Dr. Ioannidis’ paper itself (linked below), lucidly explain what makes today’s medical studies so unreliable. Whether it has to do with conflicts of interest because of the funding, the scientists’ ardent desire to be published in a respected medical journal and gain recognition, the insatiable appetite to get more funding, the cozy relationship between the authors and the peer reviewers, the false findings that become infectious and are carried over from study to study, or the disproved results of flawed studies that are still touted as factual, are some of the main reasons why, in Dr. Ioannidis’ expert opinion, medical studies should not be given much credence.

The medical and scientific communities have been given too much latitude for far too long. ‘’University and government research overseers rarely step in to directly enforce research quality, and when they do, the science community goes ballistic over the outside interference,’’ the author of the article tells us. This is quite alarming especially that it deals with our well-being, our medication, our life and our death. Have we come to the point that since the scientific community doesn’t show any encouraging signs to discipline its members and that the government has no particular interest to step in, that we will have to rely only on our common sense and instinct to separate falsehoods from truth? How can we rely on such sloppy science to establish sound public health policies?

Regrettably, even when the more informed of us attempt to engage in meaningful discussions with our doctor, specialists and the medical community in general, we are often dismissed either as arrogant know-it-alls or conspiracy theorists who spend too much time on the internet. This must never stop us nevertheless from keeping the medical community in check. If each and every single one of us asked the right questions to the right authorities, we are bound to eventually see some improvement in the way they deal with our lives.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

TWIST AND SHOUT

The twist of the findings in a study that attempted to prove that smoking causes one to put on weight is absolutely staggering.

This research desperately attempted to debunk that smoking suppresses appetite, one positive aspect of smoking which has been a given for years. But rabid anti-smokers and ‘’no safe level’’ dogmatists, cannot & will not allow anything positive about smoking to remain on record. They desperately struggle to disprove anything and everything remotely positive about smoking even if that means they will twist, torture and misrepresent the findings.

The headline of the press release and picked up by the media is: Smoking increases the chances of being overweight according to a study by the University of Navarra

Let’s examine what they found according to their press release alone. Linking to the study itself if we had access to it might reveal further irregularities.

‘’ Participants who quit smoking during follow-up showed a greater relative weight gain, with some difference between sexes: over 1.5 kilos in men and about 1.0 kilo in women. In addition, active smokers had higher weight gain than those who were never smokers: about 0.5 kg in men and 0.36 kg in women.’’

No fancy expensive study was required to tell us what everyone already knows namely that quitting smoking may cause someone to put on weight and it generally does. But this has nothing to do with smoking itself; it has to do with quitting smoking! It is as absurd as claiming that food causes one to lose weight, since one most certainly will if they lowered their calorie intake!

As for the slight difference in weight gain of smokers who didn’t quit vs. non-smokers, if it is in fact a true finding of the study, here’s how the researchers attempt to explain it:

"possible reasons as to why tobacco smoking is related to weight gain are purely speculative. All the details are not known, but in most cases there is a common denominator: they are people with less will power when it comes to looking after their health.’’

Neither finding can justify that smoking itself causes weight gain! The researchers don’t even deserve an E for effort! The only mark that should be given to them for their ‘’twist & shout’’ study is a well deserved FD – Failure for Dishonesty. Talk about junk science and waste of precious human and financial resources!

Smoking increases the chances of being overweight according to a study by the University of Navarra

MONKEY SEE MONKEY DO

When there is no science to back anti-tobacco activists’ claims, generalizations should do the trick. At least this is what two critics of the second hand smoke hysteria are suggesting to the ban smoking in cars proponents.

It appears the researchers of a paper titled ‘’ Second-hand smoke in cars: How did the "23 times more toxic" myth turn into fact?’’ desperately attempted to find the scientific literature backing up the ‘’second hand smoke being 23 times more toxic in a car than in a smoker’s home‘’ claim, but found none. They traced the contention down to a U.S.A. newspaper article that anti-tobacco lobbyists as well as the government picked up and repeated ad nauseam since.

The Ontario Medical Association (OMA) stretched the science even further by claiming that it was 27 times more harmful! The monkey see monkey do mentality was also demonstrated through the Ontario Lung Association, the Canadian Cancer Society and who knows how many more such ‘’me too’’ organizations.

The researchers therefore suggest that any anti-tobacco activist pushing for smoking bans in cars should stop using this argument and use generalizations instead: ''Researchers and organizations should stop using the 23 times more toxic "fact" because of the lack of evidence in scientific literature, the authors suggest. Instead, advocates of the ban should just make sweeping generalizations about the risks of secondhand smoke exposure and mention children if possible. Something like, "exposure to second-hand smoke in cars poses a significant health risk and...vulnerable children who cannot remove themselves from this smoky environment must be protected," would be a good substitute for the bogus statistic.''

As long as we are made to believe that ''it's for the children'' who needs science?

Researchers Criticize Secondhand Smoke Hype

SECOND HAND JUNK FOOD

No, this has nothing to do with junk food leftovers from the night before. It pertains to the fumes emitted by the cooking of unhealthy foods according to a study conducted in Minnesota and presented at the 239th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society in San Francisco.

With a stroke of the pen, the ad nauseam anti-smoker industry’s argument that the main thing that distinguishes tobacco smoke from other unhealthy habits is that it is shared with innocent by-standers, has henceforth become null and void.

Brace yourselves grilled and fried food lovers, because this study makes you an inconsiderate, irresponsible and selfish second class citizen. Health oriented citizens who have chosen not to partake in the dangerous habit of eating unhealthy foods now fall victims to your selfish desire to eat a hamburger, fried chicken or French fries at their local eatery which emits carcinogens and other air pollutants because of their hazardous way of cooking. As a matter of fact, after having read this study, a few eateries felt compelled to change their ways towards more responsible cooking. However, if they don’t all adopt voluntary measures fast enough as we might expect they won’t, get ready to be labeled as citizens who encourage air pollution, filthy junk food addicts, paid pawns of the fastfood chains and don’t be surprised if your neighbor summons you to stop grilling or frying in your own home.

''As a hungry consumer,(…) you might want to avoid restaurants with particularly strong food smells, as odor indicates the presence of emissions. If you see grease dripping out of outdoor exhaust fans, that's a bad sign, too. The good news is that advances in ventilation are coming.''

What’s this about advances in ventilation? If the state of the art ventilation that already exists is not good enough for SHS, it won't be good enough for second hand junk food emissions either. Get ready to eat plenty of boiled or steamed food, including your meat if you're still allowed to consume any.

Noone can say that we didn't warn you that that's exactly where we would be heading the day we allowed public health to dictate our daily lives on the basis of junk science!

Fatty Food Fumes Could Be Dangerous

THE BRUSSELS DECLARATION

An important message from TICAP (The International Coalition Against Prohibition)

Please invite as many citizens as you can to sign this very important declaration, direct result of the Brussels Forbidden Conference of January 2009.

Concerned scientists and ordinary citizens now have the opportunity to join others in making their voice heard.

We seek endorsement of the 'Brussels Declaration on Scientific Integrity' by politicians, community leaders, academics, writers, journalists and non-governmental organisations from all all over the world.

This Brussels Declaration is a statement of ethical and scientific principles calling for the return to the Scientific Method as the guiding qualifier for the definition of a study as scientific. It was initiated during the TICAP conference in Brussels that was held on January 27-28, 2009.

By choosing to sign the Brussels Declaration you have an opportunity to show your support for change and demand your government act to protect your freedoms.

TWO POLITICAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PRICE OF ONE

It is happy hour in the wonderful world of politicized science! Two political statements for the price of one!

Obesity has now been linked to global warming if we believe the team of researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Loyal to their ‘’end justifies the means’’ philosophy, it matters very little if at all, how ridiculous these nit-picking findings sound. How much money and precious human resources were wasted on this brand new piece of pseudoscience to further de-normalize and shame the obese into compliance?

Exactly like the anti-tobacco campaign, the anti-obesity campaign, has now ceased demonizing the product and is fast becoming a war against the obese. No longer content to educate citizens about unhealthy foods, we are now shamelessly targeting those who may or may not be consuming them.

The obese will be joining the smokers in the ''undesirable'' ever growing social parade even faster than we had originally predicted. In fact it is an admitted strategy in the anti-obesity propagandists’ playbook as this article in the Ottawa Citizen reports: Tackle obesity like smoking, says researcher

From the Montreal Gazette:
Obesity is contributing to global warming: study

Obesity contributes to global warming, too.

Obese and overweight people require more fuel to transport them and the food they eat, and the problem will worsen as the population literally swells in size, a team at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine says.

This adds to food shortages and higher energy prices, the school's researchers, Phil Edwards and Ian Roberts, wrote in the journal Lancet published today. In their model, they pegged 40 per cent of the global population as obese with a body mass index of near 30. Many nations are fast approaching or have surpassed this level.

The researchers found that obese people require 1,680 daily calories to sustain normal energy and another 1,280 calories to maintain daily activities, 18 per cent more than someone with a stable BMI.

A slimmer population would lower demand for fuel for transportation and for agriculture. This is also important because 20 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions stem from agriculture.

WOMEN TARGETED IN DRINK CAMPAIGN

The interest in the UK Telegraph article about alcohol that you can read here, is not so much the article itself which is just another piece of fear mongering from public health in the UK (soon to come to a neighborhood near you), but the comments that the readers left.

The UK citizens that commented, are collectively outraged at how much their government is now controlling their lives based on false statistics and outright lies. The general sentiment portrayed in the comments, is a cry that enough is enough and that the UK Telegraph should stop serving as a mouth piece for all this propaganda and do some investigative journalism instead.

As public health becomes more and more aggressive against lifestyle issues, people are opening their eyes to a reality we predicted only three years ago.

The driving force behind government encroachment into our lives, starts at the WHO (World Health Organization) and spreads like a cancer throughout all civilized societies starting with those countries where pharmaceutical giants have a bigger control and powerful front groups to do their bidding.

One commentator suggested that the killjoys take a pill and get over it already. May we remind this commentator that this is indeed where they’re leading us. A pill for every ailment real or invented!

From Scientists predict brave new world of brain pills here are some of the items on their menu:

On the menu: range of treatments

· Ritalin (methylphenidate) is used by a small number of students in an attempt to improve exam results and by business people to improve performance in the boardroom

· D-amphetamine also improves memory but only for people of a certain genetic make-up

· Rimonabant is used as an antidote to the intoxicant effects of cannabis and a treatment for heroin relapse. But it is sometimes also used to enhance the high produced by these drugs by reducing their side-effects

· Naltrexone is already used to treat chronic alcoholism and narcotic abuse. It works by blocking the pleasure receptors that are normally activated in the brain when people use the drugs

· Propranolol, a beta-blocker, is used to treat high blood pressure, angina, and abnormal heart rhythms. It is also used sometimes by snooker players to calm their nerves

· Modafinil, a stimulant developed to treat narcolepsy, has been used by soldiers to improve memory and judgment. It is also used in treatment of cocaine addiction

From University of Connecticut is fighting alcoholism with a pill

The potential market for alcoholism drugs is huge. Roughly 17.6 million Americans -- about 8 percent of the adult population -- suffer from alcohol dependence or abuse, according to the NIH. And alcohol-related illness costs the nation an estimated $86 billion a year in lost productivity, according to government data. By shifting treatment into the private realm of a doctor's office, these new drugs could appeal to people who would otherwise never seek help in a group setting such as AA.

"What it will do is make alcoholism a mainstream problem that family practitioners deal with," says Bankole Johnson, professor of neuroscience and psychiatry at the University of Virginia, who oversees clinical trials on some of the new drugs.

In many ways, the move to treat alcoholism with drugs mirrors the shift in treating depression that came more than a decade ago, when new antidepressants like Prozac hit the market. The drugs helped doctors view depression as medical problem and treatment expanded to include pills as well as behavioral interventions.

ENOUGH WITH THE LIES AND BULLYING

Finally, an opinion piece from a well known and respected writer, Mr. George Jonas, found its way into the mainstream media, the National Post.

On behalf of its membership and all citizens who value truth more than the ‘’ends justify the means’’ philosophy, C.A.G.E. would like to thank Mr. Jonas for having the courage to speak up against the conventional wisdom and political correctness that has stifled the truth for too long.

We hope other journalists will follow his example and that we will begin to see the conventional wisdom challenged at every opportunity. It’s the only way society can progress towards finding fair and balanced solutions for all citizens without having to resort to lies and bullying.

We encourage everyone to express their point of view on this issue by writing letters to the editor at the National Post here.

Excerpts of Truth is the first casualty of activism

For the record, I don't smoke, don't allow children in my car and own no tobacco stocks. I believe staying away from cigarettes would save lives (as would staying away from fast-food, fast sex and fast demagoguery). Educational efforts to gradually phase out smoking are fine by me.

What isn't fine is bullying and lying. In reverse order, actually, since the anti-smoking lobby has to lie before it can bully. A key lie continues to be that the health hazards of secondhand smoke have been scientifically established.

……………….

In 1986, when then-U.S. surgeon-general C. Everett Koop wanted to see cigarettes banned, he made a flat statement, backed by the considerable weight of his office, that the effects of second-hand smoke were responsible for 2,000 deaths in the United States. Challenged by scientists, he blithely retreated, saying that while he may have pulled the figure out of a hat, it was all in a good cause. The principle was right.

But the principle wasn't right. A 1987 study by the American National Academy of Sciences found no evidence that second-hand smoke jeopardizes the health of non-smokers. As even Koop admitted, the majority of 16 studies on environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer found no statistically significant relationship. (One field study concluded that a nonsmoker would have to sit behind an office desk for 550 continuous hours before being exposed to the nicotine equivalent of a single cigarette.)

If your aim is to ban or regulate smoking, you must show that smoking harms non-smokers. And if you can't show it because the evidence is equivocal, you must create an atmosphere of hysteria.

In 1993, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) went one better than Koop. They took the official position that second-hand cigarette smoke is a health hazard, responsible for 3,000 lung cancer deaths in the U.S.

Five years later, a federal judge in North Carolina found the EPA made serious mistakes evaluating the risk of second-hand smoke. Federal District Judge William Osteen ruled in 1998 that the "EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun," and that the "EPA disregarded information and made findings on selective information."

The EPA defended itself by saying it had never claimed that minimal exposure to second-hand smoke posed a huge individual cancer risk. It only said that, while the lung cancer risk from second-hand smoke was relatively small compared to the risk from direct smoking, unlike a smoker who chooses to smoke, the nonsmoker's risk was often involuntary.

………………

I have nothing against the EPA's agenda; I only dislike coercion and lies. I'm not in favour of environmental smoke, only opposed to environmental hysteria. And I marvel that we don't even blink anymore as government metastasizes into such private spaces as our cars.

HOW FAR A ''TYPO'' CAN GO

Amazing how far a ‘’typo’’ can go. Governments joined a ‘’bandwagon’’ based on an error that took four years to correct. The real question however is, now that it has been corrected, how many people will remain with the initial perception that caused the alarm? How many people will actually read the following article on the misconception and cease accusing plastic bags and their makers for the deaths of marine animals? How many other newspapers will actually publish it in an effort to set the record straight? Bets are, it will take a very long time, if at all, before Mr. and Mrs. Ordinary Citizen who are not closely following the news on this particular issue, will change their perception.

How responsible is it for governments to base policies that affect citizens, livelihoods, environment, without verifying what various sources have to say on any given issue?

This is about plastic bags, but there are many other issues that mistakes -- sometimes deliberate, sometimes not -- are made, and are dealt with in the same way without an attempt to ever set the record straight! See: Obesity Claims Overstated
and Italian Smoking Ban Reduced Heart Attack Rates Within First Year Oh Webmaster, Where Art Thou? AIDS CASES DROP DRAMATICALLY DUE TO BAD DATA for examples of many such ''blunders''.

Series of blunders turned the plastic bag into global villain

Scientists and environmentalists have attacked a global campaign to ban plastic bags which they say is based on flawed science and exaggerated claims.

The widely stated accusation that the bags kill 100,000 animals and a million seabirds every year are false, experts have told The Times. They pose only a minimal threat to most marine species, including seals, whales, dolphins and seabirds.

Gordon Brown announced last month that he would force supermarkets to charge for the bags, saying that they were “one of the most visible symbols of environmental waste”. Retailers and some pressure groups, including the Campaign to Protect Rural England, threw their support behind him.

But scientists, politicians and marine experts attacked the Government for joining a “bandwagon” based on poor science.

Lord Taverne, the chairman of Sense about Science, said: “The Government is irresponsible to jump on a bandwagon that has no base in scientific evidence. This is one of many examples where you get bad science leading to bad decisions which are counter-productive. Attacking plastic bags makes people feel good but it doesn’t achieve anything.”

Campaigners say that plastic bags pollute coastlines and waterways, killing or injuring birds and livestock on land and, in the oceans, destroying vast numbers of seabirds, seals, turtles and whales. However, The Times has established that there is no scientific evidence to show that the bags pose any direct threat to marine mammals.

They “don’t figure” in the majority of cases where animals die from marine debris, said David Laist, the author of a seminal 1997 study on the subject. Most deaths were caused when creatures became caught up in waste produce. “Plastic bags don’t figure in entanglement,” he said. “The main culprits are fishing gear, ropes, lines and strapping bands. Most mammals are too big to get caught up in a plastic bag.”

He added: “The impact of bags on whales, dolphins, porpoises and seals ranges from nil for most species to very minor for perhaps a few species. For birds, plastic bags are not a problem either.”

The central claim of campaigners is that the bags kill more than 100,000 marine mammals and one million seabirds every year. However, this figure is based on a misinterpretation of a 1987 Canadian study in Newfoundland, which found that, between 1981 and 1984, more than 100,000 marine mammals, including birds, were killed by discarded nets. The Canadian study did not mention plastic bags.

Fifteen years later in 2002, when the Australian Government commissioned a report into the effects of plastic bags, its authors misquoted the Newfoundland study, mistakenly attributing the deaths to “plastic bags”.

The figure was latched on to by conservationists as proof that the bags were killers. For four years the “typo” remained uncorrected. It was only in 2006 that the authors altered the report, replacing “plastic bags” with “plastic debris”. But they admitted: “The actual numbers of animals killed annually by plastic bag litter is nearly impossible to determine.”

In a postscript to the correction they admitted that the original Canadian study had referred to fishing tackle, not plastic debris, as the threat to the marine environment.

Regardless, the erroneous claim has become the keystone of a widening campaign to demonise plastic bags. David Santillo, a marine biologist at Greenpeace, told The Times that bad science was undermining the Government’s case for banning the bags.

“It’s very unlikely that many animals are killed by plastic bags,” he said. “The evidence shows just the opposite. We are not going to solve the problem of waste by focusing on plastic bags.

“It doesn’t do the Government’s case any favours if you’ve got statements being made that aren’t supported by the scientific literature that’s out there. With larger mammals it’s fishing gear that’s the big problem. On a global basis plastic bags aren’t an issue. It would be great if statements like these weren’t made.”

Geoffrey Cox, a Tory member of the Commons Environment Select Committee, said: “I don't like plastic bags and I certainly support restricting their use, but plainly it’s extremely important that before we take any steps we should rely on accurate information. It is bizarre that any campaign should be endorsed on the basis of a mistranslation. Gordon Brown should get his facts right.”

A 1968 study of albatross carcasses found that 90 per cent contained some form of plastic but only two birds had ingested part of a plastic bag.

Professor Geoff Boxshall, a marine biologist at the Natural History Museum, said: “I’ve never seen a bird killed by a plastic bag. Other forms of plastic in the ocean are much more damaging. Only a very small proportion is caused by bags.”

Plastic particles known as nurdles, dumped in the sea by industrial companies, form a much greater threat as they can be easily consumed by birds and animals. Many British groups are now questioning whether a ban on bags would cost consumers more than the environmental benefits.

Charlie Mayfield, chairman of retailer John Lewis, said that tackling packaging waste and reducing carbon emissions were far more important goals. “We don’t see reducing the use of plastic bags as our biggest priority,” he said. “Of all the waste that goes to landfill, 20 per cent is household waste and 0.3 per cent is plastic bags.” John Lewis added that a scheme in Ireland had reduced plastic bag usage, but sales of bin liners had increased 400 per cent.

OBESITY EPIDEMIC CHALLENGED BY EXPERTS

When reading an article such as the one from Pennlive.com we tend to think that perhaps there is hope that the anti-obesity campaign will not corrupt public opinion to the level the anti-tobacco fear mongering campaign did.

The article exposes exactly the same points we have been bringing up for the last three years on the obesity issue. There is a very important factor that the article doesn’t highlight however, but that must be emphasized at every opportunity because it has changed the ‘’technical’’ perception of obesity, overnight: ‘’ In 1998, the U.S. National Institutes of Health brought U.S. definitions into line with World Health Organization guidelines, lowering the normal/overweight cut-off from BMI 27.8 to BMI 25. This had the effect of redefining approximately 30 million Americans, previously "technically healthy" to "technically overweight". (source Wikipedia). As for Health Canada, they made their ‘’adjustment’’ in 2003. In Quebec alone, that ‘’adjustment’’ created an additional 1 million obese people from one day to the next.

Excerpts from the long but most interesting read: Some experts doubt obesity epidemic

LONDON (AP) — Go on, have another doughnut. According to some experts whose views are public health heresy, the jury is still out on how dangerous it is to be fat.
"The obesity epidemic has absolutely been exaggerated," said Dr. Vincent Marks, emeritus professor of clinical biochemistry at the University of Surrey.
…….

But obesity contrarians say that there's no data proving why being fat — in itself — would be dangerous. "There's no good causal connection," said Eric Oliver, author of Fat Politics and a political science professor at the University of Chicago.

Blaming obesity for diabetes and heart attacks, Oliver says, is like blaming lung cancer on bad breath rather than on smoking. Excess weight may actually be a red herring, Oliver says, since other factors like exercise, diet or genetic predispositions towards diseases are harder to measure than weight.

In addition to questioning the dangers of being fat, researchers like Marks also criticize oft-repeated alarmist projections about the rise in obesity — like the British government's warning that nearly half of Britain will be obese by 2050.

Those simply aren't based on good evidence, they say.
……..

In 2005, Katherine Flegal of the United States' Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, finding that overweight people typically live longer than normal-weight people. More than a dozen other studies have come to the same conclusion.

Outrage ensued. Prominent health experts called the research flawed and worried that people would gleefully supersize their meals.
………

Some obesity skeptics question the motives of experts who make dire predictions about obesity.
With millions of dollars for obesity researchers, an industry of anti-fat drugs, and a boom in the number of doctors offering surgeries like stomach-stapling, the more fat people there are, the more profits there will be in selling them solutions.

Experts on both sides of the obesity debate have often criticized WHO's overweight and obesity measures, saying they are too low.

When WHO defined the body mass index scores constituting normal, overweight and obese, they appeared to be the result of an independent expert committee convened by WHO.

Yet the 1997 Geneva consultation was held jointly with the International Obesity Task Force, an advocacy group whose self-described mission is "to inform the world about the urgency of the (obesity) problem."

According to the task force's most recent available annual report, more than 70 percent of their funding came from Abbott Laboratories and F. Hoffman La-Roche, companies which make top-selling anti-fat pills.

The task force remains one of Europe's most influential obesity advocacy groups and continues to work closely with WHO.

The blurred lines between pharmaceutical money and obesity groups have also caused concern in Britain. In 2006, one of the country's top obesity doctors quit the organization he founded to combat obesity, the National Obesity Forum, complaining that its goals had been skewed by drug money.

"There's not a lot of money in trying to debunk obesity, but a huge amount in making sure it stays a big problem," said Patrick Basham, a professor of health care policy at Johns Hopkins University.

Still, while skeptics insist that obesity warnings must be taken with a grain of salt, nearly all agree that while a little bit of extra padding may not be too deadly, too much almost certainly is.

"The vast majority of people who get labeled under the obesity epidemic are well under 300 pounds and probably are not facing big health consequences," Oliver said. "It's the morbidly obese people who should be worried."

DAIRY PRODUCTS WILL CARRY SHOCKING WARNINGS

More nanny tactics from the UK. Dairy foods will now carry shocking warnings similar to tobacco warnings. And to think that some didn’t believe that the smoking campaign would set a precedent! How far will this go and how long before public opinion becomes so far corrupted that we would find demonizing the obese perfectly normal? How long before instead of a smoker, this sign

portrays an obese person getting punched? It all depends on how active citizens become in the battle against health nannies and interest group agendas. We have now moved from the anti-tobacco campaign, to the ‘’unhealthy’’ eating habits campaign at a record speed. There are concrete actions happening on banning all ads aimed at children, on getting rid of the happy meal, on taxing junk food, on parents losing custody of their obese children, on making restaurants inaccessible to the obese, on mandatory monitoring of children’s mass index , on refusing to operate on the obese.

And who once again stands out in this anti-obesity hype? None other than the pharmaceutical industry directly, or through their charitable front groups. Let’s take a look at a few sources highlighting the involvement of Big Pharma in this issue.

From Sandy Swarcz’ blog: Sponsors of the obesity crisis , Cradle-to-grave customers

Who funds the Canadian Obesity Network? Following are their industry funders as listed on their website:
Abbott Laboratories Ltd.
Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd.
Glycemic Index Laboratories Inc.
Innovus Research Inc.
Isotechnika Diagnostics
Johnson & Johnson Medical Devices Division
JSS Medical Research
Eli Lilly

Medtronics Inc.
Merck Frosst Canada Ltd.
New Era Nutrition

Novartis
Nutrition

Novartis Pharmaceuticals
Pfizer

Sanofi-Aventis

TM Bioscience
University Technologies International
Wyeth

For $ 3598.00 for a single user license you can buy a book titled: Anti-Obesity Treatments 2007 to 2012 A blockbuster target market , written as a guide to the pharmaceutical industry and the golden opportunity that the obesity alleged ‘’epidemic’’ presents to them. Take a look at the contents here.

It leaves no doubt that anti-obesity is big business and the stakeholders will do anything and everything in their power to make obesity as unacceptable as smoking in order to force people to use their drugs, unless of course they’re stopped before they go too far. How can they be stopped? Politicians should be made to feel the heat from concerned citizens, by writing or phoning them regularly. Obese people should not bow their head in shame but stand proud of their bodies and warn the government that their body is personal property and government should keep out of their lives. That universal healthcare means that everyone should be covered and segregation of illnesses deserving of treatment, will not be tolerated. That children are under their parents’ authority and unless there is undisputable proof that parents are hurting their offspring, government has to get out of the family dynamics and stay out. Citizens who want to lose weight should find natural methods and not give in to the miracle pill solution who have been proven useless unless real will power is accompanying them.


Citizens should learn from the anti-smoking campaign and fight this anti-obesity offensive with all their energy. It will not go away unless we all get involved to make it go away.

Dairy products to carry cigarette-style health warnings as Government uses 'shock tactics'


Popular dairy foods like cheese and butter could soon have to carry cigarette-style warnings in a bid to slash Britain's soaring levels of obesity and heart disease, according to reports.

The hard-hitting government health warnings would be aimed at urging people to cut down on the amount of saturated fat they eat and make their favourite dairy products an occasional treat rather than regular part of their everyday diet.

According to trade magazine The Grocer, the government's Food Standards Agency is considering using shock tactics to persuade Britons to cut down on their consumption of saturated fats.

But the controversial crackdown is set to spark a furious outcry from the dairy industry as it could target a range of regular snack staples such as cheese sandwiches and buttered toast which watchdogs warn are high in saturated fats.

The Grocer says that the food watchdog is also considering asking manufacturers of products high in saturated fat, such as cheese and butter, to put cigarette-style warnings on packs which would urge consumers to eat such products in moderation or as a rare treat.

The move would form part of a publicity campaign developed under the FSA's strategy to cut consumption of fat, says The Grocer.

A consumer study conducted for the agency by CMI Research found that an approach based on shock tactics was considered "successful in challenging complacent attitudes and preconceptions of saturated fat".

It added: "'Shock tactics' show potential to cut through the crowded media environment, are likely to be memorable and could potentially have talk value."

The researchers said that graphic images of fat - the kind shown on popular TV shows about food and health - had a big impact on the consumers they spoke to.

"Dramatising the amount of saturated fat in foods in an unexpected and unappetising way proved effective, as almost all were repulsed by the idea of eating lard " said the researchers.
"Furthermore, it created a strong emotional response via the shocking visual images and so acted as a wake-up call to many."

The FSA which presented the findings to industry stakeholders last week, insisted any plans for a campaign were at "an early stage".

"Any activity in this area is not due until 2009, " an agency spokesman told The Grocer.
"As part of its planning process the FSA is likely to undertake further research and discussions with a wide pool of stakeholders to explore how best to proceed.

"At this stage it is too early to speculate about the form such activity may take."

However, The Grocer says that it is understood the agency is about to test messages designed to reveal that everyday foods - primarily meat, dairy, snacks and confectionery - are much higher in saturated fats than people may realise.

These include the claim that two slices of buttered toast contain more saturated fat than four doughnuts, and that one cheese sandwich contains more than half an individual's guideline daily amounts of saturated fat.

The FSA is also to consider messages that illustrate the damaging effect saturated fat can have on the body.

But reports that the FSA is contemplating such a high-profile approach has caused consternation among supplies of dairy products likely to be targeted amid fears that their sales would be hit.
Ed Komorowski technical director of Dairy UK said there was a danger that simple messages could switch people away from balanced diets that included healthy food such as cheese, which is high in calcium.

He told The Grocer: "Tactics designed to shock people could actually mislead them. Comparing the saturated fat content of hot buttered toast with doughnuts is not giving the full picture of the nutritional qualities of these products."

He also warned that such an advertising campaign could fall foul of the Advertising Standards Authority.

Clare Cheney director general of the Provision Trade Federation told The Grocer: "Diet is a complex thing. It's not like cigarettes, where you either smoke or you don't and if you do it's bad for you.

"With diet, it's about eating a combination of different things in different quantities."

OBESITY VS. GASTRIC SURGERY RISKS

The marketing ploy used in the ADJUSTABLE GASTRIC BANDING SURGERY study that we commented on January 24th, motivated us to do more research into bariatric surgeries, the outcomes and the risks. We didn’t have to look any further than Sandy Szwarc’s extensively documented blog -- Junkfood Science -- to find a series of articles on the issue.

The first of the articles that caught our attention can be read here. Healthcare or healthscare, as some rightly call it, is very big business with many players involved. The marketing strategies include, but are not limited to, appealing to the emotions of uninformed people who are unsuspicious of doctors, government agencies, scientists and NGO’s and who naively believe that all these players work towards one common goal – the well-being of citizens. While people have been conditioned to be distrustful of corporate interests and with good reason, they trust without questioning those who allegedly work in the best interests of the citizens. It is imperative citizens educate themselves in order to be in a position to take informed decisions for their own health and well-being.