Fake Medical News

On By Jack Forrest MD

I subscribe to several medical research summary websites. This week the prominent articles enraged me:

An article comparing left main coronary stenosis treatment by surgery (CABG) or percutaneous stenting. The conclusion- the two are approximately equal in value. What they don’t say is that they are both close to worthless (except for stents placed while having a heart attack which is not what they were evaluating.) Either can help short term with angina but long term value is not there since angina often comes back and those who have these procedures don’t live any longer. Only lifestyle change, primarily diet, will treat symptoms long term and increase lifespan. There’s no money in diet change but a lot of money for doctors, medical centers, equipment and drug companies with CABG or stenting.

The second article was a widely publicized review of the effect of reducing processed and red meat in the diet. The conclusion- little value to reducing processed and red meat. But what is the true story? Modest decrease in these two types of meat doesn’t matter much since they are so harmful that only drastic decrease or avoidance makes a big difference. Think two packs of cigarettes versus three. Any surprise that it didn’t matter much? AND guess where the lead author of this paper gets significant funding for his research? I don’t think I have to tell you.

As long as medical research is funded by those with money interests in the outcome and the journals live on ads from those groups this will be the medical “science” and information we get.

10 thoughts on “Fake Medical News”

  1. Gary Mezzatesta's avatar Gary Mezzatesta

    Jack,

    Tracy and I just discussed that we hadn’t gotten your blog for a while and here you are.

    The meat story is nuts and should not have received the media coverage it garnered.

    I hope you and Deb are well.

    Gary

    Like

    Reply

    1. Thanks, Gary. We’ve been traveling and I’ve been remiss, concentrating on our crazy economy which has disenfranchised the middle class, turning natural conservatives like me into supporters of drastic change of government policy.

      Like

      Reply
  2. Sue Lomax's avatar Sue Lomax

    Excellent.i watched the interview on PCRM about the processed meat conclusions, unbelievable and totally irresponsible. Thank you for all your research and information.Sue

    Like

    Reply

    1. I learn most of what I think is true and important from you, McDougall, Fuhrman, Barnard, Esselstyn. My thanks (and that of many others!)
      An idea- Since John McDougall stopped his biennial weekends where he and his guests discussed a range of current issues there’s a big void. You’re young and energetic! Perhaps you could start something similar. With your web skills there would be a huge audience internationally. The key is to have some controversy. John did a great job and we all met interesting people, some of whom had enlightening material. The physical meeting was key, rather than pure internet, since meeting others and sharing a meal and discussions added important texture. You might even do it in Santa Rosa since John has created the infrastructure at The Flamingo. I’ll forward this to John for his comments.
      We won’t be here in January. We now spend all winter in Kauai since Deb and I find San Diego too cold!

      Like

      Reply
  5. Andy Polansky's avatar Andy Polansky

    Jack,
    The meta analysis was based largely On cohort/observational studies that showed a slight benefit to reducing red meat intake. The only controlled study was based on 50,000 women and showed no benefit. So other than ethical or environmental reasons, I don’t think there’s enough data to make a recommendation. I don’t think it’s really fake news to say that.

    Like

    Reply

    1. At last- someone disagreeing!
      Thanks for your observations, Andy. This is why I don’t concur:
      First is what I said in the blog- a modest decrease of something very bad for you is not enough.
      More conclusive is the many epidemiological studies which all show the same thing- large groups of people who eat little or no meat live longer, have much less heart disease, cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure. The single best reference is a book by Gary Fraser: Diet, Life Expectancy, and Chronic Disease- Studies of Seventh-day Adventists and other Vegetarians. The Adventists studied are in southern California so that results are very applicable to Americans. I can provide more references if you like.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Andrew Polansky's avatar Andrew Polansky

        Jack,
        I agree with you that red meat is probably not good for you. The author of that article did have old ties with agribusiness that he didn’t disclose. I’m just not sure it falls under heading of fake news. It’s basically just how they wanted to spin it. Different people often look at the same data and come up with different conclusions.
        Andy

        Like

Leave a reply to Sue Lomax Cancel reply