Chris Day's Blog :: Main Page

EVERYONE'S ENTITLED TO MY OPINION! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e-mail: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cday-avmc@hotmail.co.uk . . . website: www.alternativevet.org ______________________

Recent Articles

New Aircraft Carriers for the Royal Navy

The Tuatara

Japanese Veterinary Homeopathy

Autism rears its ugly head again (MMR)

Leonardo and the satellite dish

Human-Animal Hybrids

Le Pong

Sweet Itch (Sweetitch) control and treatment

Headshaking (Head Shaking)

LAMINITIS - alert

Vitamins - let's have balance

Space musings

Record Barbecue in Uruguay

Dishwashing Liquids - not all they're sudsed to be

They'll think of Homeopathy next!

Main Page

« November 07 | November 11 »

Thursday, November 8

Good to be fat?

by Chris Day on Thu 08 Nov 2007 19:32 GMT

This is the item that prompted the previous blog:

Now doctors say it's good to be fat

After years of anti-obesity public health advice, a major new study causes an outcry by concluding that the overweight live longer

By David Usborne in New York

Published: 08 November 2007

A startling new study by medical researchers in the United States has caused consternation among public health professionals by suggesting that, contrary to conventional wisdom, being overweight might actually be beneficial for health.

The study, published yesterday in the respected Journal of the American Medical Association, runs counter to almost all other advice to consumers by saying that carrying a little extra flab – though not too much – might help people to live longer. .......................................

continues:

http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article3138352.ece

Leave Comment | Permanent Link

Reliable science and evidence based medicine

by Chris Day on Thu 08 Nov 2007 07:23 GMT

Certain scientific criteria are used in assessing the evidence base of medicine. They seem to be taken as the 'gold standard' for scientific assessment.

Would those criteria in any way resemble the criteria that allow madly conflicting scientific reports to flutter onto our door mats, on an almost daily basis?

A few memorable examples:

It's healthy to eat eggs - It's not healthy to eat eggs.

It's healthy to drink milk - It's not healthy to drink milk.

It's good to drink wine - It's not good to drink wine.

Sun brings on ageing - Sun delays ageing.

Global warming is a myth - Global warming is reality.

It's bad to be fat - It's good to be fat.

Organic food is not better - Organic food is better.

Vegetarians are not healthier - Vegetarians are healthier.

Is it the science that's bad or those who use (abuse?) it or those who interpret it? Either way, how reliable is all this stuff?

Leave Comment | Permanent Link