60 Minutes Story on Gastric Bypass and elimination on Type 2 Diabetes

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:05:50 -0700 (PDT), Laureen
wrote:

On Apr 26, 2:36*pm, Marengo wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:28:17 -0700 (PDT), Laureen





wrote:
On Apr 21, 1:01*pm, "
wrote:
There was an interesting story on 60 Minutes last night about gastric
bypass surgery. * Doctors noticed that patients that underwent the
procedure that had type 2 diabetes no longer had any symptoms of
diabetes following surgery. * *Most remarkable was that the effect
occured withing a few days, so it was not linked to weight loss. *They
had 8 people on the show, all of whom were type 2 and all said they
were now normal, no longer taking medication, etc.

Researchers looked into how this occurs and have concluded that the
effect seems to be caused by bypassing the duodenum, ie a short part
of the small intestine where it connects to the stomach, where some
hormone is produced by food passing through.

Some limited studies are underway abroad now to try the procedure on
people not overweight, but with type 2. * It's certainly very
interesting. * Doctors on the show were even using the term "cure".

My blood work 3 months post WLS showed diabetes as GONE! My A1c came
back 5.1 and 4.8. My insulin levels are normal as are my periods
( which I hardly ever had). My gastric bypass surgeon had told me if a
person did this drastic surgical measure and they didnt have at least
100 excess pounds it would kill them. Guess that stands to reason why
the FDA prohibits this procedure from being done on average weight
diabetics.

My hope is that someday soon they will have a breakthrough and a
cure. I have a close friend who is slowly succumbing to the ravages of
this horrible disease. She has chronic bowel trouble, neuropathy in
her extremities, her eyes are failing. Her heart has even been damaged
by neuropathy and she suffers incredible vertigo when standing up to
walk. She has almost lost her foot from slow healing infections. She
weighs less than 100lbs now. Her face is wrinkled and her hair looks
like straw from being malnourished as everything she eats rockets
through her without being absorbed.

I feel so fortunate to finally be healthy
Still doing good at 159.5 this am 3 years and almost 3 months since
WLS
Laureen

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22396623@N08

Hi Laureen, nice to see your post. *I still think about you, Larry and
Alyvia and the great time we had when we went to the PNW to visit you.
Glad that you're still doing so well. *

I've been back in "the groove" myself and am down to 216 pounds with a
goal of 180, so I'm getting there! (I had no choice after having
emergency angioplasty and 3 coronary artery stent insertions a few
months ago). * I hope to reach my goal this October; when it happens
I'll post new pictures. *In the meanwhile I'm feeling great.

* I've been mostly lurking with an occasional post here in ASDLC.

---
Peter
270/216/180- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hi Peter,
We have lost touch haven't we? Life has been busy and tragic the last
8 months. My tool was put to the test. My father fell ill last June
and I insisted he retire and move here. I offered my home to him,
moved all his belongings here, put them in storage, and nursed him
back to health for the idea of when he felt better he would get his
own place. He got his own place in November.It was nice to see him
gear up and ride his Harley and not have a care in the world for a
brief time. He died suddenly last month. I am utterly and truly
devastated. I cant believe this has happened. I have been on Ativan
and Ambien. I have lost one of my best friends. My Dad raised me with
the help of both of my grandmothers most of my life! He was only 66!
He had lovely long white hair. After he passed I clipped a good amount
and braided it. I HAD to sleep with it wound around my fingers for a
while SIGH!
I wanna cry again
Laureen


Aww, I'm so sorry Laureen. I know you were devastated when you lost
your grandmother just a couple of years ago, and now this. Boy, we
never know what life is going to throw at us, do we?

I know this is OT now, but I've recently started going back to church
regularly and it's helped give me a stability and focus in my life
that I had been missing. I find it easier to handle the hardships
that have come my way. First the heart problem and angioplasty a few
months ago, then I lost my job last month. And it's hard to get the
job I'm suited for when I walk into an interview and they see my
disability -- which doesn't affect my job performance one bit. But,
I've maintained a positive attitude through everything. I figure that
I have three choices: be here and be happy, be here and be miserable,
or not be here at all. I've chosen the first option.

I think I've moved since I spoke with you last; I'm not sure. I'll
send you an e-mail tomorrow anyway with my new address and phone #. I
really don't want to lose touch. Nancy and Nathan moved back to
Massachusetts almost a year ago. When we visited you they were just
moving to Virginia to live with me! Whew! Time goes by so fast. It's
true what they say: The older you get the faster it goes!
---
Peter
270/216/180

On Apr 28, 4:43*am, Marengo wrote:
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:22:47 +0200, Hakan wrote:

*Did you make up your

mind just by reading Atkins books?

I did.
---
Peter
270/216/180



I made up my mine by just reading Atkins book and then seeing that it
works.

wrote:
There was an interesting story on 60 Minutes last night about gastric
bypass surgery. Doctors noticed that patients that underwent the
procedure that had type 2 diabetes no longer had any symptoms of
diabetes following surgery. Most remarkable was that the effect
occured withing a few days, so it was not linked to weight loss. They
had 8 people on the show, all of whom were type 2 and all said they
were now normal, no longer taking medication, etc.

Researchers looked into how this occurs and have concluded that the
effect seems to be caused by bypassing the duodenum, ie a short part
of the small intestine where it connects to the stomach, where some
hormone is produced by food passing through.

Some limited studies are underway abroad now to try the procedure on
people not overweight, but with type 2. It's certainly very
interesting. Doctors on the show were even using the term "cure".

After reading the whole thread (as of today) I'm going back to the
beginning to post a link to two articles over at JunkFoodScience about
this program:

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/...-part-one.html

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/...-part-two.html

brigid
p.s. Laureen, it's good to hear that you're doing well, and I'm truly
sorry about your dad's passing.

After reading the whole thread (as of today) I'm going back to the
beginning to post a link to two articles over at JunkFoodScience about
this program:

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/...-part-one.html

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/...-part-two.html

brigid
p.s. Laureen, it's good to hear that you're doing well, and I'm truly
sorry about your dad's passing.

So it was just too good to be true. They should consider for a while
how they are playing with the hopes of thousands of people with diabetes
watching their shows before they air unverified stuff. Thank you for
sharing that with us.

--
Newsoffice.de - Die Onlinesoftware zum Lesen und Schreiben im Usenet
Die Signatur läßt sich nach Belieben anpassen ;-)

On May 2, 4:42*pm, Hakan wrote:
After reading the whole thread (as of today) I'm going back to the
beginning to post a link to two articles over at JunkFoodScience about
this program:
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/...of-story-part-...
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/...of-story-part-...
brigid
p.s. Laureen, it's good to hear that you're doing well, and I'm truly
sorry about your dad's passing.

*So it was just too good to be true. They should consider for a while
how they are playing with the hopes of thousands of people with diabetes
watching their shows before they air unverified stuff. Thank you for
sharing that with us.

--
Newsoffice.de - Die Onlinesoftware zum Lesen und Schreiben im Usenet
Die Signatur läßt sich nach Belieben anpassen ;-)

On May 2, 4:42*pm, Hakan wrote:
After reading the whole thread (as of today) I'm going back to the
beginning to post a link to two articles over at JunkFoodScience about
this program:
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/...of-story-part-...
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/...of-story-part-...
brigid
p.s. Laureen, it's good to hear that you're doing well, and I'm truly
sorry about your dad's passing.

*So it was just too good to be true. They should consider for a while
how they are playing with the hopes of thousands of people with diabetes
watching their shows before they air unverified stuff. Thank you for
sharing that with us.



Now, I'm not always a fan of 60 Minutes, but I don't see how
criticisms leveled by a blog run by a nurse equates to the 60 Minutes
story being untrue or unverified. Clearly that blog has it's own
agenda and false statements. Right out of the gate, this blog
accuses 60 Minutes of saying that gastric bypass cures cancer. I saw
the story, it's available online and no such thing was ever said.
What they did say was obesity raises the risk of several types of
cancer and that some studies have found that for people that have the
bypass surgery, the risk of cancer is cut in half.

I think some of the criticisms and questions raised are probably
valid, and others are likely not. For example, this blog raise the
possibility that the remission of diabetes type 2 in gastric bypass
could be due to the patients simply eating less food. Geez, I would
expect that researchers at a place like Cornell Medical center would
have the basic sense to test for this, which would be trivial. This
bypass effect results in remission within days. Surely they have data
and experience with other obese people with type 2 that have been on
severely restricted diets for a week to rule that effect out. As
well as the studies with rats. Are we to believe they are so stupid
as to not test this hypothesis on the rats, where they found the
bypass effect to work, and where they can clearly control the food
intake? So, when some blog starts hurling stuff like that around, my
BS detector goes off.

One aspect this blog focuses heavily on is the supposedly very
negative longer range effects. The 60 Minutes story had a Dr with
4000 patients and 10-15 years worth of experience. I've also seen
other info from actual studies that suggest the long death rate in
gastric bypass patients from all causes is substantially less than
those that do not have the procedure.

I looked at the 60 Minutes story as a view into a curious side effect
of gastric bypass that no one expected, which is leading to more
research and COULD lead to treatment or cure for type 2 diabetes.
That could come from gastric bypass itself.. It could also come from
a better understanding of what goes on in the duodenum that causes
bypass to work, which in turn leads to a drug, etc. I guess you
could argue that the story was overly positive on gastric bypass, but
there certainly are studies that support it as a valid procedure for
some patients. And 60 Minutes clearly stated that patients typically
don't lose all their excess weight, but typically lose about 1/3 and
instead go from morbidly obese to just obese or overweight, etc.

In short, you can draw your own conclusions. But I would look at
actual data from many sources before jumping to the conclusion that
the 60 Minutes story is untrue because one blog says so.

wrote:

Now, I'm not always a fan of 60 Minutes, but I don't see how
criticisms leveled by a blog run by a nurse equates to the 60 Minutes
story being untrue or unverified. Clearly that blog has it's own
agenda and false statements. Right out of the gate, this blog
accuses 60 Minutes of saying that gastric bypass cures cancer. I saw
the story, it's available online and no such thing was ever said.
What they did say was obesity raises the risk of several types of
cancer and that some studies have found that for people that have the
bypass surgery, the risk of cancer is cut in half.

The 'nurse' who writes this blog understands research methodology and
does an excellent job of de-bunking claims of weight-related morbidity.
Poke around her site some more and follow the links to the studies.
Here's another interesting article on Gastric Bypass:

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/...bariatric.html

Also, can you give me a cite for the study that shows the risk of cancer
decreasing with bypass surgery? I'm interested to see the sample size,
how long subjects were followed, and how these researchers decided they
could determine the causation of cancer to be fatness.

I think some of the criticisms and questions raised are probably
valid, and others are likely not. For example, this blog raise the
possibility that the remission of diabetes type 2 in gastric bypass
could be due to the patients simply eating less food. Geez, I would
expect that researchers at a place like Cornell Medical center would
have the basic sense to test for this, which would be trivial. This
bypass effect results in remission within days. Surely they have data
and experience with other obese people with type 2 that have been on
severely restricted diets for a week to rule that effect out. As
well as the studies with rats. Are we to believe they are so stupid
as to not test this hypothesis on the rats, where they found the
bypass effect to work, and where they can clearly control the food
intake? So, when some blog starts hurling stuff like that around, my
BS detector goes off.

One aspect this blog focuses heavily on is the supposedly very
negative longer range effects. The 60 Minutes story had a Dr with
4000 patients and 10-15 years worth of experience. I've also seen
other info from actual studies that suggest the long death rate in
gastric bypass patients from all causes is substantially less than
those that do not have the procedure.

You might want to look into that a little deeper. The net is becomming
increasingly crowded with blogs and support groups for people who have
had the surgery long enough for the serious side-effects to develop. Did
60 minutes really talk to long-term bypass patients? Those who are 7-10
years out to see how those people are living now?

I looked at the 60 Minutes story as a view into a curious side effect
of gastric bypass that no one expected, which is leading to more
research and COULD lead to treatment or cure for type 2 diabetes.
That could come from gastric bypass itself.. It could also come from
a better understanding of what goes on in the duodenum that causes
bypass to work, which in turn leads to a drug, etc. I guess you
could argue that the story was overly positive on gastric bypass, but
there certainly are studies that support it as a valid procedure for
some patients. And 60 Minutes clearly stated that patients typically
don't lose all their excess weight, but typically lose about 1/3 and
instead go from morbidly obese to just obese or overweight, etc.

Once again, I'd like a cite, with long-term data.

In short, you can draw your own conclusions. But I would look at
actual data from many sources before jumping to the conclusion that
the 60 Minutes story is untrue because one blog says so.

Good idea. Let us know when you start.

brigid

On May 3, 1:21*pm, brigid nelson wrote:
wrote:

Now, I'm not always a fan of 60 Minutes, but I don't see how
criticisms leveled by a blog run by a nurse equates to the 60 Minutes
story being untrue or unverified. * *Clearly that blog has it's own
agenda and false statements. * Right out of the gate, this blog
accuses 60 Minutes of saying that gastric bypass cures cancer. * I saw
the story, it's available online and no such thing was ever said.
What they did say was obesity raises the risk of several types of
cancer and that some studies have found that for people that have the
bypass surgery, the risk of cancer is cut in half.

The 'nurse' who writes this blog understands research methodology and
does an excellent job of de-bunking claims of weight-related morbidity.
Poke around her site some more and follow the links to the studies.
Here's another interesting article on Gastric Bypass:

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/...ally-proof-tha...

Also, can you give me a cite for the study that shows the risk of cancer
decreasing with bypass surgery? I'm interested to see the sample size,
how long subjects were followed, and how these researchers decided they
could determine the causation of cancer to be fatness.



Sorry if you have a problem with me pointing out that the blog is run
by a nurse, but that is apparently her academic credentials related to
the discussion at hand. I didn't do the research for 60 Minutes. I
don't know what specific study they based the claim on. But a simple
google produced this, which says long term, the risk of dying from
cancer was cut by 60% and is consistent with what 60 Minutes reported:

http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...655367,00.html
"The larger of the two studies — the largest of its kind — led by
researchers at the University of Utah School of Medicine, looked
specifically at gastric bypass surgery, also known as Roux-en-Y
gastric bypass, which accounts for 80% of all bariatric surgeries in
the U.S.

In the Utah study, researchers compiled data on 15,850 severely obese
people, half of whom had undergone gastric bypass surgery between 1984
and 2002, and half who were from the general population and had had no
surgical intervention for obesity. Overall, researchers found, the
surgery patients were 40% less likely to die from any cause during a
mean 7 years of follow-up, compared with the obese controls. What's
more, the mortality rate attributable to obesity-related disease was
52% lower on the whole in the surgery group: after gastric bypass,
patients were 92% less likely to die from diabetes, 59% less likely to
die from coronary artery disease, and 60% less likely to be killed by
cancer."

and this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3196880.shtml

"The Swedish study is the longest look yet at how obesity surgery
affects mortality.

Researchers led by Dr. Lars Sjostrom of Goteborg University compared
4,047 people with a body-mass index over 34 who had one of three types
of surgery or received standard diet advice. BMI is a standard measure
of height and weight and a BMI over 30 is considered obese.

After a decade, those in the surgery group lost 14 percent to 25
percent of their original weight compared to 2 percent in the other
group. Of the 2,010 surgery patients, 101 died. There were 129 deaths
in the comparison group of 2,037 people.


In the U.S. study, Ted Adams of the University of Utah led a team that
looked at 7,925 severely obese people in the state who had gastric
bypass. They were matched with similar people who did not have the
operation and who were selected through their driver's license records
listing height and weight.

After an average of seven years' follow-up, 213 people who had surgery
died compared to 321 who did not have the procedure. The study did not
look at weight loss.

Deaths from diabetes in the surgery group were dramatically cut by 92
percent; from heart disease by 56 percent; and from cancer by 60
percent.

"We're no really sure why that is the case" with a reduction in
cancer, Dr. Senay said. "Is it that people are getting screened once
they lose weight? Is there something about losing weight that reduces
your cancer risk? These are things I'm sure are going to be explored
in future studies."

Surprisingly, the surgery group had a higher risk of death from
accidents, suicides and other causes not related to disease. The
researchers were puzzled by this.

Both studies were done before surgery advances that have led to
smaller incisions and faster recovery time. Experts say future long-
term survival rates from obesity surgery should be even better.








I think some of the criticisms and questions raised are probably
valid, and others are likely not. * For example, this blog raise the
possibility that the remission of diabetes type 2 in gastric bypass
could be due to the patients simply eating less food. * Geez, I would
expect that researchers at a place like Cornell Medical center would
have the basic sense to test for this, which would be trivial. * This
bypass effect results in remission within days. *Surely they have data
and experience with other obese people with type 2 that have been on
severely restricted diets for a week to rule that effect out. * As
well as the studies with rats. *Are we to believe they are so stupid
as to not test this hypothesis on the rats, where they found the
bypass effect to work, and where they can clearly control the food
intake? * So, when some blog starts hurling stuff like that around, my
BS detector goes off.
One aspect this blog focuses heavily on is the supposedly very
negative longer range effects. * The 60 Minutes story had a Dr with
4000 patients and 10-15 years worth of experience. * I've also seen
other info from actual studies that suggest the long death rate in
gastric bypass patients from all causes is substantially less than
those that do not have the procedure.

You might want to look into that a little deeper. The net is becomming
increasingly crowded with blogs and support groups for people who have
had the surgery long enough for the serious side-effects to develop. Did
60 minutes really talk to long-term bypass patients? Those who are 7-10
years out to see how those people are living now?


60 Minutes did not show interviews with long term patients. They
did, as I pointed out above, interview a doctor with 4000 patients and
10-15 years experience.




I looked at the 60 Minutes story as a view into a curious side effect
of gastric bypass that no one expected, which is leading to more
research and COULD lead to treatment or cure for type 2 diabetes.
That could come from gastric bypass itself.. *It could also come from
a better understanding of what goes on in the duodenum that causes
bypass to work, which in turn leads to a drug, etc. * I guess you
could argue that the story was overly positive on gastric bypass, but
there certainly are studies that support it as a valid procedure for
some patients. *And 60 Minutes clearly stated that patients typically
don't lose all their excess weight, but typically lose about 1/3 and
instead go from morbidly obese to just obese or overweight, etc.

Once again, I'd like a cite, with long-term data.

Try googling. I'm not claiming to be an expert on gastric bypass or
to have all the answers, long term data, etc. If you're so
familiar with the various aspects, pro and con, why do I have to be
the one to find the studies?




In short, you can draw your own conclusions. *But I would look at
actual data from many sources before jumping to the conclusion that
the 60 Minutes story is untrue because one blog says so.

Good idea. Let us know when you start.

Excuse me? Why the sarcasm? All I did was point out that contrary
to Hakans claim, a blog run by a nurse does not make the 60 Minutes
story untrue. And why do you choose to direct all your questions to
me? Why don't you question the nurse with the blog that right out of
the gate claims that 60 Minutes said gastric bypass can cure cancer,
when they never made that statement? If she can't get that right,
what else is she wrong about?





brigid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

wrote:
On May 3, 1:21 pm, brigid nelson wrote:
wrote:

Now, I'm not always a fan of 60 Minutes, but I don't see how
criticisms leveled by a blog run by a nurse equates to the 60 Minutes
story being untrue or unverified. Clearly that blog has it's own
agenda and false statements. Right out of the gate, this blog
accuses 60 Minutes of saying that gastric bypass cures cancer. I saw
the story, it's available online and no such thing was ever said.
What they did say was obesity raises the risk of several types of
cancer and that some studies have found that for people that have the
bypass surgery, the risk of cancer is cut in half.
The 'nurse' who writes this blog understands research methodology and
does an excellent job of de-bunking claims of weight-related morbidity.
Poke around her site some more and follow the links to the studies.
Here's another interesting article on Gastric Bypass:

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/...ally-proof-tha...

Also, can you give me a cite for the study that shows the risk of cancer
decreasing with bypass surgery? I'm interested to see the sample size,
how long subjects were followed, and how these researchers decided they
could determine the causation of cancer to be fatness.



Sorry if you have a problem with me pointing out that the blog is run
by a nurse, but that is apparently her academic credentials related to
the discussion at hand. I didn't do the research for 60 Minutes. I
don't know what specific study they based the claim on. But a simple
google produced this, which says long term, the risk of dying from
cancer was cut by 60% and is consistent with what 60 Minutes reported:

I detected a disparaging tone in your original post about the legitimacy
of the opinion of a *nurse*. Knowing a little something about
methodology myself, I find this nurse to be an good resource as she
carefully explains the methods and statistics used in these studies that
the media parade out in order to make us feel bad about ourselves and/or
buy expensive drugs and surgical treatments that may do more harm than
good. I think she performs a useful service as not everyone has taken a
class in research methods or statistical analysis. A nurse with a BSN
would have had at least one such class - and she obviously paid
attention. I just wish she'd read Taubes as I find her insistance that
carbs are harmless to be somewhat uninformed.

http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...655367,00.html
"The larger of the two studies — the largest of its kind — led by
researchers at the University of Utah School of Medicine, looked
specifically at gastric bypass surgery, also known as Roux-en-Y
gastric bypass, which accounts for 80% of all bariatric surgeries in
the U.S.

It's interesting to me that when I asked you for a cite for your data
you gave me a link to a press release/story in Time Magazine. Ironically
the very story that the link I gave you above does a good job of
debunking with the actual statistics from the actual study, not what was
presented in a current events magazine.

This would be the *actual* cite:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/8/741

To properly evaluate the claims made by the researchers, you will have
to read beyond the abstract and look at the methods, especially how the
study group was not selected at random and how the 10 years were
measured not from the date of the procedures, but the date of the survey
mail out.

In the Utah study, researchers compiled data on 15,850 severely obese
people, half of whom had undergone gastric bypass surgery between 1984
and 2002, and half who were from the general population and had had no
surgical intervention for obesity. Overall, researchers found, the
surgery patients were 40% less likely to die from any cause during a
mean 7 years of follow-up, compared with the obese controls. What's
more, the mortality rate attributable to obesity-related disease was
52% lower on the whole in the surgery group: after gastric bypass,
patients were 92% less likely to die from diabetes, 59% less likely to
die from coronary artery disease, and 60% less likely to be killed by
cancer."

and this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3196880.shtml

Surprise! it's another press release of the same study.


I think some of the criticisms and questions raised are probably
valid, and others are likely not. For example, this blog raise the
possibility that the remission of diabetes type 2 in gastric bypass
could be due to the patients simply eating less food. Geez, I would
expect that researchers at a place like Cornell Medical center would
have the basic sense to test for this, which would be trivial. This
bypass effect results in remission within days. Surely they have data
and experience with other obese people with type 2 that have been on
severely restricted diets for a week to rule that effect out. As
well as the studies with rats. Are we to believe they are so stupid
as to not test this hypothesis on the rats, where they found the
bypass effect to work, and where they can clearly control the food
intake? So, when some blog starts hurling stuff like that around, my
BS detector goes off.
One aspect this blog focuses heavily on is the supposedly very
negative longer range effects. The 60 Minutes story had a Dr with
4000 patients and 10-15 years worth of experience. I've also seen
other info from actual studies that suggest the long death rate in
gastric bypass patients from all causes is substantially less than
those that do not have the procedure.
You might want to look into that a little deeper. The net is becomming
increasingly crowded with blogs and support groups for people who have
had the surgery long enough for the serious side-effects to develop. Did
60 minutes really talk to long-term bypass patients? Those who are 7-10
years out to see how those people are living now?


60 Minutes did not show interviews with long term patients. They
did, as I pointed out above, interview a doctor with 4000 patients and
10-15 years experience.

Would that doctor perhaps, be wanting to sell his services to the
viewers of this program?


I looked at the 60 Minutes story as a view into a curious side effect
of gastric bypass that no one expected, which is leading to more
research and COULD lead to treatment or cure for type 2 diabetes.
That could come from gastric bypass itself.. It could also come from
a better understanding of what goes on in the duodenum that causes
bypass to work, which in turn leads to a drug, etc. I guess you
could argue that the story was overly positive on gastric bypass, but
there certainly are studies that support it as a valid procedure for
some patients. And 60 Minutes clearly stated that patients typically
don't lose all their excess weight, but typically lose about 1/3 and
instead go from morbidly obese to just obese or overweight, etc.
Once again, I'd like a cite, with long-term data.

Try googling. I'm not claiming to be an expert on gastric bypass or
to have all the answers, long term data, etc. If you're so
familiar with the various aspects, pro and con, why do I have to be
the one to find the studies?

Because you're the one who said that you knew of studie(s) showing the
amazing benefits of gastric bypass surgeries.


In short, you can draw your own conclusions. But I would look at
actual data from many sources before jumping to the conclusion that
the 60 Minutes story is untrue because one blog says so.
Good idea. Let us know when you start.

Excuse me? Why the sarcasm?


Because while telling me to look at the actual data to form my own
conclusions, you are linking to ****ing press releases.

brigid

On May 3, 5:30*pm, brigid nelson wrote:
wrote:
On May 3, 1:21 pm, brigid nelson wrote:
wrote:

Now, I'm not always a fan of60Minutes, but I don't see how
criticisms leveled by a blog run by a nurse equates to the60Minutes
story being untrue or unverified. * *Clearly that blog has it's own
agenda and false statements. * Right out of the gate, this blog
accuses60Minutesof saying that gastric bypass cures cancer. * I saw
the story, it's available online and no such thing was ever said.
What they did say was obesity raises the risk of several types of
cancer and that some studies have found that for people that have the
bypass surgery, the risk of cancer is cut in half.
The 'nurse' who writes this blog understands research methodology and
does an excellent job of de-bunking claims of weight-related morbidity.
Poke around her site some more and follow the links to the studies.
Here's another interesting article on Gastric Bypass:

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/...ally-proof-tha...

Also, can you give me a cite for the study that shows the risk of cancer
decreasing with bypass surgery? I'm interested to see the sample size,
how long subjects were followed, and how these researchers decided they
could determine the causation of cancer to be fatness.

Sorry if you have a problem with me pointing out that the blog is run
by a nurse, but that is apparently her academic credentials related to
the discussion at hand. * *I didn't do the research for60Minutes. *I
don't know what specific study they based the claim on. *But a simple
google produced this, which says long term, the risk of dying from
cancer was cut by60% and is consistent with what60Minutesreported:

I detected a disparaging tone in your original post about the legitimacy
of the opinion of a *nurse*.

What I objected to was Hakans statement that the opinion of this nurse
on a blog means that the 60 Minutes Story is untrue.



Knowing a little something about
methodology myself, I find this nurse to be an good resource as she
carefully explains the methods and statistics used in these studies that
the media parade out in order to make us feel bad about ourselves and/or
buy expensive drugs and surgical treatments that may do more harm than
good. I think she performs a useful service as not everyone has taken a
class in research methods or statistical analysis. A nurse with a BSN
would have had at least one such class - and she obviously paid
attention. I just wish she'd read Taubes as I find her insistance that
carbs are harmless to be somewhat uninformed.

What I see is someone who has formed a opinion and is using FUD
tactics to hurl anything at all to try to paint gastric bypass in an
unfavorable light. Take this gem which leads off the blogs criticism
of the Swedish study:

"We’ll begin with one of the most common misconceptions: years of
follow-up. Since this study was examining the long-term effects of
bariatric surgery on mortality, it’s understandable you might think
that the average 10.9 years of follow-up reported meant the patients
were followed for 10.9 years after having surgery. Here is the first
example of not reading the study. The follow-up period — which
actually ranged from 4 to 18 years — began from the “matching date.”
That was the date that the study recruitment campaign ended and the
surgical candidates were chosen and matched with controls. This was
about 1 1/2 years before the surgeries were actually performed. So,
we’re down to just over an average 9 years of post-surgical follow-up.
"

This is the starting point, the best she can come up with to tear into
the Swedish study? Arguing a nit over whether the long term
measurement point is 9 years or 10.5 years? What critical difference
does that make in the grand scheme of things? If you want to start
attacking studies, you can tear any of them apart with such
critcisms. But IMO, it does show how biased she is.

If one wants to start with a critical analysis, why not start with her
own claim that 60 Minutes said gastric bypass cures cancer. That is
an outrageous falsehood. They clearly said studies showed it reduced
rates of cancer, not cured it.




http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...655367,00.html
"The larger of the two studies — the largest of its kind — led by
researchers at the University of Utah School of Medicine, looked
specifically at gastric bypass surgery, also known as Roux-en-Y
gastric bypass, which accounts for 80% of all bariatric surgeries in
the U.S.

It's interesting to me that when I asked you for a cite for your data
you gave me a link to a press release/story in Time Magazine. Ironically
the very story that the link I gave you above does a good job of
debunking with the actual statistics from the actual study, not what was
presented in a current events magazine.

This would be the *actual* cite:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/8/741

To properly evaluate the claims made by the researchers, you will have
to read beyond the abstract and look at the methods, especially how the
study group was not selected at random and how the 10 years were
measured not from the date of the procedures, but the date of the survey
mail out.


Yeah, here we go again. You asked if 60 Minutes interviewed any long
term gastric bypass patients, as if anecdotal evidence proves much of
anything. Here you have an actual study, and you want to rail against
it over what method is used as the starting point to measure whether
long term is 9 years or 10 years, as if that would make a critical
difference in the outcome. Unless you have evidence that it does,
then it's just attacking the study on any basis because you don't like
the results.

Interesting though that you have the link to the study, while asking
me for it.



In the Utah study, researchers compiled data on 15,850 severely obese
people, half of whom had undergone gastric bypass surgery between 1984
and 2002, and half who were from the general population and had had no
surgical intervention for obesity. Overall, researchers found, the
surgery patients were 40% less likely to die from any cause during a
mean 7 years of follow-up, compared with the obese controls. What's
more, the mortality rate attributable to obesity-related disease was
52% lower on the whole in the surgery group: after gastric bypass,
patients were 92% less likely to die from diabetes, 59% less likely to
die from coronary artery disease, and60% less likely to be killed by
cancer."

and this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3196880.shtml

Surprise! it's another press release of the same study.



I think some of the criticisms and questions raised are probably
valid, and others are likely not. * For example, this blog raise the
possibility that the remission of diabetes type 2 in gastric bypass
could be due to the patients simply eating less food. * Geez, I would
expect that researchers at a place like Cornell Medical center would
have the basic sense to test for this, which would be trivial. * This
bypass effect results in remission within days. *Surely they have data
and experience with other obese people with type 2 that have been on
severely restricted diets for a week to rule that effect out. * As
well as the studies with rats. *Are we to believe they are so stupid
as to not test this hypothesis on the rats, where they found the
bypass effect to work, and where they can clearly control the food
intake? * So, when some blog starts hurling stuff like that around, my
BS detector goes off.
One aspect this blog focuses heavily on is the supposedly very
negative longer range effects. * The60Minutesstory had a Dr with
4000 patients and 10-15 years worth of experience. * I've also seen
other info from actual studies that suggest the long death rate in
gastric bypass patients from all causes is substantially less than
those that do not have the procedure.
You might want to look into that a little deeper. The net is becomming
increasingly crowded with blogs and support groups for people who have
had the surgery long enough for the serious side-effects to develop. Did
60minutesreally talk to long-term bypass patients? Those who are 7-10
years out to see how those people are living now?

60Minutesdid not show interviews with long term patients. * They
did, as I pointed out above, interview a doctor with 4000 patients and
10-15 years experience.

Would that doctor perhaps, be wanting to sell his services to the
viewers of this program?


Yes, perhaps. But I could easily dismiss most studies, professional
opinions, etc on a similar basis. If gastric bypass is so damaging
and bad as you seem to believe it is, 60 Minutes could have done a
story on the irresponsible greed of doctors and medical
professionals. That would have been an even more sensational story.











I looked at the60Minutesstory as a view into a curious side effect
of gastric bypass that no one expected, which is leading to more
research and COULD lead to treatment or cure for type 2 diabetes.
That could come from gastric bypass itself.. *It could also come from
a better understanding of what goes on in the duodenum that causes
bypass to work, which in turn leads to a drug, etc. * I guess you
could argue that the story was overly positive on gastric bypass, but
there certainly are studies that support it as a valid procedure for
some patients. *And60Minutesclearly stated that patients typically
don't lose all their excess weight, but typically lose about 1/3 and
instead go from morbidly obese to just obese or overweight, etc.
Once again, I'd like a cite, with long-term data.

Try googling. *I'm not claiming to be an expert on gastric bypass or
to have all the answers, long term data, etc. * * If you're so
familiar with the various aspects, pro and con, why do I have to be
the one to find the studies?

Because you're the one who said that you knew of studie(s) showing the
amazing benefits of gastric bypass surgeries.



Look, over the years, I've seen endless posts from many people here
talking about some new study, whether it be about LC, weight loss,
cholesterol, diabetes, etc. And in the majority of cases, all that
is provided is a link to the news story or perhaps an abstract of the
study, at best. I've never seen such hostility or demand for the
whole study, proof etc directed at them. And for good reason. Many
times these studies have been printed in medical journals and unless
you pay for access, you can't get the whole study.

I provided links that give the same sort of summary info for the 2
studies that directly support much of what 60 Minutes reported You
actually have one of the studies and the opening attack against it is
the silly 9 years vs 10.5 years argument. So, what's the point?





In short, you can draw your own conclusions. *But I would look at
actual data from many sources before jumping to the conclusion that
the60Minutesstory is untrue because one blog says so.
Good idea. Let us know when you start.

Excuse me? * Why the sarcasm? *

Because while telling me to look at the actual data to form my own
conclusions, you are linking to ****ing press releases.


And now you interject profanity, which is never a good way to convince
people of your position. Why exactly are you so emotional over
this? I provided links to the news reports, exactly as many others
have done here over the years without being attacked. I've looked at
the nurses blog you provided and IMO it's clear that she has a very
biased approach to looking at this whole issue. Nothing there is even
close to being balanced and objective.

On the other hand, despite all the time this thread has been going on,
it's quite obvious that you haven't even bothered to find out what 60
Minutes actually reported. If you had, you wouldn't be asking me
about what 60 Minutes did or did not say. If you're interested in
being fair and objective, that would seem to be a good place to start,
rather than demanding I provide full research studies.

As I said in this thread many times, I saw the 60 Minutes Story mostly
as opening a whole new avenue of potential treatments for type 2
diabetes and perhaps more. Researchers have found that bypassing the
duodenum reversed type 2 diabetes ina few days in humans. They
confirmed it with studies in rats. More studies are under way to
find out more about how this works and how it might be used. Exactly
the same process over the years has resulted in major medical
breakthroughs, which is a good thing and has saved lives. Bottom
line, are you against this research? Should this medical curiosity
just be ignored? What exactly do you want?





brigid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -