Some studies have flawed methodology; we can critique those. But when a study is flawed not in its methodology but in its philosophy, then we need to look at that philosophy. I think that’s the case with this study, and I think it’s the case with most studies that are carried out within reasonable scientific parameters. Are their results false? No; when they examined these subjects, they found 100 deaths vs. 300 deaths. Are their interpretations biased? Are they operating in a paradigm that’s based on flawed premises? Did they design the study based on flawed premises? These are useful questions.

Equally important is the way media spins the studies. I can’t link WaPo, but remember that stupid fat is contagious study? The MacNeil Leher Newshour spun it like it was perfect. Not one valid criticism, all the questions asked provided the health reporter the opportunity to make it dazzle! Have you ever heard of a VNR (video news release)? It is a segment in the news, with a “real” newscaster that is actually scripted by the sponsor. It is a bought and paid for ad made to look like news. Not just in the area of fat, but all kinds of things. With this going on we all should be on guard.

Of course you are right that we need to challenge the basic assumptions of fat hatred, and the limited “fat will kill you” mentality of modern medicine. Why not challenge on all fronts and leave each to do what they feel most called to?

Now, I know the fat community has gone insane.

This study was criminal in its manipulations designed to reach the sponsor’s conclusions. This is about scientific integrity and the fat community should be screaming murder.

Instead, it’s giving “kudos” for spending more for bariatrics.

IAWTC.

And Fillyjonk, I think both are important. It’s absolutely crucial to hold these scientists’ feet to the fire when their methodology is questionable and their conclusions are blatantly biased. It’s equally crucial to keep any given study in perspective.

Laura, thanks, but I think you’re in the minority! The reframing doesn’t seem to have gone over well. Personally, though, I’m always going to think that if you discredit a particular study, you’re left with just a deflated study; if you analyze and rethink the way that studies work together and contribute to/are influenced by public opinion, you can actually get somewhere.

Well, Sandy Szwarc wrote about the Swedish study and she doesn’t think much of it either. Surprise, surprise, it was funded by a grant from Hoffman -LaRoche and AstraZeneca. The head researcher has ties to a whose who of pharmaceuticals. For those readers who wonder why some of us automatically greet any weight loss study with cynicism, it is because the finger almost ALWAYS points back to BigDiet/Pharma. I have been researching this issue for over 20 years and it is always the same story! Yet, the media spins these studies to perfection! It is little more than marketing!

BTW, she did read the actual study and points out that the control (non surgical) group was slightly older and had more heart disease and diabetes to begin with.