HOME > Chowhound > Food Media & News >

Who would have thought the AMA got the obesity problem wrong.........

jrvedivici Apr 21, 2014 08:31 AM

Interesting article about how the American Medical Association declared Obesity a disease last year, however that is backfiring on actually helping obesity in the US.

I find this part of the article rather interesting;

"The nation’s largest physician organization said the new classification would help turn more medical attention toward obesity, as well as increase reimbursement for obesity-related drugs, surgery, and counseling."

The attention of medicine in general is no longer to cure anything, it is in this case to keep us fat and happy. Treat obesity with drugs and surgery rather than prevent it, because obviously if you prevent obesity the medical industry loses millions if not billions of dollars in drugs and surgeries.

http://www.psypost.org/2014/04/thinki...

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
Delete
  1. b
    beevod RE: jrvedivici Apr 21, 2014 08:36 AM

    Cancer's another cash cow

    50 Replies
    1. re: beevod
      jrvedivici RE: beevod Apr 21, 2014 08:46 AM

      Cancer, heart disease, Aids/HIV.........you name the disease and the medical communities attention is focused on treating and medicating, not curing.

      1. re: jrvedivici
        paulj RE: jrvedivici Apr 21, 2014 11:13 AM

        The NYT article quotes the AMA resolution:

        “The suggestion that obesity is not a disease but rather a consequence of a chosen lifestyle exemplified by overeating and/or inactivity is equivalent to suggesting that lung cancer is not a disease because it was brought about by individual choice to smoke cigarettes,”

        http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/bus...

        The article describes some of the debate within the AMA over this resolution.

        1. re: jrvedivici
          carolinadawg RE: jrvedivici Apr 21, 2014 11:15 AM

          You've never had a doctor suggest you lose weight, eat better, quit smoking, drink less, engage in less risky sexual behaviors, etc., etc., etc.?

          1. re: carolinadawg
            jrvedivici RE: carolinadawg Apr 21, 2014 11:57 AM

            Have you been reading my charts?

            1. re: jrvedivici
              carolinadawg RE: jrvedivici Apr 21, 2014 12:27 PM

              The point is, "you name the disease and the medical communities attention is focused on treating and medicating, not curing" is simply false.

              1. re: carolinadawg
                mcf RE: carolinadawg Apr 21, 2014 05:49 PM

                Not according to many, if not most docs in practice. Or the Harvard researcher who announced "drug companies own medicine."

                Or the Harvard med student protest over being taught only how to use drugs and medical technology, not patient care.

                Drug companies also finance Continuing Medical Education; guess what the curriculum is?

                1. re: mcf
                  carolinadawg RE: mcf Apr 21, 2014 06:06 PM

                  You missed the point.

                  1. re: carolinadawg
                    mcf RE: carolinadawg Apr 22, 2014 05:57 AM

                    Not really.

          2. re: jrvedivici
            k
            kmcarr RE: jrvedivici Apr 21, 2014 12:12 PM

            How does one 'cure' AIDS/HIV? There is no demonstrated cure so treatment is the only option, and treatments have improved dramatically since the condition was first identified in the '80s. Eliminating every copy of a retrovirus from a host is, at present, not realistic. Focusing dollars on suppression of retroviral replication is a more rational approach.

            In most cancer treatment modalities the objective is to eradicate cancerous cells. When cancer cells are eliminated from the patient they are effectively cured.

            Cardiovascular disease causes irreversible damage to cardiac muscle and the associated blood vessels. Short of a heart transplant there is no 'cure' at present so supportive, on-going care is what is called for.

            On the other hand the research community (not the medical community) is actively working on cures for some of what you mentioned. For example cardiac myocyte regeneration, targeted immune therapy for cancers and so on.

            Saying "They just want to keep us sick so they can make money off us" is an easy trope to rattle off but it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

            1. re: jrvedivici
              j
              Jerseygirl111 RE: jrvedivici Apr 21, 2014 02:26 PM

              Not the medical community, Big Pharma. There is no money to be made in cures, but maintenance, oh boy. Cholesterol, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, all issues that can mostly be eliminated by lifestyle changes. All issues that Big Pharma makes billions on.

              I was in the waiting room for my PCP last year with three Pharmacy reps. That was an interesting conversation to eavesdrop on. One rep said at the last meeting, they announced they were hiring 100 more reps to call on endocrinologists, a field they never bothered with before, due to an explosion of diabetes.

              But the scariest of all is antibiotic resistance. No big companies are even researching new antibiotics any longer, no money in it. This is where govt needs to play a part. We need to invest tax money in research and universities.

              1. re: Jerseygirl111
                paulj RE: Jerseygirl111 Apr 21, 2014 03:07 PM

                Define the difference between cure and maintenance.

                1. re: Jerseygirl111
                  carolinadawg RE: Jerseygirl111 Apr 21, 2014 05:46 PM

                  In regard to antibiotic resistance, what we really need to do is simply quit overprescribing antibiotics.

                  1. re: carolinadawg
                    MplsM ary RE: carolinadawg Apr 21, 2014 05:50 PM

                    "In regard to antibiotic resistance, what we really need to do is simply quit overprescribing antibiotics."

                    We also need to stop spraying and injecting every dang thing that grows on a farm.

                    1. re: carolinadawg
                      mcf RE: carolinadawg Apr 21, 2014 05:50 PM

                      Drop in the bucket. 80% of the antibiotics manufactured in the U.S. are used in agriculture in feedlots and sprayed onto produce.

                      1. re: mcf
                        carolinadawg RE: mcf Apr 21, 2014 06:05 PM

                        While I agree that agriculture should quit using so much antibiotic, overprescribing antibiotics is a major contributor to the creation of drug resistant bacteria.

                        1. re: carolinadawg
                          mcf RE: carolinadawg Apr 22, 2014 05:58 AM

                          So you think the 80% of unnecessary antibiotic use that helps no one is secondary?

                          Huh.

                          1. re: mcf
                            cowboyardee RE: mcf Apr 22, 2014 07:57 AM

                            I think it's somewhat unknown at this point exactly to what extent antibiotic use in feedlots contributes to antibiotic-resistance in bacterial strains that are pathogenic in humans. But it's quite plausible that it actually is the smaller part of the problem. The big reason for this is that humans and various animal species tend to be affected by different bacterial strains; the strains that are particularly problematic to humans are likely also most affected by over-exposure to antibiotics used by humans (even though a greater percentage of antibiotic usage occurs in domesticated animals).

                            I haven't studied this matter extensively [informative counter-arguments are welcome], but from what I have seen, it seems to be very difficult at this point to say exactly how much of the problem is caused by any one kind of antibiotic usage. I DON'T support antibiotic use in feedlots, and I'm not trying to argue that anyone else should - it's certainly somewhat destructive and dangerous, and also largely needless. But it may foolhardy to ignore or downplay what is quite possibly the larger danger based on a faulty understanding of the problem.

                            1. re: cowboyardee
                              mcf RE: cowboyardee Apr 22, 2014 08:01 AM

                              I so disagree. So does the U.S. CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/docs/unde...

                              http://nation.time.com/2013/09/18/rep...

                              So did the scientists I read about in 1985 or so, predicting the loss of antibiotic effectiveness in humans due to their use in feedlots.

                              1. re: mcf
                                cowboyardee RE: mcf Apr 22, 2014 08:16 AM

                                I think you're misrepresenting the CDC. I agree with the CDC that antibiotic usage in feedlots is dangerous. But the report you've listed is focused entirely on the feedlot problem; it doesn't compare that to the larger problem of antibiotic-resistant pathogens in humans or whether the strains of drug-resistant organisms that are currently most problematic are also those that are affected most directly by antibiotic usage in animals.

                                Compare the strains listed in the CDC report you linked to (page 9) with those focused on from another CDC report more specifically focused on the strains that cause the biggest problems in humans.
                                http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/thr...
                                While it's likely that there is some overlap and interplay at work here, you'll see that many of the strains most concerning to humans are resistant strains of (relatively) normal human skin and gut flora - staph, strep, enterococci, etc, which appear to be less affected by antibiotic usage in feed animals than by usage in a medical setting.

                                1. re: cowboyardee
                                  mcf RE: cowboyardee Apr 22, 2014 08:28 AM

                                  You are completely missing the scope and exposures via food, water, and contacts with low levels of antibiotics of all our human microbes and how sub, way sub concentrations have made them resistant, too.

                                  It's not "some" overlap and interplay; the normally sequestered or contained microbes in humans are getting very comfortable over our lifetimes with residues plus direct usage of all sorts of broad spectrum antibiotics.

                                  We're eating them and drinking them plus a lot of folks are taking them, too. The ones not mostly found on feedlots are still encountering those drugs indirectly in low enough concentrations to build resistance.

                                  Just living in proximity to swine farms, where pathogens are found to be airborne, leads to higher MRSA infection rates.

                                  1. re: mcf
                                    cowboyardee RE: mcf Apr 22, 2014 08:53 AM

                                    That's likely true, but it doesn't follow that human medical usage is less of a driving factor in resistance than feedlot usage. It's like saying the toxins in the general environment are more responsible for your lung cancer than the cigarettes you smoked casually on and off for years. Not entirely implausible (especially depending on where you live), but somewhat unlikely and impossible to sort out at this time anyway. Ignoring one side of the problem probably isn't very productive. The CDC, who you already cited, certainly doesn't overlook the need for reforming medical practices to address the problem.

                                    1. re: cowboyardee
                                      mcf RE: cowboyardee Apr 22, 2014 09:03 AM

                                      And donkeys may fly out your butt, too. Over and out. :-)

                            2. re: mcf
                              carolinadawg RE: mcf Apr 22, 2014 02:51 PM

                              Let's just agree that the overuse of antibiotics is a problem, and needs to be curtailed. And that is a better idea than sitting around waiting for big pharma to come up with a new antibiotic to combat the resistant bacteria.

                      2. re: Jerseygirl111
                        Shrinkrap RE: Jerseygirl111 Apr 23, 2014 12:47 PM

                        I don't know what insurance you have, but in much of the country managed care is the rule, and payment is per member per month. Some times meds and hospitalization is part of that. Groups SPEND money when patients get treated.

                      3. re: jrvedivici
                        r
                        rasputina RE: jrvedivici Apr 21, 2014 06:44 PM

                        What are you talking about? Ten years after my treatment for cancer I was considered officially cured. It's been nearly 20 years that I've been cancer free, now. I can assure you my oncologist was focused on killing my cancer cells so they didn't kill me. I had only a 30% chance of survival when I was diagnosed.

                        1. re: rasputina
                          enbell RE: rasputina Apr 21, 2014 10:40 PM

                          My sincerest congratulations. What a wonderful outcome :)

                          1. re: rasputina
                            jrvedivici RE: rasputina Apr 22, 2014 05:55 AM

                            "What are you talking about?"

                            The comment which you are referring to is my response to beevod statement "Cancer is a cash cow", to that I added Cancer, heart disease and Aid's/HIV. As a cancer survivor I'm sure you most know the tremendous cost your treatment carried with it, the dozens of drugs and treatments you had to take to successfully beat that disease, even against the Dr's odds.

                            Now if you go back to my original post you will read;

                            " Treat obesity with drugs and surgery rather than prevent it, because obviously if you prevent obesity the medical industry loses millions if not billions of dollars in drugs and surgeries."

                            Just like your cancer......thankfully you beat it, but you still had CANCER, it seems the focus of the medical community (in my opinion) is to treat disease(s) once we contract them rather than find a way to PREVENT them. Wouldn't it have been a better experience if you were able to have received a treatment, or shot, or dare I say *"vaccine" for cancer. A true CURE to disease is to find a way to prevent it, not to treat it, nearly killing the patients in the process then declaring you "cured". The true CURE is finding the science behind preventing it, like polio.

                            So what I mean is it seems the focus of the medical community is in treating disease once we get it, because there are billions of dollars in "curing" us, but there is very LITTLE money in finding a true cure, and preventing these diseases at all.

                            Nobody is debating the medical communities ability or diligence in fighting disease once we contract them. I just feel the focus should be more on prevention of the disease(s) in general, rather than treatment. Or shall I say an equal balance in the two, which I just don't see. Perhap's I'm wrong, but that's "What I'm talking about".

                            (* Vaccine, I don't want to start a debate about vaccine's just using the term for example purposes. )

                            1. re: jrvedivici
                              cowboyardee RE: jrvedivici Apr 22, 2014 07:34 AM

                              Prevention is important and under-emphasized in American medicine - I certainly agree with you there. But preventing cancer is a wholly different matter than preventing polio. Cancer isn't one disease with one cause. And the better you prevent other fatal diseases, the more likely you are to eventually get cancer. To paraphrase Kurt Vonnegut, you might as well try to stop war or glaciers*

                              *fascinatingly, 50 years after he wrote on the subject, we're getting closest to stopping glaciers.

                              1. re: cowboyardee
                                jrvedivici RE: cowboyardee Apr 22, 2014 08:55 AM

                                As I stated below with rasputina, I didn't inject cancer cures into this conversation, that was rasputina. My comment was regarding the "cash cow" aspect of the disease, which I do feel is accurate. I'm not trying to compare polio vs. cancer again that was just used as an example of preventative cure vs. treatment cure. I agree they are wholly different matters but again that has nothing to do with the over all point of this topic.

                                It seems based on the comments in the article the reclassification of obesity to a disease was at least in part a financially based decision based on; " as well as increase reimbursement for obesity-related drugs, surgery, and counseling". That's all.

                                1. re: jrvedivici
                                  mcf RE: jrvedivici Apr 22, 2014 09:04 AM

                                  Bariatric surgery is competing with harmful, expensive new drugs for the booming diabetes market caused by grain and sugar lobbies owning FDA diet reccos.

                                  1. re: jrvedivici
                                    k
                                    kmcarr RE: jrvedivici Apr 22, 2014 09:10 AM

                                    "As I stated below with rasputina, I didn't inject cancer cures into this conversation, that was rasputina."

                                    But your first post yesterday stated:

                                    "Cancer, heart disease, Aids/HIV.........you name the disease and the medical communities attention is focused on treating and medicating, not curing."

                                    So you very much did inject cancer cures into this conversation, before rasputina ever posted.

                                    Regarding the quote you find objectionable:

                                    "The nation’s largest physician organization said the new classification would help turn more medical attention toward obesity, as well as increase reimbursement for obesity-related drugs, surgery, and counseling."

                                    These are the words of the author of the PsyPost article, Eric Dolan, and stated without attribution to anyone; we have no verification from any source that this was a significant consideration in the policy statement of the AMA. Read actual resolution (link in paulj's post below) if you are really interested in a fuller understanding the AMA's reasoning, not some second hand account.

                                    1. re: kmcarr
                                      jrvedivici RE: kmcarr Apr 22, 2014 10:12 AM

                                      kmcarr, I'm not trying to be rude with you, however my first post yesterday was a direct response to beevod's comment about "Cancer's another cash cow". I didn't make a post or a statement it was a response to someone else's comment. Just as this is a response to you, that was a response, not a stand alone statement. The response is regarding "cash cow" which the treatment of cancer is. I didn't inject cancer cure's into this conversation, I responded to a comment, there is a difference. Rasputina and others, such as yourself have taken that response out of it's context as an agreement with beevod.

                                      Regarding the quote as you have copy pasted it reads;
                                      "The nations largest physician organization said".........so that is leading the reader, myself, to believe it was a quote of the AMA.

                                      Now here is a quote from the NYTimes article that the PsyPost article was based on;

                                      "Still, some doctors and obesity advocates said that having the nation’s largest physician group make the declaration would focus more attention on obesity. And it could help improve reimbursement for obesity drugs, surgery and counseling."

                                      "reimbursement" being a recurring theme, a financial one.

                                      Let me also point out this little quote from the NY Times article as well;

                                      "To some extent, the question of whether obesity is a disease or not is a semantic one, since there is not even a universally agreed upon definition of what constitutes a disease. And the A.M.A.’s decision has no legal authority."

                                      But now let's have some fun......let's look at the "official" AMA resolution which you asked me to read. You know what I find curious about the "official" AMA resolution, under the Relevant AMA Policy description, the very first line of the 6 page description reads this;

                                      "H-150.953 Obesity as a Major Public Health Program - Our AMA will: (1) urge physicians as well as
                                      managed care organizations and other third party payers to recognize obesity as a complex disorder"

                                      AND 3RD Party Payers...........I believe that would be a reference to insurance providers, the people who pay the bills. In the very first line, the very first item, they say they want to get the insurance companies on board to paying for the treatment of obesity.

                                      Thank you for having me read and re-read much of this to reaffirm my original feelings. Oh, let's not forget to mention that it seems based on the original topic, this has actually helped increase obesity since now it's a disease and out of people's control.

                                    2. re: jrvedivici
                                      cowboyardee RE: jrvedivici Apr 22, 2014 09:22 AM

                                      It probably was a financially based decision. But does that mean it was a bad one? I'm not really sure.

                                      At heart, there are two separate issues here.

                                      1) How American medicine treats obesity. I imagine you and I agree that there is room for improvement on this front. A brief lecture on lifestyle factors when you go to the doctors office; a tidbit of nutritional advice (which, likely as not, is already outdated and problematic); a prescription for lipitor, then metformin, then lopressor, then lasix; a gastric bypass or maybe a CABG. Not that these are necessarily bad treatments individually (case-dependent), but the semi-typical order of operations here doesn't seem to be bringing about the best outcomes. Serious (and costly) interventions aren't performed until you have pretty serious disease, and then of course those interventions often don't lead to a particularly high quality of life (which isn't surprising, as they are performed on people who are, by that point, very sick). Would more emphasis and intervention based on prevention lead to better outcomes? Probably.

                                      2) How to fund medical interventions (whether they're good ones or bad ones). Fact of the matter is your health insurance isn't likely to pay for your gym membership (or tennis league or whatever), or educational in-depth classes on nutrition and cooking even if your doctor could somehow prescribe them based on your risk factors. Categorizing obesity as a disease might be one way to allow the medical profession to treat obesity starting at an earlier stage - before it leads to more recognized diseases.* If you want more and better prevention, you have to find a way to fund it.

                                      *the interesting question and one raised tangentially by the original article is whether redefining obesity as a disease also makes lifestyle 'treatments' less likely, as the medical community doubles down on their own medical-iness? Does it make patients less willing to accept lifestyle modification as a legit medical treatment?

                                      1. re: jrvedivici
                                        r
                                        rasputina RE: jrvedivici Apr 22, 2014 04:14 PM

                                        Um, no I wasn't the first person to mention cancer here, not by a long shot. There are actually numerous posts before I addressed it being brought up.

                                        1. re: rasputina
                                          jrvedivici RE: rasputina Apr 22, 2014 04:48 PM

                                          Please read or quote properly, I never said you were the first to mention cancer, what I said was you were the first to bring up cancer cures. You used yourself as an example of how the medical community cured you against the odds.

                                    3. re: jrvedivici
                                      r
                                      rasputina RE: jrvedivici Apr 22, 2014 08:27 AM

                                      Well, they haven't been able to determine what the cause is of the cancer I had. Until they do that, it's very hard to work on a prevention plan. My cancer is not one with a specific known cause or even a known associated risk like lung cancer and smoking or breast cancer and family history.

                                      Cancer isn't just one disease. It manifests in a wide variety of ways, has various causes and even more treatments. I can't imagine that there will ever be the ability or have a cancer vaccine that works for all cancers, because Leukemia manifests itself completely differently than lung cancer for example.

                                      1. re: rasputina
                                        jrvedivici RE: rasputina Apr 22, 2014 08:50 AM

                                        Nothing about my OP or my subsequent comment was meant to debate the fight for a cure of cancer. The comment which you asked me about was in reference to Cancer as a cash cow, do you not believe cancer is a cash cow for the pharmaceutical and or medical industry as a whole?

                                        I didn't inject cancer cure(s) into this dialog, that was you using yourself as an example. I'm not going to sit here and try to debate the different cancers and their treatment, that has nothing to do with any of my comments.

                                        It seems to me the AMA should be focused on STOPPING the obesity epidemic in this country (US), and NOT reclassifying obesity as a disease to "increase reimbursement for obesity-related drugs, surgery, and counseling". This reeks to me of chasing money because there is more money to be reimbursed than there is in securing overall healthier lifestyles for generations to come.

                                        1. re: jrvedivici
                                          paulj RE: jrvedivici Apr 22, 2014 09:30 AM

                                          I think you are unfairly judging the AMA solely on the 1st sentence of that online article.

                                          1. re: paulj
                                            jrvedivici RE: paulj Apr 22, 2014 10:26 AM

                                            Honestly the more I keep reading about this the more I support my original stance.

                                            It reeks to me of a financial move to make more money off of obesity than it is a sincere effort to do anything to stop the obesity epidemic in this country. (US)

                                          2. re: jrvedivici
                                            r
                                            rasputina RE: jrvedivici Apr 22, 2014 04:17 PM

                                            No I don't believe cancer is a cash cow for the medical industry or pharmaceutical companies. It costs a huge amount of money in research to get effective treatments to market.

                                            1. re: rasputina
                                              mcf RE: rasputina Apr 22, 2014 04:25 PM

                                              Here's the thing; we taxpayers fund the research and once it's close enough to marketing, the NIH gives the work product to the industry, usually for free They are in it strictly for the huge payload. Their corruption, buying off researchers and even FDA honchos, manipulations of study data, ghost writing under physician's names, etc. are all well documented, it's not some tin hat theory.

                                        2. re: jrvedivici
                                          paulj RE: jrvedivici Apr 22, 2014 08:30 AM

                                          First a bit of semantics. For the individual cure means treating the disease once they contract it. For society as a whole, cure means prevention.

                                          Prevention, detection, treatment are a better set of words.

                                          For most diseases treatment has been the initial focus, Surgeons were cutting out turmors before anyone had ideas of what caused them. Polio victims were being put in iron lungs long before the vaccine was developed. Especially with cancer early detection makes the treatment more effective (and potentially less expensive).

                                          The HPV vaccine is an example of a cancer preventative. Various campaigns against smoking are another. Successful treatment and/or prevention of obesity can be a diabetes preventative. In fact, treatment of obesity, even with surgery, is a preventative for a whole host of deadly diseases.

                                          The study cited by the OP is an example of research into prevention. It looks at the psychological factors affecting a public health action (the AMA resolution and subsequent NYT article).

                                          In the AMA resolution, 'prevention' occurs 14 times, 'treatement' 10, 'surgery' 4, 'therapies' 3, 'diet' 24, 'lifestyle' 7. 'education' 21.

                                          1. re: paulj
                                            r
                                            rasputina RE: paulj Apr 22, 2014 04:20 PM

                                            You don't cure something that doesn't exist. The definition of cure is not prevention. Prevention is important but most conditions can not be fully eradicated at this point, so curing the ill is still needed.

                                            1. re: rasputina
                                              jrvedivici RE: rasputina Apr 22, 2014 04:54 PM

                                              NOBODY is saying or disputing that care for the disease once detected is negligent. The point is which you seem to be missing is there is substantially more money in treating and curing disease once contracted, then eradicating them.

                                              Just a FYI I am very familiar with cancer and it's treatments and costs, as I type this both my wife (breast) and my father (prostate) are fighting their battles. If you don't see the treatment of cancer as a cash cow to the medical industry good for you, we agree to disagree.

                                    4. re: beevod
                                      c
                                      Chefpaulo RE: beevod Apr 21, 2014 09:01 AM

                                      Big pharma needs diseases along with an army of docs to pass out prescriptions after a few cursory intake questions.

                                      A colleague of mine must fly to Switzerland 3x a year for treatments of a rare form of cancer for which there is no FDA approval. It is working but just not approved here.

                                      As for obesity, there's no profit in life-style changes so why should they mention it?

                                      1. re: beevod
                                        m
                                        miss_belle RE: beevod Apr 21, 2014 06:37 PM

                                        Those Cancer Treatment Centers of America that are cropping up all over the place like cancerous sores with their success stories only to read that you should not expect typical results.These people are nothing but vultures IMO...

                                        1. re: miss_belle
                                          mcf RE: miss_belle Apr 22, 2014 05:59 AM

                                          Maybe. I haven't looked into how they practice and if their outcomes are actually better than traditional centers. Have you?

                                          1. re: mcf
                                            m
                                            miss_belle RE: mcf Apr 22, 2014 04:28 PM

                                            No and I have no intention of doing so. Cancer centers who "feed" on desperate sick people with commercials have no place in my book.

                                            1. re: miss_belle
                                              mcf RE: miss_belle Apr 22, 2014 04:38 PM

                                              Pretty much every hospital, medical service and industry advertises on T.V. including other cancer centers. How do you arrive at the conclusion that this particular one alone is preying on desperation more than others do?

                                              All of the academic cancer centers in NY are advertising just as aggressively, for example. They specifically make the claim or imply that a cure is more likely in their facilities than others.

                                              So is one to avoid one and all on the basis of advertising?

                                              1. re: mcf
                                                m
                                                miss_belle RE: mcf Apr 22, 2014 07:06 PM

                                                Movie night tonight. I'll have to get back to you tomorrow ok.

                                      2. paulj RE: jrvedivici Apr 21, 2014 09:44 AM

                                        Also from that post:
                                        "The researchers do not dispute that obesity should be classified as a disease. The goal of the study was to better understand how public-health messages can have unintended consequences."

                                        I'd also like to highlight: "and counseling"

                                        What do you expect doctors to do to prevent obesity?

                                        http://www.weightymatters.ca/
                                        A Canadian doctor is blogging about 13 myths about dieting.

                                        1. westsidegal RE: jrvedivici Apr 21, 2014 10:59 AM

                                          if we are going to pay attention to how big pharma profits from obesity and/or cancer,
                                          we should also look at how big ag profits from it.
                                          really, the two are married when it comes to this issue.
                                          not to mention the role big pharma has in livestock production.. . . .

                                          1 Reply
                                          1. re: westsidegal
                                            MplsM ary RE: westsidegal Apr 21, 2014 01:58 PM

                                            This is why I love Chowhound. You guys are determined to make me think, aren't you?

                                            I'd never thought about the complicity of pharma and ag in this way. I mean sure, Id thought about antibiotic and antimicrobial usage in agriculture. I'd never linked the two when it comes to obesity.

                                            Thanks!

                                          2. j
                                            Jerseygirl111 RE: jrvedivici Apr 21, 2014 02:19 PM

                                            Doctors can't "prevent" obesity, only the individual can. My doctor can suggest I make healthier choices but she's not there while I am opening my B&J to eat while watching Hannibal. Well maybe in spirit.

                                            1 Reply
                                            1. re: Jerseygirl111
                                              mcf RE: Jerseygirl111 Apr 21, 2014 05:52 PM

                                              Actually, severe obesity occurs in folks who don't overeat and who aren't sedentary due to endocrine disorder. Often.
                                              The kind of hunger that keeps people eating long past the point their lives and comfort are severely compromised is not solely nor primarily a life style nor psych issue.

                                              Doctors are as ignorant as the general public when it comes to obesity as an endocrine disorder. Worse, it's often caused by the diet most commonly recommended by them. The diet that leads to diabetes and the treatment of lipid targets with no benefits.

                                            2. paulj RE: jrvedivici Apr 22, 2014 08:10 AM

                                              The actual AMA resolution here:
                                              http://media.npr.org/documents/2013/j...

                                              1. m
                                                miss_belle RE: jrvedivici Apr 22, 2014 04:20 PM

                                                To address the original post:

                                                Back about 2007 or so I knew three people who had the lapband done. They all told me you had to be at least 100 pounds overweight to have the operation done. And they were. Then a few years later it was down to 60 pounds. Now the commercials advertise 30 lbs. I'd like someone to explain to me how this is is not a f*****g racket. The world of medical procedures is going to hell in a pothole...try and tell me it's not about the money:-(

                                                3 Replies
                                                1. re: miss_belle
                                                  jrvedivici RE: miss_belle Apr 22, 2014 04:57 PM

                                                  THANK YOU!!!! Plus might I add that I read somewhere there is a push to have the minimum age for the procedure reduced as well.

                                                  1. re: jrvedivici
                                                    m
                                                    miss_belle RE: jrvedivici Apr 22, 2014 05:57 PM

                                                    Oh great. Now I have something else to get irritated about:-)

                                                    1. re: miss_belle
                                                      jrvedivici RE: miss_belle Apr 22, 2014 05:58 PM

                                                      Sorry

                                                2. ipsedixit RE: jrvedivici Apr 22, 2014 04:47 PM

                                                  This just in.

                                                  Doctors are just like everyone else. They like to make money.

                                                  Coming up next. New reports show that water is wet.

                                                  1. Gastronomos RE: jrvedivici Apr 22, 2014 05:05 PM

                                                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Hei...

                                                    Show Hidden Posts