Oops, they got it wrong about cholesterol

[claig]

"We've all spent time worrying about our cholesterol levels, but what if it was all... a conspiracy! What if the truth was that eating lots of fat doesn't clog your arteries and kill you, and that there's been a deliberate effort to ignore that evidence in order to secure the financial fortunes of Big Pharma's major anti-cholesterol drugs?"

www.cbsnews.com/news/dawn-of-the-cholesterol-skeptics-big-pharma-conspiracy-theorists-get-a-turn-in-the-spotlight/

"Flawed science triggers U-turn on cholesterol fears"
...
Its Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee plans to no longer warn people to avoid eggs, shellfish and other cholesterol-laden foods.

The U-turn, based on a report by the committee, will undo almost 40 years of public health warnings about eating food laden with cholesterol. US cardiologist Dr Steven Nissen, of the Cleveland Clinic, said: 'It's the right decision. We got the dietary guidelines wrong. They've been wrong for decades.'

Doctors are now shifting away from warnings about cholesterol and saturated fat and focusing concern on sugar as the biggest dietary threat.

The Daily Mail's GP Martin Scurr predicts that advice will change here in the UK too.
...
He added that the food industry had effectively contributed to heart disease by lowering saturated fat levels in food and replacing it with sugar.

Matt Ridley, a Tory peer and science author, yesterday said there should be an inquiry 'into how the medical and scientific profession made such an epic blunder'.

He described the change of advice in the US as a 'mighty U-turn' and said studies linking high cholesterol and saturated fat in food to heart disease were 'tinged with scandal'."

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3096634/Why-butter-eggs-won-t-kill-Flawed-science-triggers-U-turn-cholesterol-fears.html

I wonder if a similar thing will happen in about 40 years to the "save the planet" climate change warnings.

Oops!

You know how vaccination works?

Mass vaccination to save a few lives?

"GPs to get bigger bonuses if they meet swine flu jab targets"

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1226704/GPs-bigger-bonuses-meet-swine-flu-jab-targets.html#ixzz3bbc4IRdh
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

"Doctors are in line for huge bonuses if large numbers of their patients sign up for swine flu jabs.

Managers at a major health trust are offering extra payments on top of the £5.25 that GPs already get per injection.

If they vaccinate more than 90 per cent of those deemed at risk of the disease in their area, they will get 50 per cent more per jab - £7.88 per person. "

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1226704/GPs-bigger-bonuses-meet-swine-flu-jab-targets.html

'It's scaremongering. Irresponsible scaremongering'

You sound like a tsar. Do you want the Daily Mail shut down so that they can't tell the public about medical issues? Would that mean that the Liverpooll Care Pathway would never have been ended by the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph's campaign against it?

I prefer the Daily Mail to the Daily Tsar.

'You know how vaccination works?'

I am against mass forced vaccination, the mandatory vaccination that some officials would like or vaccines being added to foods or GM added to foods without the public having a choice. It is about choice in a free country. If you want to believe the "tsar", that's fine, but don't expect everyone to agree.

Do you want the Daily Mail shut down so that they can't tell the public about medical issues

I expect the issues to be fairly reported with balance, views from both sides and all matters discussed in an impartial and fair way. So people can make their own mind up.

I know that way of reporting is difficult to the Daily Mail. Balanced views, all points of view etc.

It is about choice in a free country

I agree. Choice is important as is understanding the risks.

But just because the tsar says something, it does not automatically make it wrong. You seem to be the kind of person who is sceptical of Government and mainstream health professionals.

They're not all out to get you. Despite what the DM thinks.

I think it's to do with QOF and how GPs are funded, kewcumber.

GP are private contractors, contracted by the NHS to carry out certain NHS services. Fotr this they get a certain amount of money per patient. It's not very much, and you get the same amount for the patient that is never ill and sees the GP once every 5 years and the one with multiple health problems who is there once a month.

On top of this there are additional payments for various treatments and services. These are often things where a particular course of action or treatment will prevent a more serious adverse event. There are a range of indicators which they are scored against and given a total. There is a sum of money per point.

Waaahhhh the comments section of the DM? you just keep on giving and giving!

Typical scare mongering DM article

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3098335/Newer-types-Pill-taken-million-women-double-chance-blood-clots-compared-older-brands-contraceptive.html

So all the way through, it says that the new pill doubles the risk of clots.

Eventually, there's 2 lines.

The number of extra cases per year per 10,000 treated women was lowest for levonorgestrel – found in brands such as Microgynon – and norgestimate, with six extra cases. It was highest for desogestrel and cyproterone, which had 14 extra cases

So - what is the actual risk?

Is it 10 /10,000 to a risk of 16 / 10,000 risk?

Is this a lifetime risk? A risk in a year?

What are the benefits? It is estimated that a million women are using the 'third-generation' contraceptive pills, which tend to not have side effects – such as weight gain and headaches – found in older brands.

The headline is the risk being doubled. That is worrying. But what is the actual risk in the first place? That's the important bit. If you give a headline like that, you also have a responsibility to explain the risk.

And back to the original article.
Always good to look at different sources for a different view

www.health.harvard.edu/blog/panel-suggests-stop-warning-about-cholesterol-in-food-201502127713

Doing away with the beware-cholesterol-in-food warning would simplify the art of choosing healthy foods. And it would let people enjoy foods that contain higher amounts of cholesterol, such as eggs, shrimp, and lobster, without worrying about it. A better focus is on reducing saturated fat and trans fat in the diet, which play greater roles in damaging blood vessels than dietary cholesterol

Science, including nutrition science, is a process of change. New findings emerge that nudge aside old thinking and prompt new recommendations. That’s easy for someone like me to say, since I closely follow nutrition science and research and understand how they work. But for folks who don’t, a change in the recommendations about cholesterol in food is likely to be seen as another dietary flip-flop and undermine confidence in what’s known about healthy eating

Which is what's happened here.

'You seem to be the kind of person who is sceptical of Government'

Absolutely, just like millions of others. When a metropolitan elite appointed government "tsar" says that everyone over 50 should be offered a wonder pill, the "polypill", for their own good, then I and lots of other people don't believe them.

And the actual source

www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-report/PDFs/Scientific-Report-of-the-2015-Dietary-Guidelines-Advisory-Committee.pdf

Lines 2213 onwards are interesting. They explain the risk factors.

Cholesterol.

Previously, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommended that cholesterol intake be limited to no more than 300 mg/day. The 2015 DGAC will not bring forward this recommendation
because available evidence shows appreciable relationship between consumption of dietary cholesterol and serum cholestero, consistent with the conclusions of the AHA/ACC report

.Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption

But....

The DGAC concurred with the AHA/ACC report that saturated fat intake exceeds current recommendations in the United States that lower levels of consumption would further reduce the population level risk of CVD

Saturated fat is still a nutrient of concern for overconsumption, particularly for those older than the age of 50 years.

Recommendations on saturated fat intake should specify replacement macronutrients and emphasize replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fats, especially polyunsaturated fats.

The Committee recommends retaining the 10percent upper limit for saturated fat intake. In practice, non hydrogenated vegetable oils that are high in unsaturated fats and relatively low in SFA (e.g., soybean, corn, olive, and canola oils) instead of animal fats (e.g., butter, cream, beef tallow, and lard) or tropical oils (e.g., palm, palm kernel, and coconut oils) should be recommended as the primary source of dietary fat.

Partially hydrogenated oils containing trans fat should be avoided

In low fat diets, fats are often replaced with refined carbohydrates and this is of particular concern because such diets are generally associated with dyslipidemia (hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL C concentrations).

Therefore, dietary advice should put the emphasis on optimizing
types of dietary fat and not reducing total fat. When individuals reduce consumption of refined carbohydrates and added sugar, they should
not replace them with foods high in saturated fat. Instead, refined carbohydrates and added sugar should be replaced by healthy sources of carbohydrates (e.g., whole grains, legumes, vegetables, and fruits),
and healthy sources of fats (e.g., non hydrogenated vegetable oils that are high unsaturated fats, and nuts/seeds).

The consumption of “low fat” or “nonfat” products with high amounts of refined grains and added sugars should be discouraged.

There was lots in that report. The Daily Mail picked up on one bit - the cholesterol bit. They ignored the rest. Why?

Fuck me - that report is basically what I've said on this thread. And I didn't even read the report till now.

then I and lots of other people don't believe them

But you're happy to believe a US Government report on diet....

If you are are happy to accept their recommendation on cholesterol, are you happy to accept their recommendations on saturated fats?

'The Daily Mail picked up on one bit - the cholesterol bit. They ignored the rest. Why?'

Because they know what the public think already and therefore they confirmed the public's suspicion tha tthe experts got it wrong on eggs, butter, meat etc over 40 years.

Note that the experts have recommendations on saturated fat intake, but don't have recommendations about Monsanto roundup intake in foods.

"Extreme" Levels of Roundup Detected in Food

A new study finds worrisome levels of Roundup inside of people food.

You probably wouldn't knowingly eat a substance known to induce death in human cells. But that's what millions of people are doing every day, even when they're enjoying foods with "natural" on the label."

www.rodalesorganiclife.com/food/roundup-food

There are no protests in the street by millions of people about saturated fat that the "tsars" warn about, but there are mllions who protest against Monsanto roundup that the "tsars" are silent about.

"Groups Protest Monsanto's Roundup and GMOs"

www.organicconsumers.org/press/groups-protest-monsantos-roundup-and-gmos

Sceptcism, criticism and cynicism of the metropolitan elite and their "tsars" is what keeps us a free country. It is what stopped New Labour's plans to introduce biometric ID cards and DNA databases for the population, for "their own good". They'll be back with more of what is "good for us", but the Daily Mail will be there to criticise them.

"But you're happy to believe a US Government report on diet....

If you are are happy to accept their recommendation on cholesterol, are you happy to accept their recommendations on saturated fats?"

I am happy that they have now done a u-turn after 40 years of wrong advice.

"We got the dietary guidelines wrong. They've been wrong for decades.'"

I don't believe them on saturated fats either. In 40 years' time I expect they wil do another u-turn. Oops, they got it wrong again

This is the issue I have with health reporting.

The US Government published a massive report on diet. Loads of recommendations.

Only one of them has been picked up on - the change to cholesterol.Reported as a massive story, they got it wrong about cholesterol, fats ok etc. That is the only focus of the story. The rest of the guidelines are ignored. All the key stuff about trans fats, saturated fats, replacing with sugar -all ignored.

Then someone starts a thread claiming cholesterol is ok in the diet.

People who actually know something then tell you about the reality.

Science reporting is really bad in this country.

I don't believe them on saturated fats either. In 40 years' time I expect they wil do another u-turn. Oops, they got it wrong again

You know the boy who cried wolf.

He was right finally. But the wolf ate him.

"Choice is important as is understanding the risks."

Yes I agree, but when the experts can't agree on risks (eg. Plausible argument that statins are beneficial vs plausible argument that for many, particularly women, statins are potentially dangerous), it creates a breeding ground of mistrust by the very people who may one day be pushed these drugs, and who deserve to have a clear understanding of what they are taking.

Re. Incentives. I'm not talking free pens. I'm talking the free holidays to amazing locations in exchange for leading conferences and encouraging other specialists to use new wonder drugs.
Maybe that doesn't happen now, but it definitely did 13 years ago.

Re. Fast tracking drugs, this is what happened with montelukast. It was tested just long enough to see that it worked better than a placebo, but not long enough to see the extent of side effects. There used to be an easily googleable document (which has since gone, unsurprisingly) showing that the trial timings were shorter than recommended for paediatric drugs. The drug has gone on to be the most prescribed paediatric drug.
Big pharma is there to make money, they do not put patients' health first, which to me is incredibly unethical.

'Science reporting is really bad in this country.'

The Daily Mail is not a science journal, it's not the Biochemical Times. It prints articles that people are interested in about everyday food like eggs and bacon. It alse prints lots of articles about trans-fats, GM food, statins etc.

It doesn't print articles to pat government agencies on the back and say they got it right. It expects them to get it right, because we all pay for them out of our taxes. It prints stuff when they get it wrong so that they can be held to account on our behalf.

The Daily Mail is not a government "tsar's" mouthpiece, it freely prints what it thinks will be of interest to the public.

'But the wolf ate him.'

But while I am still fit, I can outrun the "tsars".

Claig
"The Daily Mail is not a government "tsar's" mouthpiece, it freely prints what it thinks will be of interest to the public."

Google "advertorial". Then wise up.

The Daily Mail is not a science journal

Indeed. But stories about health need the full facts. Partial facts, lacking key information, alternate views do not help.

Bacon doubles the risk of cancer. Scary stuff. Sells papers. But what if the risk was 1 in 100,000 lifetime to 2 in 100,000 risk.

Health is important. But not giving the full facts and trying to explain the reality is scaremongering. How many people will have read that article and thought "fats are ok"? When the reality is, dietary fat is still an issue.

But "cholesterol is ok, they got it wrong" is a much better story than watch out for dietary fat, make sure you balance the levels, cut down on saturated fat etc.

But giving all the information helps people make informed choices. Giving some information doesn't.

Orlando, the whole point of that article is to question the facts, to question the "experts", to show that they got the facts wrong and did a -turn after 40 years.

The Daily Mall is not the expert with all the facts (although many would argue it is the closest we have and more reliable than the metropolitan elite, but that is another discussion), but it highlights that the facts we were told were wrong.

That is importat because what then happens is that the BBC, the governmen tsar's mouthpiece, cannot ignore the Daily Mail's large readership and government "tsars" have to then be invited into BBC studios to explain themselves to the public. The Daily Mail shines a light on them and they then have to explain why the got it wrong. That whole process leads to better decision making and advice in the future.

That is the function of the press, to scrutinise them and hold them to account for the people.

That is how the Daly Mail and the Daily Telegraph were instrumental in endng the Liverpool Care Pathway

"Hospitals bribed to put patients on pathway to death: Cash incentive for NHS trusts that meet targets on Liverpool Care Pathway
Some hospitals set target of two thirds of all deaths should be on LCP
At least £30m in extra money handed to hospitals to achieve these goals
Critics warn financial incentives could influence the work of doctors"

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223286/Hospitals-bribed-patients-pathway-death-Cash-incentive-NHS-trusts-meet-targets-Liverpool-Care-Pathway.html

Orlando, the whole point of that article is to question the facts, to question the "experts", to show that they got the facts wrong and did a -turn after 40 years

Or maybe - in light of new evidence and research, we have updated our advice given what we know now.

It's what people do. Give the best advice with the available evidence.

Do you want health professionals to give advice based on the best available evidence to keep people healthy?

or would it be a better world if no advice was given because in 30 years time, that advice might prove to be wrong?

What's better? No advice or advice based on best available evidence?

Because like I said, the boy who cried wolf was right. If you don't believe any advice because it might be wrong, don't blame yourself when the wolf eats you and the boy said " I told you so but you didn't believe me"