“If you focus on eating healthy foods, you’re “mentally diseased” and probably need some sort of chemical treatment involving powerful psychotropic drugs.” (Natural News, June 2010 )
Anyone who’s read this and similar statements could be forgiven for thinking that it was some sort of late April fool’s joke, but no – ridiculous as it sounds, the desire to eat healthily is now considered to be an eating disorder. Steven Bratman, a Colorado MD, coined the term Orthorexia nervosa (Latin term that basically translates to ‘correct eating disorder’) in 1997. The term describes an eating disorder, which is characterised by the obsession to eat healthy foods. We find the need at this point to stress that this is not a joke….there is even a dedicated website  to alert you to the serious threat this disorder poses.
Surprisingly, EatingDisordersOnline.com  says “Orthorexia nervosa is one of a little-known group of eating disorders”. Could it be ‘little-known’ because most people that are conscious of what they are putting into their bodies, and why, are blissfully unaware that they could be suffering from this disorder because they feel so good? Perhaps they don’t consider that their avoidance of genetically modified , pesticide-laden or processed foods is considered ‘weird’, and therefore haven’t realised that they may need to see their doctor.
Sentence for influential anaesthesia professor after 12 years of bogus research
Scott S Reuben, the influential Massachusetts anaesthesia professor, who pleaded guilty in February this year to health care fraud after it was discovered that he had been faking research for pharmaceutical companies for 12 years, was sentenced this week to six months in jail plus three years supervised release.
Having received many thousands of dollars in research grants, the former chief of the acute pain unit at Baystate Medical Center published his ‘findings’ in scientific journals such as ‘Anesthesia & Analgesia’. Yet his ‘work’ on post-operative pain management using highly controversial pharmaceutical drugs such as Vioxx and Celebrex had never actually been carried out.
A routine audit at the Baystate hospital uncovered the fake research in 2008, and findings from 21 further published studies were later found to have been ‘misrepresented’, some of them dating back to 1996, and these were retracted by the journals last year.
See our earlier news item entitled: “Influential US anaesthesia professor faked drug research over 12 years” in which we question Big Pharma’s relationship with influential medical professionals and others in the health care industry, with its ‘financial incentive and rewards system’, which we believe encourages anything from slight bias in favour of certain pharmaceuticals to utter and complete fraud.
High-starch diet linked with increased risk of diabetes
Last week, one of my posts focused on the spiraling costs of diabetes medication. Specifically, I suggested that at least some of the reason for this relates to the standard advice given to diabetics (which is to eat a diet rich in foods known to be generally disruptive to blood sugar levels). A lower-carb diet has been proven to be effective in the management of diabetes, but might it help prevent this condition too? In today’s blog, I write about recent evidence linking high-starch diets with an increased risk of diabetes, and why lower-carb diets would be expected to reduce risk of developing type 2 diabetes. For more on this,click this link.
Fructose has generally enjoyed a healthy reputation on the basis that it does not directly raise blood sugar levels. However, increasing evidence over the last decade has linked this sugar with increased risk of health issues such as weight gain, ‘fatty liver’ and heart disease.This week saw the publication of a study which found that fructose causes cancer cells to ‘proliferate’. The authors of this study suggest that limiting fructose in the diet may be an effective anti-cancer strategy. For more on this,click this link.
Increasing evidence shows that drugs companies are selective about what they publish
While I think the scientific literature can tell us much, I don’t think it’s the be-all-and-end-all. One reason for this is that sometimes the ‘body of evidence’ can give us a skewed version of reality. One way this can happen is for drug companies to publish evidence that helps boost their bottom line, but ‘suppress’ evidence that is not so useful and may in fact be harmful to them. On Wednesday, my blog looks as this issue, and reports on the findings of a recent study which suggests that drug companies are quite selective about the evidence that finds its way into the scientific literature. I also present evidence for this practice as it relates to cholesterol-reducing drugs known as statins. For more on this, click this link.
As more stories become available I will post them at this blog… Do your friends a favour and pass them along.