I'm disappointed about these government U-turns that disfavour Public Health

I'm disappointed about the two current government U-turns that disfavour Public Health, namely an indefinite delay in the introduction of plain cigarette packaging and the anticipated abandonment of plans for minimum alcohol pricing in England and Wales. Disappointed, but not, of course, surprised. The opportunity to accord a modicum of protection to children's health by making smoking less of a temptation before they become addicted is obviously so much preferable/more likely to be effective than attempts to beat addiction to smoking as an adult. But our government is more concerned about tobacco industry profits than about child health. And similarly is more concerned about the profits of the alcohol trade than about the appalling and increasing harm that heavy drinking is causing, notably in young people and in particular young women, and tragically pregnant mothers who continue drinking too much alcohol during their pregnancies, thus giving birth to babies suffering with terrible health problems from the very start of their damaged, shortened lives.

This government made clear its lack of concern about public health shortly after coming into power, when Andrew Lansley, then Secretary of State for Health, put the profits of the Food Industry above the health of UK citizens, by opposing and reversing the planned ban on synthetic trans fats in processed food products. He mendaciously painted the intended ban as an example of a 'nanny state'.

Freudian Slip by the Department of Health

Freudian Slip by the Dept of Health: see the Guardian article Matthew Freud picks up £1m-a-year contract with Department of Health. The contract is intended to improve public health, e.g. reduce obesity.

Freud is a PR guy whose agency (Freud Communications) works for clients that include Pepsi, KFC, Walkers Crisps and the premium drinks company, Diageo. They are companies whose products could never be accused of being remotely good for public health. And remember Change4Life? - Freud handled that anti-obesity campaign, notable for its spectacular lack of success in reducing the nation's growing obesity problem. Well if Freud and his company have as little success at improving public health as they have so far demonstrated, at least their other clients will feel the benefit in their swelling profits. - Anyone noticed the old enemy, Conflicts of Interest, rearing its ugly head again?

Is there a link between antidepressants and breast and ovarian cancer?

Is there a link between antidepressants and breast and ovarian cancer? A new meta-analysis of 61 trials identified a connection in nearly 33 percent of the epidemiological and pre-clinical studies conducted between 1965 and 2010 found an association between cancer and antidepressants. And the link was stronger among women using selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs. Moreover, the study found researchers with industry ties were significantly less likely than researchers without those affiliations to conclude antidepressants increase the risk of breast or ovarian cancer. The authors of the meta-analysis, which was published in PLoS Medicines, suggest the findings raise public health and policy issues, “because there is increasing evidence that financial ties among industry, investigators, and academic institutions can affect the research process.”
Read article at pharmalot.com And see antidepressants.

Transfats (artificial trans fatty acids) added to foods should be banned, but Andrew Wadge, Food Standards Agency's Chief Scientist, disagrees. WHY?

This Guardian report informs us that "The UK Faculty of Public Health is urging ministers to eradicate artificial trans fatty acids, known as trans fats, from the British diet. The move is needed to reduce people's risk of suffering a heart attack or a stroke, says the faculty, which represents 3,300 doctors and public health specialists in the NHS, local government and medical research."

But Andrew Wadge, the Food Standards Agency's Chief Scientist, disagrees. One wonders why. The fact that only small quantities are added is a disingenuous argument, since even very small quantities are harmful.

In that same blogpost you will see that he is also flogging that old, disproved warhorse, namely that saturated fats are bad for us. He claims that " As a nation we are all eating much more saturated fat than we need to, which is having a negative effect on our health", which is quite untrue, and it's a real shame that the FSA is campaigning to discourage people from eating saturated fats. For a more informed and well-researched view on saturated fats I urge you to read this blogpost by Dr Briffa.

And here's a very simple way to reduce your risk of heart attack or stroke: cut down on salt and salty food.

Lose weight, reduce your risk of most cancers, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, heart attack, vascular dementia, stroke, osteopenia, osteoporosis, osteomalacia, hypercholesterolaemia, depression, liver and kidney problems, boost your lung function and improve your health in many other ways without drugs, hunger or expense by eating less salt! - Try it!

See my website www.wildeaboutsteroids.co.uk
The site does not sell anything and has no banners or sponsors or adverts - just helpful information.

Read my Mensa article on Obesity and the Salt Connection

Sodium in foods

Fat retention and fat excretion: the importance of getting enough calcium.

Risks from Overuse of Tamiflu and Other Antivirals

Reported by the LA Times here.

Since the risk of drug-resistant strains of viruses resulting from overuse of antimicrobial drugs is so well-known, why, exactly, was the on-demand supply of Tamiflu to all and sundry resulting from the Telephone for Tamiflu debaclé allowed? and why is it so erroneously referred to as "a safety-first approach?" The only possible beneficiaries from this cavalier distribution and over-supply of Tamiflu are the drug companies.

This leads me to wonder which members of the government/Dept of Health are wanting to favour the drug companies with huge profits from Tamiflu at £15 a dose - and WHY - even at the risk of endangering public health? What is the quid pro quo?

Patients should be given facts about pharmaceutical drugs

Pharmaceutical companies spend millions each year to market drugs to doctors and potential patients. That makes it all the more outrageous that AstraZeneca is asking an Orlando court to keep information about the performance of its lucrative antipsychotic drug Seroquel secret. The company is claiming public safety, saying it shouldn't be required to release information about the drug that could cause a panic among "a vulnerable patient population" that might stop taking the drug without a doctor's oversight. But the real public safety issue is one of public health and whether the company hid findings that Seroquel causes weight gain and diabetes. The legal system must put public health — and a patient's right to know — above a company's interest in secrecy.
Read editorial in the St. Petersburg Times (Florida/USA)

Lose weight, by eating less salt! - Try it! - You will feel so much better!