0/5

Catalyst episode draws criticism from medical experts

The ABC will stick with a Catalyst despite criticism from the Heart Foundation and the president of the Australian Medical Association.

2013-10-30_1040The ABC will stick with a Catalyst episode tomorrow night despite calls from medical experts for the ABC to drop it, claiming it may encourage people not to take their anti-cholesterol drugs.

The first part of the two-part program began last week and attracted bumper ratings.

But the Heart Foundation was one of several opinions criticising the ABC.

“Australians need to be aware that the information presented by the ABC is not supported by the Heart Foundation and that there is international scientific consensus that replacing saturated fat with ‘good’ unsaturated fat, in particular polyunsaturated fat, reduces your risk of heart disease,” the Foundation said.

The chair of the Australian Advisory Committee on the Safety of Medicines Professor Emily Banks said, “It’s likely that if this program goes ahead, and it does the unwarranted undermining of statins, that there will be people who didn’t have to have a heart attack and didn’t have to die from a heart attack, who will die through reducing use of statins.

Australian Medical Association president Dr Steve Hambleton has branded the program as “sensationalist” claiming it “gave extraordinary weight to an opinion that is a minority view”.

“Yes I’m concerned it is based on an opinion piece in the British Medical Journal written by a registrar about his observations on his own patients,” he said.

“Hardly a quality piece of evidence,” he said.

An ABC spokesman told news.com.au the show was “an important contribution to medical debate”.

It would run a disclaimer advising viewers to consult their doctor regarding their medication.

12 Responses

  1. Pharmaceutical companies have been found guilty of hundreds of offenses and fined hundreds of billions of dollars for them. So they are actually criminals. They have lost even more in product liability and negligence suits so they are civilly irresponsible too.

    They did give several pro-statin people air time — and in tabloid style harassed them so they looked defensive and guilty. TDT/Four Corners has been using that one for nearly half a century.

    Catalyst did contain the correct information — it in tabloid style they buried the information in the second piece so it didn’t get in the way of the outrage all week that they exploited for more publicity for the 2nd episode. They even got a I haven’t seen the 2nd episode but based on the first one it is all wrong from a sucker who is a paid representative of a pharmaceutical company. Classic.

    Got great ratings though,…

  2. Drouyn, I do not expect the people posting here really understand science, research, validity and reliability, so watching a program with a group of Americans, with Professor in front of their name can impress them. The shame is that the ‘investigative journalist’ with a Dr in front of her name did not show intellectual scientific rigour in her identification of ‘the facts’ and the presentation of scientists with countering views. Her ‘punch line’ tonight about the ‘bad’ Pharmaceutical companies seems to be the part of the underlying belief system that she went out to find people who would be in agreement. The ‘Prof’ who described ‘Pharma’ as ‘criminal organisations’ suggested more hyperbole, fanaticism and hubris than considered professional opinion and the comment detracted from, and threw into doubt, the veracity of all her other comments. Very poor journalism…

  3. Over the years from 2004 I have heard from a number of well respected cooks and chefs about the heart foundation giving their tick on so many processed foods that are unhealthy. Because the heart foundation get paid lots of money from food corporations for agreeing to give the tick they are lax with the criteria of what is healthy. Even just last year they were under scrutiny again. So maybe the heart foundation have a right to say Catalyst shouldn’t be broadcasting something that encourages people to go off their cholesterol medication. But they should also stop giving the heart foundation tick to processed foods full of sugar for the sake of a big cash grab from the corporations.

  4. @bicks
    Consensus is just group-think. In science it doesn’t matter what the majority believe, what matters is what quality replicable experiments demonstrate.

    They can’t cite any real science because they don’t have any. Keys cherry picked data and his results are meaningless. Other studies have found no medical benefit in treating people based the lipid profiles but this has been explained away saying the theory is correct but you just can’t demonstrate so by experiment!

    And if lowing LDL is so good for you, why did Torcetrapib, the most effective Statin, cause a 60% increase in deaths in the safety trials?

    They haven’t even mentioned the 25% increase in type II diabetes that most Statins cause. Which will cause more heart attacks than lowing LDL could possible prevent.

  5. ” drouyn”
    Not sure of your comment’s intentions, and ask if “come in spinner” is what my comment will earn?
    But just in case your comment is your honest interpretation of the subject matter raised by several in the medical industry via ” Catalyst”, and your claim of being a research scientist, may also seem strange if true? especially when vowing to never watch catalyst again, whilst you are entitled to your beliefs as is everybody else, but perhaps a research career, with such a closed mind is not for you?
    I wonder what yours and the archival records would show, when initial similar claims were made about several of the following well established treatments, practices and discoveries, before being proven correct’

    Sucking out snake bite venom//Thalidomide//Cochlear Implant//Bacteria related Ulcers//Tobacco and Asbestos related deaths//Hand Hygiene……………..

  6. Pertinax, consensus develops when good evidence overwhelmingly favours a certain conclusion. There’s consensus on the theory of gravity (for example) and it wouldn’t be pulling a PR manouvre to point that out. I’m not sure what you mean when you say “they can’t cite and real science”… in this case “consensus” is just shorthand for “this is what the evidence tells us” without needing to list that evidence line by line.

  7. This program should go ahead but given how important and contentious this issue is then Catalyst really should develop it further and provide much more point of views and open debate. And Armchair Analyst you may be one of the lucky ones with genes that will see you live to a ripe old age despite your diet. But it is great that science is getting a real audience in prime time and sparking real debate. It is what the ABC is funded to do.

  8. Whenever they reach for PR about consensus it is only because they can’t cite and real science that proves beliefs which have taken hold and become sacred and unchallengeable.

    There is also circumstantial evidence that a diet high in polyunsaturated fats or sugar is also bad for you. So just substituting a lot of one for another is not a good idea.

    We don’t have hard scientific evidence because billions of dollars is spent on research to meet regulations to get approval to sell pharmaceuticals and little on pure research into the diseases because there is no profit in that.

    The major flaw with the Catalyst Report is that it didn’t make clear the distinction between trying to prevent atherosclerosis by giving Statins to half the population on the basis of their lipid profile and hoping that some of them won’t have heart attacks as a result, which they are arguing…

  9. I enjoyed this story. I am not that surprised at the reaction from the old medical establishments. They cant ever except anything new that contradicts there old beliefs, funny nothing much has changed when ever something new comes out in the science community people most interestingly the big three science organisations will always put it down, no open minds what so ever. I have been eating pan fried eggs and eggs in general since i was young and i am still alive no problems with my ticker. i commend Catalyst for this story and to the ABC for sticking with them.

  10. Watch out ABC and Catalyst, as you may be rocking the boat in very dangerous waters, regardless if you are doing exactly what any responsible Innovative and investigative agency should do and that is to encourage people to “Think and Ask Why Am I Being Prescribed This sometimes very expensive drug” and when there are enough users of some of these drugs, pressure is then bought to bear on governments to subsidise their supply at an even higher cost (to the government and all Taxpayers, that is to the ones who do not minimise their taxation commitments ) by the very same drug companies who produce them??

    If the vested interests lobbyists don’t get Ya, the ‘ only ‘ if any new powers given to ACMA definitely will, because even Mr Abbott and Co. know their ABC’s.

  11. I’m a research scientist with a great interest in drug safety, and this story has really disappointed me with its sensationalist ‘Today Tonight’ approach to what is a very serious issue. I’ve been a fan of Catalyst since the Quantum days, but I won’t watch again after this shameful display.

Leave a Reply