Saturday, January 06, 2007

Just What Can You Believe Anymore?

I try and keep business stuff out of this blog because
  1. it's largely boring unless, like me, you like learning about science stuff,
  2. if there's any danger it could be interpreted as an ad for one of my companies, that's not proper etiquette, and
  3. we have such stupid regulations in this country that I can get into trouble saying stuff here about something we sell because there's a link to my company on this page.

Today, though, I'm going to make an exception, and try to expose a few "lies-held-as-truths" that might just save your life.

Cholesterol.

The Lie is that if you have "elevated cholesterol" you have to do something about it and that something usually involves a drug called a statin.

The Truth is that there's virtually no difference in mortality between people with 'high' cholesterol and people with 'normal' cholesterol. (Curiously, people with 'low' cholesterol have a slightly higher mortality rate.) There's also virtually no difference in mortality between people on statin drugs, and people not on statin drugs, even though there seems to be an imperative to hand a prescription over to anyone with even slightly elevated cholesterol.

In addition, while those statin drugs are effective at lowering your cholesterol, they're also extremely effective at lowering your body's production of something called CoEnzyme Q10. This enzyme is so essential to body function that if your heart runs out, it will stop, which explains why the exception to the 'no difference' above is that if you're on a statin drug, you're 4 times more likely to die of congestive heart failure than if your're not. Watch this space... people who know more about this than I do are predicting that the legal fall-out for this is going to make the whole Vioxx thing look like a day at the zoo.

So why, as a society, are we obsessed about cholesterol? Easy... it's about money. Here in Australia, statin drugs account for 52% of all of the money our over-generous government spends subsidising prescription medicines. Worldwide, we're talking about a drug that generates billions of dollars in sales.

Cholesterol is a symptom of other things. The other things can be bad, so when your cholesterol tests as 'high', look for the other things. If your doctor just wants to put you on a statin drug, go and find another doctor because the one you've got is killing you.

Slip, Slop, Slap

That's the slogan the Cancer Council in Australia uses to get us to slip on a shirt, slop on some sunscreen and slap on a hat. It's supposed to lower skin cancer rates by 'protecting' us from 'harmful' UV rays, right?

The Lie is that those UV rays are killing us.

The Truth is that more than 70% of us are now chronically Vitamin D deficient. Vitamin D is produced in your skin by photosynthesis... that is, it's produced when you go out in the sun, into those UV rays.

Vitamin D deficiency has been linked to at least 16 cancers, all of which have increased in incidence over the last 15 years or so because we've been doing what we've been told. And the incidence of skin cancer here in Australia, where we have the highest rate in the world? HASN'T CHANGED!

There are two reasons...

First, sunscreen is effective, ONLY if you don't rub it in. As soon as you rub it in, whoosh... blocking ability gone for the spectrum of UV that causes melanoma. However, the spectrum that causes your skin to go red, which is your body's warning to get out of the sun, is very nicely blocked so we think we can stay in the sun longer.

And second, Vitamin D also helps protect you against melanoma. It's made by the same spectrum that makes you go red.

So why do governments all over the world persist with this? Money. There's a very rich and powerful lobby making sunscreens and anti-cancer drugs, and getting grants from governments and even the UN, to run ad campaigns telling us to Slip, Slop, Slap.

Is it ok, then to go back to the beach and go sunbaking all day? No. Absolutely not. We're past that tanned 80's look now aren't we? But to cover up and use a powerful sunblock every time you're outside... you're killing yourself.

"Diet" Soft Drinks

The Lie is in the name... "Diet". We're all supposed to cut down on our sugar intake, right? That much I agree with. But those "Sugar Free" diet soft drinks are NOT the answer.

The Truth is that as bad as a can of sugar-filled soda is, it's still better for you than it's sugar free version, which is sweetened with something called "Aspartame". At last count, there were some 90+ dangerous health consequences DIRECTLY linked to Aspartame from brain tumours and MS to chronic fatigue syndrome, depression and poor memory.

And if you want to know which lame idiot in the government approved it as an artificial sweetener in human food, then blame Donald Rumsfeld, who was then CEO of the company that makes it, and in classic Rumsfeld style, pulled off one of the grandest con jobs over the US congress in history. It's a long story for another time, but if you're interested, go HERE and order yourself a copy of a DVD called "Sweet Misery".

Why? Money again, and the cynic in me is starting to believe agencies like the FDA in the US, and the TGA here in Australia, are captives of Big Pharma... and the only winner from Aspartame is the pharmaceutical industry which gets to sell you lots more drugs to make you better from the side effects of Aspartame.

There's so much more about Aspartame, but I'm ranting and you're already bored, so I'll let you find it for yourself.

Sugar Is Bad

The other related Lie is that sugar is bad for you. Agreed, excess sugar is bad, but in a study released a few months back, researchers took a group of obese women and put them on calorie restricted diets to lose weight. They divided them into 2 groups, one where sugar was totally removed from their diet, and the other, where a small amount of sugar was allowed. Calorie restriction = weight loss, or at least it should. One of the two groups lost weight during the trial, and the other didn't. No prizes for guessing that it was the group which was allowed sugar that actually lost weight. When deprived of sugar, your body switches your metabolism into famine mode, in which it upregulates the processing of the food you put in, and takes every opportunity it can get to store away any unused calories as fat. And once you're in famine mode, it's extremely difficult to switch back irrespective of the size of the feast at the buffet.

Incidentally, if you're in the USA, those sugar sodas are not actually sweetened with sugar, they're sweetened with High Fructose Corn Syrup, which is cheaper than sugar, but which is also linked to a raft of health problems including your obesity epedemic. Thankfully, the rest of the developed world hasn't been as accepting of the safety data, so it's banned in Australia, Canada, Europe and most of the other places that matter.

Fat On The Lips = Fat On The Hips

The Lie is that eating fatty foods will make you fat. For girls especially, this seems to be accepted as holy truth.

Let me say this in the strongest terms I can use without incurring the wrath of censors in Singapore... There is NO relationship between the fat you eat and the fat you are!

Eating ONLY fatty food will make you fat, and it will probably make you dead, but the Truth is that fat is essential to your health and well being. In what seems like a paradox, some fats, like CLA and Omega 3, are actually imperative for good health, and for anyone trying to control their weight.

Yet as a society, we're pre-occupied with "Fat Free". I was in our local supermarket this morning and noticed a bag of lollies ('candy' for you Americans and Canadians). Emblazoned across the front was "99% Fat Free", as if that somehow made it ok.

That Fat Free mentality was at its height in the 80's, and doctors like the good Dr J are just now starting to see the long term damage caused in people who followed a fat free diet.

Therein endeth my rant, though if any of this has interested you, go HERE to read a very tongue-in-cheek article about the US FDA banning Vitamin D.

And if you're interested in evil pharma, ask me to tell you the story of a herpes drug you'll never get to see called 'Amexcin'.

11 comments:

T.R. said...

chester, I think I saw your bottom row of teeth several times during that last post.

interesting stuff though. it seems like the only consistent nutrition advice I've heard from year to year is moderation and variety too much and too little should be avoided.

well, I'm off to have a milkshake.

T.R. said...

fyi, there is a missing period (or "full stop" as some of you crazies say) in my last comment.

Chester The Bear said...

tr. it's ok. here, we speak fluent typo.

moderation & variety... and balance. everything is ok in moderation, and everything needs to be balanced.

occasionally though, i do fall back into my old habit of restricting my food to the common "C" food groups... you know, coke, chocolate, chips, cake, cookies, coffee, cream buns, chicken (fried, from the colonel, of course), but i've been working hard, so it's just the occasional meal these days and i am working hard on the variety thing.

and as for the teeth. yup. ice bath was required to cool blood down.

Identity Crisis said...

I feel like a lab rat.

Dz said...

wow! so I can still eat chocolate and not feel like I'm making my self fat? Just kidding I would eat it anyway, makes my brain work better. But so true it has always been about money, never about the people.

Chester The Bear said...

Lab rat? No. They get treated better than we do.

Chocolate? Don't get me started on chocolate. It's SO BLOODY GOOD FOR YOU (in moderation of course), that it's a wonder it's still legal.

It MUST be 70% cocoa or more. Less than 70%... candy. More than 70%, a very powerful drug that really does make your brain work better... and your heart, and your lungs, and your eyes, and a whole bunch of other bits I can't talk about in a family blog. Just remember that "moderation" thing.

Anonymous said...

I'd heard about the chocolate thing, just as well I like my chocolate dark & a little bitter (bit like me really). Don't forget red wine - also in moderation of course.

Identity Crisis said...

During Christmas some of the stores here used a clever marketing gimmick based on the antioxidant powers of red wine and cacao. A display of large chocolate bars with prominant labels depicting content of cacao -all greater than 70%- was combined with a little booklet recommending the appropriate red wine to drink with each type of chocolate.

Chester The Bear said...

Brilliant. "The Connoiseur's GHuide To Red Wine & Chocolate" I love that. If I knew the first thing about red wine (other than that it's good for you, of course), I'd write it.

Chester The Bear said...

Just to let you all know how confusing this "who do you believe" thing can be, I was on one of the science sites this morning and there were two feature articles, one after the other...

The first said "Vitamin D increases risk of Pancreatic Cancer", and it linked to a study somewhere that seemed to show an increased risk.

The second, two stories down, said "Vitamin D reduces risk of pancreatic cancer" and had a link to another study that showed a reduced risk.

Dr J said "just find out who funded the studies... that will tell you which is more likely to be real."

She's referring, of course, to the practice of big Pharma funding studies, and then controlling their construction to control the outcome.

Ah well.

Ms Brown Mouse said...

Most interesting article in this weekend's Good Weekend (20/1/07) - all about to sun or not to sun.