Diabetes Boot Camps

[Cobby]

Wow, are our paths merging ?

If you're coming round, I guess so.

Sorry but as far as I'm concerned any consumption of sugar or simple carbohydrates is over consuption for people in my position.

That's fine. As long as recognise the difference between your opinion and science-based medical advice. Nobody is trying to stop you from having or expressing your opinion.

"healthy and balanced" is just not good enough, people need to be shown what is healthy and balanced. Can you truly say you could pick up a commercial weight loss meal and it would be healthy and balanced.

Hmm, so what you are saying is that the general public cannot be trusted to interpret what is actually good for them and that they, generally speaking, have an inability to apply common sense to good medical advice. The government recommendation for "5-a-day" is only because they don't think people would adhere to any more than that. Does that make it bad advice do you think?

Ever wonder why weight loss firms have such high repeat customer figures?

What you keep doing is highlighting the general public's inability to follow advice that is unreasonably proscriptive, and then complaining that the NHS advice is not proscriptive enough.

I will concede the inclusion of a certain level of sociology in taking "current medical science" in the application of "current medical advice", but the point remains. Your holy grail is a small and inconclusive study that suggests a lot of promise. To expect that between this and your internet chat group, current medical advice should be changed is absurd.

edit: Oh, hey look, the NHS covered this study and also agree that it's of limited scope and mostly inconclusive: Link

 

[Bill1954]

"Hmm, so what you are saying is that the general public cannot be trusted to interpret what is actually good for them"
I don't think I really need to say anything.
The current worldwide T2D epidemic screams it out.

 

[woodss]

Cobby.

You say I'm wrong due to medical research suggesting otherwise. I'd concede to you if the medical research in question had been done on my son.

ANY medical research is done on a subset of data (people). People and their genetic make up are not the same the world over. It therefore stands to reason that there will be edge cases - indeed, we see this in medical treatments everywhere (Read the back of a bottle to see test results on various groups of people). You take a tablet, you bank on being in the "good group".

The MMR vaccine directly harmed my son and caused him health issues which he continues to struggle with today. I do not disagree that the MMR vaccine is safe 99% of the time. But for the 1% that it does affect, I think it's important that people should be aware that the risks do exist rather than being told that it is safe under a blanket GMC-endorsed headline. Quite simply they are wrong, and it is wildly inappropriate to continue with the lies. But we have been here before with thalidomyde, etc.

Vaccine safety is NOT a binary notion - there are grey areas. There are edge cases. They are safe for some. They are dangerous and debilitating for others.

I hope none of your loved ones is ever a victim of statistics like my son - it is not nice (and very frustrating when people on the internet try to tell you why you're wrong and that it's all just a coincidence).

Ask yourself why the relationship between MMR and ailments was in the media in the first place? I'm not even talking about autism which is ultra-fashionable nowadays, I'm talking about physical ailments.

Speaking in absolutes just smacks of denial and ignorance I'm afraid.

 

[Ian J]

"Hmm, so what you are saying is that the general public cannot be trusted to interpret what is actually good for them"
I don't think I really need to say anything.

I agree that the general public cannot be trusted to interpret what is good for them.

If you go back to the beginning of this thread you will see my post about my grossly overweight sister in law who works in the NHS has recently contracted type 2 diabetes and refuses to go on a diet as she claims to know best

 

[Mr A P Davies]

"science-based medical advice", would have had me on anti depressants, anti-inflammatories, a wheel barrow load of steroids, (Same things, but for different symptoms) and a number of courses of antibiotics, none of which I needed.
I've no doubt the good Doctor and her dear consultants could have provided another raft of SmithKlineGlaxos finest to deal with all the side effects, too. And probably more, for the side effects of the drugs to deal with the side effects.
I know people who have fallen down this rabbit hole.

I didn't.

I ignored medical advice, because I was sharp enough to instinctively know it was bad, when I was younger, and now have the knowledge, and access to knowledge, to validate what I did.

Maybe there is somewhere in this country where the GPs only concern is to treat the cause of the problem, rather than just prescribing pills to mask the symptoms.
It's not where I live, and I was absolutely right to do what I did, and I've worked with a coach load of people who are still very ill, rattling with pills, who think their doctors are doing some good for them.
For a great deal of them, the problem they first consulted the doctor for is long gone, and probably forgotten, but they'll die a slow and miserable early death from the problems their drug intake is causing them.

 

[Scott@KarmaContent]

NHS Cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra wrote a great article recently. 'How too much medicine can kill you'. Well worth a read.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/01/drugs-pharma-doctors-patients

 

[Bill1954]

Thanks for that Scott, great read
"Earlier this year, the editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton, wrote that possibly half of the published medical literature may simply be untrue and that science had “taken a turn towards darkness”. "
Come on then Cobby, I'm sure you want to argue this one.

 

[Mr A P Davies]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35967380

Another article, published today.

"Prof Andrew Bush and Dr Louise Fleming warn that although steroid inhalers are life-saving when used properly, their side-effects should not be ignored."

Now I know these two Profs must be wrong, because after 35 years of Asthma treatment, I've never once had side effects mentioned to me, and, indeed, when questioning about it, have been categorically informed that there are no side effects associated with asthma treatment.

 

[Bill1954]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35959554
It just keeps mounting up

 

[Cobby]

"Hmm, so what you are saying is that the general public cannot be trusted to interpret what is actually good for them"
I don't think I really need to say anything.
The current worldwide T2D epidemic screams it out.

Yet you feel your advice, which is more proscriptive and with less evidence behind it, is the better choice than the current medical advice. You're arguing against yourself.

 

[Cobby]

Speaking in absolutes just smacks of denial and ignorance I'm afraid.

About some things, yes, I agree.

The MMR vaccine directly harmed my son and caused him health issues which he continues to struggle with today. I do not disagree that the MMR vaccine is safe 99% of the time. But for the 1% that it does affect, I think it's important that people should be aware that the risks do exist rather than being told that it is safe under a blanket GMC-endorsed headline. Quite simply they are wrong, and it is wildly inappropriate to continue with the lies. But we have been here before with thalidomyde, etc.

Vaccine safety is NOT a binary notion - there are grey areas. There are edge cases. They are safe for some. They are dangerous and debilitating for others.

Well, you're speaking very much in absolutes there. Vaccine safety isn't binary, you're quite right, and the anti-science crowd trying to paint it the professionals view as such is unhelpful and typical of the "anti-expert" culture today.

There's absolutely no evidence for any link to autism, and it appeared because of one, now non-practising doctor. He continues to make his living monetizing the hysteria around the topic. If you're asking why it persists in the media, you need to perhaps revisit the "anti-expert" culture that is growing, where people think 20 minutes on google makes them qualified to pick apart actual medical research. The repetition about mercury in vaccines is a common one that just highlights people's ignorance on the topic.

It's highly unlikely the tragedy with your son came about via vaccine, but everyone has their belief systems, so you are welcome to yours. The fact remains that by refusing to vaccinate your other child you put them at risk and the lives of other people's children, parents of whom cannot choose for actually valid medical reasons. Again, it's your decision, but do not expect others to see you as a hero for it, some of us have suffered as a result of the decisions people such as yourself make, or more accurately, choose not to make.

I wish you the best of luck in taking care of your children, and hope you all stay well.

 

[Bill1954]

I suppose you couldn't have missed all the news over the last few days about the worldwide diabetes epidemic.
Would we have an epidemic if all the current medical advice was correct ?
the powers that be are going to be scrutinising this now, the results will be interesting.
Oh yeah, we have been joined by a retired diabetes nurse who admits to feeling guilty about having to give out the wrong advice over the years - Food for thought.

 

[Cobby]

Would we have an epidemic if all the current medical advice was correct ?

The UK also has 100,000 deaths every year from smoking related illnesses.

You are conflating two separate issues. One is accuracy and efficacy of medical advice. The other is patient adherence to professional advice.