For the scientists here, prepare to want to slit your own throats. Oh the confirmation bias, the confusion of risk factors with ultimate causation, studying brain chemistry for a few weeks in the local library….the horror….the horror!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/10/alzheimers-junk-food-catastrophic-effect

My problem with this article is summed up by this rather poorly edited comment, especially the use of the word “multifactorial” disease which somes up my problem with this piece. There are many risk factors associated with Alzheimer’s, so many that you cannot label a single factor as a “leading cause” like George Monbiot would love to do.

George monbiot is a journalist. he is not researcher in brain chemistry, nor is he active in alzheimer’s research, and he certainly doesn’t work in a care home with alzheimer’s sufferers.

his only qualiication for writing this piece in the way that he has is his own claim to have spent a long time in the library.

the alzheimer’s society explores a wide variety of potential causative factors. most of theme are “lifestyle” related and diabetes is certainly among them. however, monbiot is too presumptious when he starts to re-label alzheimer’s as type 3 diabetes. among the most significant “risk factors” apart from the aging process itself, is smoking. the well known finnish study concluded that heavy smokers (40 a day men and women) are twice as likely to develop alzheimers. a smoking gun? well, it was based on a sample of over 21,000 people as opposed to Monbiot’s 54 brains.

i am not going to the library to check your facts george. it’s self-evident that you are not qualified to take the specific elements of scienctific study into the arena of opinion-based generalizations. and what is junk food anyway? fish eaters are less susceptible to alzheimers than meat eaters. does that make fillet steak immoral?

modern life is bad for us. our bad habits are bad for us. our venal and murderous nature is bad for us. bad food is bad for us. food thats too good is bad for us. but that is fundamental to our understanding of a raft of diseases. i would rather not have dementia at 80, but i would rather that than see anyone die of leukemia before they reached 20.

my mother is 80 and she does have dementia. i can torment myself silly trying to divine a cause for the effect. but i would not bring my half baked theories about the features of her past life into a serious discussion about the science behind the medicine. neither would i present a few weeks spent in the library as a ticket to pronounce evidence, conclusion and verdict upon the principal causes of alzheimers. that is what makes monbiot a fool in my eyes, and not for the first time.

bear in mind that the thrust of the research is about finding a cure and/or ameliorating drugs – not prevention primarilly. that’s because you need a coherent, global understanding of the causative factors. that as someone else has rightly said is going to be hard in a disease that is already accepted to be “multi-factorial” in its origins. it will be slowed down while we look for needles in haystacks.

by all means criticize the food industry. lobby against it’s mendacious practices. knock yourself out. but don’t try to scaremonger. people still smoke. many of them young and it makes my heart sink whenever i see it. but we are no nearer making the manufacture and sale of them illegal and shutting down a billion pound industry.

and you think we can outlaw bad food because you found out something scientific in the library?

Journalist in Talking Complete Shite Shocker

George Monbiot is a sanctimonious, humourless bore. I’m one of life’s natural Guardian readers (I blame my lefty mother) but I just can’t stand reading a single word of his whiney, preachy, holier than though crap

Me may well be full of shit and is definitely annoying, but if the result is that a few people eat a bit less junk food or the industry has to self-regulate a bit better – oh noes! Won’t someone think of the children!

Far more important things to get het up about.

What pisses me off is that he’s on some crusade against crimes against the earth and human health by corporations, so junk food is a natural target. Consequently he quite happily commits crimes against the human intellect and willingly attempts to manipulate people by producing this kind of crap.

Me may well be full of shit and is definitely annoying, but if the result is that a few people eat a bit less junk food or the industry has to self-regulate a bit better – oh noes! Won’t someone think of the children!

Far more important things to get het up about.

Not if it equals bad science. A culture of bad science pedalled by journalists leads to things like MMR scandals. Which leads to mild cases of death.

Yeah he has gone that way, a shame as his book Captive State really changed the way I think about brand name prevelence, high street dominance, planning system susceptability to big names, PFI lunacy etc…

But I don’t read him much any more.

Bloody hell!! You’ve made me read it now. So, even before we get to the whole alzheimer’s thing….. daring to criticise obese people for being obese is now a form of class snobbery and bullying? 🙄

He’s a polemicist – yes it’s irritating but unfortunately dry, completely fact-based and well referenced arguments don’t hold that much sway with the masses and probably have little impact outside academic circles.

If he was making these dodgy arguments to some evil ends I’d be right there with you – but the mass-produced food industry does suck balls, and junk food is very bad for you.

I’m not a Monbiot fan BTW.

Also I **** love a tasty burger once in a while, why should I be taxed to high heaven for that. Let fat people die, it’s their own fault and they cost the NHS less because they die earlier. Basically they don’t get alzheimers and cost a fortune to keep alive.

In fact heres a good research topic, how many people would get alzheimers if they hadn’t smoked or became fat because they had lived longer vs how many people got alzheimers because they smoked/were fatties.

He’s a polemicist – yes it’s irritating but unfortunately dry, completely fact-based and well referenced arguments don’t hold that much sway with the masses and probably have little impact outside academic circles.

This.

I can think of specific instances where he’s been wrong (probably because he hasn’t checked the accuracy of a source) but he’s right most of the time.

I can think of specific instances where he’s been wrong (probably because he hasn’t checked the accuracy of a source) but he’s right most of the time.

No he isn’t. Everything he say’s is usually wrong. The IQ link to political ideals was the most hilarious one.

In fact as a rule, whatever line Monbiot takes I’ll usually take the total opposite one as it usually ends up being right.

Let fat people die, it’s their own fault and they cost the NHS less because they die earlier.

So you hate George Monbiot for using bad science in arguments – you should probably hate yourself more for a complete lack of compassion and human decency judging by that comment.

Also, it’s pretty bad science on your part – seeing as most of the latest research appears to show that it’s actually inactive (fat or thin) people who will have the most health issues, not fat people. So hate yourself for that too.

Or were you just using a slightly over the top argument to make a point? Hmmm….

bwaarp – I was going to say…. aren’t we being constantly told that living on junk food means you’re unlikely to make retirement age?

So now, according to George, that’s no longer the case? They’re going to grow old and get alzheimer’s instead? I’d say the two positions are mutually incompatible. Surely its either one or the other?

So you hate George Monbiot for using bad science in arguments – you should probably hate yourself more for a complete lack of compassion and human decency judging by that comment.

Bad science misinforms people about their own health, even if they take an interest. Everyone knows that being fat is bad for you, yet people still consciously take the decision not to do anything about it. That’s their problem, not mine.

You can only help people if they want to help themselves. That is the unfortunate predicament that a lot of scientists and doctors have to deal with.

Public health matters and government regulation is an interesting topic actually – I can this thread hitting 20 pages lol.

Also I **** love a tasty burger once in a while, why should I be taxed to high heaven for that. Let fat people die, it’s their own fault and they cost the NHS less because they die earlier.

I’m not sure it is their own fault. This isn’t about the fat people you see wondering out of gregs. Its an epidemic. The addictive sugar, salt and trans-fats are inserted into almost every food product on sale and hidden from the consumer as much as possible. Even an apparently healthy salad in tesco can contain half your fat and salt intake in one go. This makes it very difficult to eat healthily unless you rigorously inspect every food label, which the supermarkets seem to be determined to make as confusing as possible.

Oh I agree with you Horatio. However you can campaign against that kind of thing without resorting to bad science, there are so many other disease with proven links that you could use to wage a war against the food industry.

People like Monbiot damage the reputation of science and so that when science really does have something to say, people on either end of the political spectrum are less inclined to believe it. It becomes swamped in cynicism and anti-science skepticism.

After that it is politics, do you want more government regulation to ban these substances or do you want informed choice and how do we go about that?

Everyone knows that being fat is bad for you

As I said above, I believe latest research based on very good data shows fairly clearly that being fat isn’t actually anywhere near as important as whether you are active or not.

I would also contend that many fat people have other issues such as depression or disability/health issues which contribute massively to the problem (I know I did when I was really fat). I suppose that’s their own fault too though eh?

So….. it seems you are perpetuating myths about health based on inaccurate or outdated science in order to demonise people. But George Monbiot is the bad guy? OK then……..

informed choice

Informed choice can only go so far against billions of dollars of advertising money spent on selling/promoting unhealthiness.

No being obese is definitely bad for your heart. Depression doesn’t cause as many heart failures.

Informed choice can only go so far against billions of dollars of advertising money spent on selling/promoting unhealthiness.

Good point, ban advertisement then. May I ask though, am I going to have to get a card one day to have my government mandated alcohol units from a store? I mean, obviously I can’t be trusted with my own health.

No being obese is definitely bad for your heart. Depression doesn’t cause as many heart failures.

People can be obese yet physically healthy and fit and at no greater risk of heart disease or cancer than normal weight people, say researchers.

The key is being “metabolically fit”, meaning no high blood pressure, cholesterol or raised blood sugar, and exercising, according to experts.

Looking at data from over 43,000 US people they found that being overweight per se did not pose a big health risk.

The results are published in the European Heart Journal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19474239

But you know better, right, what with you being a scientist and all?

Just wondering though, are you incredibly judgemental and unpleasant about people you know who are thin, but don’t do any exercise? Or smokers?

May I ask though, am I going to have to get a card one day to have my government mandated alcohol units from a store? I mean, obviously I can’t be trusted with my own health.

Nice reductio ad absurdum argument – George Monbiot would be proud.

Manufacture it as cheap as possible, transport it market as cheap as possible, make the consumer think they are buying as cheap as possible, make it as healthy as possible. One of those statements is impossible when linked to all the others.

Mr Monbiot may be wrong on many things but if he is suggesting that we have an industrialised food industry that’s making us unhealthy, he is spot on.

I’m off the eat my salad amd fish. 🙂

HAHA Grum, two can play this game.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22507609

Each kg/m² of BMI gained was associated with an 18% increase in the risk of developing hypertension and a 26% increase in risk for the metabolic syndrome. We conclude that metabolically healthy obese individuals are at higher risk to develop hypertension, type 2 diabetes and the metabolic syndrome than their non-obese counterparts. Our data provide further evidence that opposes the notion of metabolically healthy obese as harmless conditions.

In the study at the University of South Carolina

You need more than one study to determine things like this.

Universities and places like the http://www.ifr.ac.uk/ do studies all the time. They are published in journals, peer reviewed, and eventually a concensus is reached.

The problem is, occasionaly the media get hold of *one* study and blow it out of all proportion and then people start thinking “being fat is healthy”. Then another study comes out saying the opposite and before you know whats going on we end with people like this….

… who haven’t got a clue what they’re talking about. Although Monbiot possible has more of a clue then Delingpole.

This has confirmed my point that it’s bad for our health when bad science is peddled by the media (eg one study being peddled as fact.)

No he isn’t. Everything he say’s is usually wrong. The IQ link to political ideals was the most hilarious one.

No, most things he says are based on peer reviewed research. He’s not infallible, but to suggest that one should take the opposite line as a matter of course is a silly ad hominem that means any claims you make about “proper” science aren’t to be taken seriously.

Uhm, as I can’t be bothered reading anything by Monbiot are you talking about poor science reporting or BAD SCIENCE?

Then another study comes out saying the opposite and before you know whats going on we end with people like this..

People wearing jackets and glasses, drinking coffee?

The bastards!!!

#sorry, the science bit of brain didn’t really wake up today, glib pointless derision is really all I have to offer…

Either.

You need more than one study to determine things like this.

Universities and places like the http://www.ifr.ac.uk/ do studies all the time. They are published in journals, peer reviewed, and eventually a concensus is reached.

I’m aware of that – and I’m aware that there are criticisms of that study and people that disagree.

Just pointing out the hypocrisy of bwaarp having a go at George Monbiot for using dubious arguments and over the top absolutist statements of ‘fact’ when he is doing the same thing (but worse), and rather than arguing something which is basically correct – ie. ‘we have an industrialised food industry that’s making us unhealthy’ bwaarp is arguing we should be ****s to fat people.

No, most things he says are based on peer reviewed research. He’s not infallible, but to suggest that one should take the opposite line as a matter of course is a silly ad hominem that means any claims you make about “proper” science aren’t to be taken seriously.

we have an industrialised food industry that’s making us unhealthy’ bwaarp is arguing we should be ***** to fat people.

Being a libertarian doesn’t make me unqualified to make statements about scientific matters.

This has confirmed my point that it’s bad for our health when bad science is peddled by the media

Or by brash idiots on internet forums claiming to be scientists?

Where did I say it was fact by the way?

latest research based on very good data

You’re the one who tried to present your opinions as facts.

BTW you can call it being a libertarian if that makes you feel better. Most people would just say it shows a lack of basic human compassion.

Looks pretty good to me. It’s heavily caveatted:

We cannot yet state unequivocally that poor diet is a leading cause of Alzheimer’s disease, though we can say that the evidence is strong and growing.

and fully referenced on his own site

I might not agree with everything he says, or draw the same conclusions from the research, but that’s a pretty bloody good standard for science reporting compared to the rest of the press.

Bravo.

Or by brash idiots on internet forums claiming to be scientists?

I haven’t really peddled any science in here bar one post. I was just picking holes in how the piece was written/worded so as to manipulate the reader.

Most people would just say it shows a lack of basic human compassion.

You can’t help everyone, you can’t go through life trying to help people who don’t try to help themselves. If someone shows an interest in helping themselves by all means there should be the resources in place to do it. This is where science ends and politics or philosophy come in to play.

I might not agree with everything he says, or draw the same conclusions from the research, but that’s a pretty bloody good standard for science reporting compared to the rest of the press.

No, no it isn’t. His piece takes sources and then twists them to suit his opinion. He equates risk factors with causation, implies there is evidence for a poor diet being a leading cause (the line saying we cannot state for certain is manipulative, designed to impart his opinion on you) when it’s a multifactorial disease etc etc ad nauseum.

From Sciencedaily.

In another article, author, José A. Luchsinger of the Division of General Medicine, Department of Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, notes that while there seems to be little dispute that T2D can cause cerebrovascular disease and vascular cognitive impairment, whether T2D can cause late onset AD remains to be determined. “Although the idea is highly speculative, the association between T2D and cognitive impairment may not be causal. Several lines of evidence provide some support to the idea that late onset Alzheimer’s disease could cause T2D, or that both could share causal pathways,” he notes. He reviews epidemiological, imaging, and pathological studies and clinical trials to provide insight. “Given the epidemic of T2D in the world, it’s important to determine whether the association between T2D and cognitive impairment, particularly late onset AD, is causal and if so, what are the mechanisms underlying it.”

I suspect Mr unbothered would only be bothered if his posts got ignored

Being a libertarian doesn’t make me unqualified to make statements about scientific matters.

I think that being a libertarian doe notmake you qualified to make them …you need to understand science to discuss science her ehave some on me
Being a libertarian doesn’t make me unqualified to make statements about scientific matters.

Being a libertarian doesn’t make me unqualified to make statements about scientific matters.

Being a libertarian doesn’t make me unqualified to make statements about scientific matters.

Being a libertarian doesn’t make me unqualified to make statements about mathematical matters.

see its nonesense really , just admit it 😉

He reads New Scientist.
He references and repeats their lead story a couple of weeks later, after a bit of his own research.
He adds a pinch more politics for his frothy Guardian readership.
His hit count goes up with folk linking to his article. 😉

Fair play to him.

It’s heavily caveatted

Problem is he ignores his own caveats, as they’d make the article pointless.

The newscientist article (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528805.800-food-for-thought-eat-your-way-to-dementia.html) seems more focused on how this is directing future research.

I haven’t really peddled any science in here bar one post. I was just picking holes in how the piece was written/worded so as to manipulate the reader.

I am almost certainly wrong but isn’t that the point of the media – “to manipulate the reader”?

The question then is “should the media be so manipulative?” as a libertarian I would have thought that the answer to this is yes. (No I’m not confusing neo-liberalism/market economies with Libertarianism.)

I’m not logging in to read that can you put up? Please?

Nice salad by the way, with smoked haddock.

No, no it isn’t. His piece takes sources and then twists them to suit his opinion. He equates risk factors with causation, implies there is evidence for a poor diet being a leading cause (the line saying we cannot state for certain is manipulative, designed to impart his opinion on you) when it’s a multifactorial disease etc etc ad nauseum.

But it’s referenced so at the very least someone can go back and write a detailed demolition picking up where he has done this. That still places it ahead of nearly all science reporting in the press.

The question then is “should the media be so manipulative?” as a libertarian I would have thought that the answer to this is yes.

That’s actually an interesting one. I guess that depends on what kind of freedom you believe in, should you be free to say anything you like or should you be free to make an informed opinion based on accurate reporting by the media. I wonder, should have those that were the ringleaders in spreading the scandalous rumors about the MMR jab be prosecuted if people had died due to not having the jab, should spreading opinion masquerading as scientific fact be akin to libel? I suppose the line becomes blurred when you actually have a few sources to back up your claims unlike a lot of the MMR crap.

Or is it just the job of people who know better to point out mistakes made by journalists?

We cannot yet state unequivocally that poor diet is a leading cause of Alzheimer’s disease, though we can say that the evidence is strong and growing. But if ever there was a case for the precautionary principle, here it is. It’s not as if we lose anything by eating less rubbish.

Fair enough really.