Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

ABC is Political

Jump to new
Much as I like Gerard Henderson, the Insider team use him as bait. The other panellists, presenter, comics and producers are so left wing.

There are good balanced commentators, Janet Albrechtsen and Nick Cater come to mind.

But, no, Insiders is a Political Left Show.

gg
 
MrBurns said:
That show was controversial, I think there's a lot of truth in it and I posted a link here to a forum where a guy has been saying all this for years.
How much chance has this got in the face of a billion dollar industry that relies on the sale of these drugs ?
Non.
Click to expand...
I suggest you listen to Dr Norman Swan discussing the matter with
Professor Peter Clifton
Professor of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences
NHMRC Principal Research Fellow
University of South Australia.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/healthreport/

Two doctors, especially one with the qualifications and experience of the latter, are just a bit more likely to be able to accurately assess the value or otherwise of the Catalyst program than most people here, or some forum where "a guy" has been saying this for years.

You might also like to think about who, other than the pharmaceutical industry, would come up with the billions that currently go into research.
 
Before anyone jumps onto medical claims made on a television program, it may be useful to see what else maybe available from these bodies:

Pubmed

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

and

Chochrane Collaboration

http://www.cochrane.org/

I understand that one of the USA doctors, and I forget which, who appeared on the program is also a non-believer in vaccinations. That says it all for me.
 
Julia said:
I suggest you listen to Dr Norman Swan discussing the matter with
Professor Peter Clifton
Professor of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences
NHMRC Principal Research Fellow
University of South Australia.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/healthreport/

Two doctors, especially one with the qualifications and experience of the latter, are just a bit more likely to be able to accurately assess the value or otherwise of the Catalyst program than most people here, or some forum where "a guy" has been saying this for years.

You might also like to think about who, other than the pharmaceutical industry, would come up with the billions that currently go into research.
Click to expand...

The ABC has cred too and no vested interests such as the doctors.
The ABC wouldn't run with this for fun.
 
MrBurns said:
The ABC has cred too and no vested interests such as the doctors.
Click to expand...
Exactly what vested interest are you asserting either Dr Swan or Professor Clifton have?

Have you actually listened to the program to which I supplied a link?
 
Julia said:
Exactly what vested interest are you asserting either Dr Swan or Professor Clifton have?

Have you actually listened to the program to which I supplied a link?
Click to expand...

The good doctors have a lifetime reputation to protect.

I listened to a bit of it.
 
MrBurns said:
The good doctors have a lifetime reputation to protect.
Click to expand...
Certainly, and those reputations are going to be maintained by the opinions of their peers, alongside - in Professor Clifton's case in particular - a considerable body of research and clinical experience

I listened to a bit of it.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
MrBurns said:
That show was controversial, I think there's a lot of truth in it...
Click to expand...

I tend to agree on both counts for the simple reason that the pharmaceutical industry has had so many 'lemons' over the years, promoted to the hilt as 'good' and 'safe' drugs only to be later shown up to be either poorly researched or deliberately skewed or fraudulent research tabled with it's registration supplication.

How much chance has this got in the face of a billion dollar industry that relies on the sale of these drugs ?
Non.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be that negative. A little logic can go a long way, even in the face of sustained assault by vested interests.

Julia said:
I suggest you listen to Dr Norman Swan discussing the matter with
Professor Peter Clifton
Professor of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences
NHMRC Principal Research Fellow
University of South Australia.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/healthreport/

Two doctors, especially one with the qualifications and experience of the latter, are just a bit more likely to be able to accurately assess the value or otherwise of the Catalyst program than most people here, or some forum where "a guy" has been saying this for years.
Click to expand...

Logically... a Phd, any number of qualifications or 'titles' or amount of consensus doesn't in itself "accurately assess" the value of anything. All it does is appeal to, or establish a consensus... which is often wrong when not backed by sound science.

You might also like to think about who, other than the pharmaceutical industry, would come up with the billions that currently go into research.
Click to expand...

The first point that needs to be realised here is humans survived and flourished for thousands of years without a pharmaceutical industry... on pure clean food, water and air. The quality of our environment and particularly the food we are served up in the last 40 or 50 years since the corporation of the world with it's lobby tentacles infesting most of our government and public safety authorities, has diminished to something well short of clean and pure. Just so much processed food that contains stuff that we are not told about.

We've all heard about the adverse effects of added hormones and excess antibiotics in humans and also chicken, fish and to a lesser extent other livestock farming... overly promoted by big pharma for extra profit.

Even some fresh fruit and veg is adulterated with chemicals from big pharma just to force them to ripen a few days sooner and or colour up for presentation a bit better most often to the determent of nutrient quality and sometimes the alteration of the natural compounds to unnatural compounds in the fruit or veg.

The second point is less is often more. All other things being equal, less of this adulterated stuff we consume the more healthy we tend to be. Our body can only consume so much and perform so many chemical reactions before it wears out. Unless you have an irreversible condition, the best option is 'less is more' healthy.

It has been said that we are living longer these days, not because we are intrinsically more healthy, but because big pharma can prescribe more stuff for us to keep consuming to, not necessarily make us healthier, but just delay the progression of disease or our death.

logically, one only has to look at the correlation of the obesity rate increase with the increased life span and increased rate of 'consumption' ( that key word for corporations) of processed foodstuffs and drugs to realise we are too often being force fed and brainwashed.

The third point is that the quality of the end product is not directly related to the amount of money put into research. The best end products are often the result of some specific industry or academic funded project.

Big pharma too often researches stuff just for the sake of the next big thing it can patent, try to find a use for it or multiple uses for it, employ high powered sales people who often would 'sell their mother for a quid' and convince the authorities we need it and proceed to convince us we need to consume it.

There is plenty of arguably better research being done by other than the big pharma companies that make drugs like statins.

Bottom line; the Catalyst program came with at least or more medical warnings and conditions in their comments than big pharma put on the drugs they push out... so what's the justification of the complaint!? Certainly can't be based on free speech or equal time or resources for each side of the debate.
 
A large part of the special was based on reanalysing the research that had a link between cholesterol and heart disease. A part of the information was excluded. It would be nice to see modern studies in to it all.
 
From the "guy" in another forum -

MEAT IS CANCER BRAH

I didn't want to bother with doing this, as I didn't think the latest scaremongering headlines would warrant much attention, but in the end it's stuff like this which is - not to put too fine a point on it - is actually dangerous. The retards vegans are going to be doling this "study" out for eons, along with the rest of their house-of-cards arguments.

I've read every damn post about this from all the actual experts who spend a lot of time actually researching the reasoning behind it all, and guess what... They all wrote pretty much exactly what I already did.

Gary Taubes: Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat

Chris Kresser: Red meat is still not bad for you, but shoddy research and clueless media are

Zoe Harcombe: Red meat & mortality & the usual bad science

J Stanton: Always Be Skeptical Of Nutrition Headlines: Or, What “Red Meat Consumption and Mortality” (Pan et.al.) Really Tells Us

Denise Minger: Will Eating Red Meat Kill You?

Andreas Eenfeldt: Do Unhealthy Meat Eaters Live Shorter Lives?

Robb Wolf: Red Meat: Part of a Healthy Diet?

Richard Nikoley: New Study: Driving & Watching Red Meat Can Kill You

etc etc

TL;DR? - The study is massively flawed, there are no causations - not even significant correlations, there's zero experiments and thus zero evidence, and the end resulting headlines were there just for attention, which sadly they got.
Click to expand...

and this -

http://highsteaks.com/forum/health-nutrition-and-science/cholesterol-52.msg1128.html#msg1128
 
MrBurns said:
From the "guy" in another forum -



and this -

http://highsteaks.com/forum/health-nutrition-and-science/cholesterol-52.msg1128.html#msg1128
Click to expand...

Here's a quote from a doctor on the same forum -


Doctors are experts in illness not health. I would be surprised if, in my 6 years of undergraduate study, and 4 years of postgraduate study, there was 20 hours TOTAL concerning nutrition beyond statements like 'eat less' and walk more. I don't ask my mechanic how to turn my Commodore into a Ferrari...I have to do that :cool:
Click to expand...
 
MrBurns said:
Here's a quote from a doctor on the same forum -
Click to expand...

That's a very valid and pertinent point too Mr Burns... that permeated my reasoning above.

Mr Dr, while making certain mention of vitamins, minerals, fats, proteins and carbs etc in the context of medical issues, also qualifies himself by saying the consumption and balance of the foods for these things are more for a nutritionists judgement. He can see the adverse effect of the excess and deficiency of some of these nutritional issues and help treat that, but does not profess to know all the intricate details of their qualities and effects as a nutritionist would.

Essentially, a medical doctor is more trained to deal with 'crash repairs'. Nutritionists are trained more to deal with keeping us on the road of good health, preventing the crash. Having said that some doctors (esp GP's) do have extra curricular qualifications such as in psychology and diet for example.

The main point of the Catalyst program seemed to me, that the drug companies and probably too many Dr's are promoting the use of statins as an alternative to a good diet and lifestyle, an easy fix (cynically or ignorantly keeping more business in-house) instead of recommending or even referring to a nutritionist as part of a patient treatment program in certain cases.

Call me cynical, again... but could it be that some of the doctors who are most sensitive about the program actually have a bit of a guilty conscience, knowing they have short changed those patients with a lazy quick fix instead of properly explaining and helping them, even referring them on to nutritional specialists to improve their diet if need be.

One thing is for sure though... the airing of the program was not political bias. Given it had the necessary medical warnings and more qualifications than most 'drug' products, and as previous posters also noted, raised legitimate questions about research and or data that is not publically available (although might be hidden in a big pharma file cabinet) that ought to be available for better informed use of these drugs.
 
Whiskers said:
That's a very valid and pertinent point too Mr Burns... that permeated my reasoning above.

Mr Dr, while making certain mention of vitamins, minerals, fats, proteins and carbs etc in the context of medical issues, also qualifies himself by saying the consumption and balance of the foods for these things are more for a nutritionists judgement. He can see the adverse effect of the excess and deficiency of some of these nutritional issues and help treat that, but does not profess to know all the intricate details of their qualities and effects as a nutritionist would.

Essentially, a medical doctor is more trained to deal with 'crash repairs'. Nutritionists are trained more to deal with keeping us on the road of good health, preventing the crash. Having said that some doctors (esp GP's) do have extra curricular qualifications such as in psychology and diet for example.

The main point of the Catalyst program seemed to me, that the drug companies and probably too many Dr's are promoting the use of statins as an alternative to a good diet and lifestyle, an easy fix (cynically or ignorantly keeping more business in-house) instead of recommending or even referring to a nutritionist as part of a patient treatment program in certain cases.

Call me cynical, again... but could it be that some of the doctors who are most sensitive about the program actually have a bit of a guilty conscience, knowing they have short changed those patients with a lazy quick fix instead of properly explaining and helping them, even referring them on to nutritional specialists to improve their diet if need be.

One thing is for sure though... the airing of the program was not political bias. Given it had the necessary medical warnings and more qualifications than most 'drug' products, and as previous posters also noted, raised legitimate questions about research and or data that is not publically available (although might be hidden in a big pharma file cabinet) that ought to be available for better informed use of these drugs.
Click to expand...

I agree there Whiskers, I think doctors are there to fix rather then prevent, their beliefs are entrenched very deeply and supported by the drug companies, there's so much money in the sale of medicines that I don't trust the drug companies one bit and they are at one with the medical profession.
 
ABC now using Labor's lines in their headlines.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-12/new-mps-sworn-in-as-debt-cap-row-flares/5085344

The headline,

Tony Abbott jeered, Speaker Bronwyn Bishop cheered as 'Hogwarts' Parliament gets underway.
Click to expand...

Who was it that made the 'Hogwarts' connection ?

Labor has protested against Mrs Bishop's intention to still attend party room meetings while in the Speaker's role.

Manager of Opposition Business Tony Burke said the elevation was "reminiscent of the Harry Potter novel" in which the villainous Dolores Umbridge is made headmistress of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.

"When they all return to Hogwarts, Dumbledore is gone and Dolores Umbridge is now in charge of the school," he said.

But the new Speaker, who has been in Parliament for 26 years, insists the Opposition need not worry.

"I mean to be impartial," she told Parliament.
Click to expand...

And who was it that jeered Tony Abbott ?

Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who nominated Mrs Bishop to the Speaker's chair, prompted the first jeer from Opposition benches by saying that "this chamber should always be a place of spirited debate, but it should never be a place where motives are impugned or characters assassinated".
Click to expand...

Not exactly unbiased judgements.

The ABC should be a little more impartial with their headlines.
 
drsmith said:
ABC now using Labor's lines in their headlines.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-12/new-mps-sworn-in-as-debt-cap-row-flares/5085344

The headline,



Who was it that made the 'Hogwarts' connection ?



And who was it that jeered Tony Abbott ?



Not exactly unbiased judgements.

The ABC should be a little more impartial with their headlines.
Click to expand...

And their " Have your say " comments page is not any better. I tried to put through 2 pro Government comments on the story above and they never made it :banghead: The mods only pass anti Abbott posts and let the Lefties have free hit. It's about time these one eyed taxpayer supported leeches were shown the door.:xyxthumbs
 
Ijustnewit said:
And their " Have your say " comments page is not any better. I tried to put through 2 pro Government comments on the story above and they never made it :banghead: The mods only pass anti Abbott posts and let the Lefties have free hit. It's about time these one eyed taxpayer supported leeches were shown the door.:xyxthumbs
Click to expand...
Under Top Stories, the article is titled,

'Formidable' Bronwyn Bishop elected Speaker of 'Hogwarts' Parliament
Click to expand...

Not exactly appropriate for a tax payer funded media organisation that is supposed to present unbiased information on the days events.

Something along the lines of "Bronwyn Bishop elected Speaker of the 44th Parliament" would have been much more appropriate and leave the biased stuff to the private sector media organisations.
 
Ijustnewit said:
And their " Have your say " comments page is not any better. I tried to put through 2 pro Government comments on the story above and they never made it :banghead: The mods only pass anti Abbott posts and let the Lefties have free hit. It's about time these one eyed taxpayer supported leeches were shown the door.:xyxthumbs
Click to expand...

I get most of my comments through these days, depends who the moderator is , I think there must be some radical morons in there that need to be routed out, my taxes should be spent more wisely.

- - - Updated - - -

drsmith said:
Under Top Stories, the article is titled,

Not exactly appropriate for a tax payer funded media organisation that is supposed to present unbiased information on the days events.

Something along the lines of "Bronwyn Bishop elected Speaker of the 44th Parliament" would have been much more appropriate and leave the biased stuff to the private sector media organisations.
Click to expand...

Disgraceful, but the upside is the worse they get the more likely they are to bring the axe down on themselves.
 
Top