There is another related phenomenon here: as medicine has moved away from "trust me" paternalism to using more scientific evidence, our population is concurrently spending more and more on non-science-based therapies.

No longer "trust me, I'm a doctor" - it's now "trust me - science doesn't know everything" and even "trust me, I'm a homeopath - my therapy doesn't have to conform with the laws of science.

Is there some fundamental aspect of humanity that craves simple, directed answers? IF your GP says "I'm not sure what it is - let's watch and see what happens" - do we prefer the certainty and simplicity of "here - take some drops of this. If it doesn't work, we'll try another." ?

Can the author make any comment about why some "therapies" have withstood DESPITE evidence? When everyone else stopped bleeding and injecting bismuth, why did some people continue with their "law of similars" and infinite dilutions, despite the accumulating science around them?

Just because people cannot understand WHY venesection works , doesn't mean it doesn't work.

"Repeated blood withdrawals"
"Resulted in disappearance of hypergycmia, glycosuria, ketonemia, and
ketonuria; disappearance of iron from the liver and pancreas; and restoration of islet beta granules to the control level."

"NTBI (non-transferrin-bound iron ) was commonly present in diabetes: 59% in newly diagnosed diabetes and 92% in advanced diabetes"

Then there is the NIH who tested bloodletting in diabetes.
"Iron Depletion Therapy for Type 2 DM and NAFLD"

Metabolic syndrome , recovery by bloodletting.
"Systolic blood pressure (the top number in a reading) among those who donated fell from an average of 148 mmHg to 130 mmHg. They also had reductions in blood sugar levels and heart rate, and an improvement in cholesterol levels."

So rather than bloodletting / venesection / phlebotomy having no use in disease , OTHERS have come to the conclusion , Louis and others , just don't know their .. stuff.

"Therapy by taking away: the case of iron"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10353254

Best evidence is a lofty and worthy goal. Unfortunately the downside is clinicians practising "cookbook medicine" based on whatever studies they may happen to read or being subject to practise guidelines set up by a medical association that don't tend to individualize treatment. Human nature being what it is, doctors are going to go with the easiest way out -- cookbook medicine. It's been around for centuries and it's not going to be eradicated by lip service to an "evidence base". What happens when there is little to no research, or no significant research. What then? What happens when raw data is hidden and conclusions are massaged to reflect a result not inherent in the actual results? What happens when large studies are challenged by smaller clinical groups having worse results?
How is this being shared with patients, when conventional wisdom says "get a second/third OPINION"!
Another thing -- until a lot more research is undertaken into the interactions and long term effects of pharmaceuticals nobody is going to really be the wiser. Unfortunately the drug companies who are hugely dictating what is taught in medical schools and actively lobbying practitioners to use their products are calling a lot of the shots. How can this be stopped? How can indpendent testing of pharmaceutical products be accomplished to avoid tragedies that are all too common?
How are unnecessary surgeries going to be prevented? How are medical errors going to be prevented? How are adverse drug reactions going to be prevented?
I can see a forthcoming article: "Evidence-based medicine: panacea or placebo" coming on.

Dr Bradley, like others I applaud the long-term shift to evidence-based medicine and science, and encourage the University of Sydney to belatedly introduce it to its "nutrition science" area.

Sue, the "trust me - science doesn't know everything" approach finds favour I guess because of high-profile examples where what should be competent "science" demonstrably is not. And yet instead of correcting the false information, the scientists use it to either inadvertently or deliberately misinform public debates: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/a-spoonful-of-sugar-is-not-so-bad/story-e6frg8y6-1226090126776 ; http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/research-causes-stir-over-sugars-role-in-obesity-20120330-1w3e5.html

In particular, two of the University of Sydney's highest-profile nutritionists, low-GI advocates and food-industry service providers have published a supposedly "peer reviewed" scientific observation of "an inverse relationship" between sugar consumption and obesity (Slides 8-23 at http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/22Slideshowaustraliangoestoparadoxcanberrafinal.pdf ).

Yes, I am arguing near and far for that now-discredited Australian Paradox paper's correction or retraction. From what I have seen, skits made famous by Austin Powers, Dr Evil and Monty Python were written in part to parody the behaviour of some of our publicly funded scientists. I link to the relevant video snippets below, and explain exactly why they are appropriate.

For starters, however, note that the two University of Sydney "low GI" advocates who published the Australian Paradox paper - claiming (mistakenly) "an inverse relationship" between sugar consumption and obesity - also operate a "low GI" business that endorses particular brands of (low GI) sugar and sugary products as "healthy": p.10-11 of http://www.gisymbol.com/cmsAdmin/uploads/Glycemic-Index-Foundation-Healthy-Choices-Brochure.pdf

Given the series of obvious errors in the Australian Paradox paper I still laugh when I recall that the University of Sydney’s head of academic quality control and scientific integrity – Deputy Vice Chancellor, Research, Professor Jill Trewhella – recently claimed with a straight face that quality control for the Australian Paradox paper involved “internationally accepted standard practice” (http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/Sept2012-Conversations.pdf ).

In fact, in this Australian Paradox matter, the lead author – who loved the paper – and the Guest Editor – who published it – are the same person! Yes, standard practice indeed. In the history of the Universe, has there ever been a Guest Editor who has explained to a lead author that "I'm sorry but I cannot publish MY paper because it is dominated by a series of serious errors that has resulted in a bogus false conclusion"?

If that is the way Australian Group-of-Eight scientific quality control is supposed to work, we may as well all be publishing our mistaken opinions as scientific facts in obscure pay-as-you-publish E-journals.

Now, whenever I hear the words “standard practice” used to describe anything about the Australian Paradox episode, I think of Dr Evil’s childhood – described as “pretty standard really” – in the movie “Austin Powers”. (It’s here on youtube, starting from 32 seconds to 1.24 minutes at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTJj4wbmAhk . Caution: some bad language is used.)

Most recently, in what appears to be a rather brazen if lame attempt to rescue the University of Sydney’s "shonky sugar study” and its underperforming business associates, the sugar industry recently funded - and framed - the results of a bogus “new” sugar series that took the Australian Paradox scandal to another level: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/New-nonsense-based-sugarreport.pdf

The University of Sydney enthusiastically but unwisely embraced that new “shonky sugar series” and declared victory in the Australian Paradox dispute: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/university-sydney-falsely-declares-victory.pdf

Now, Sue, one does not need a big brain to know that it is unacceptable for serious publicly funded scientists to conclude anything important about "the past 30 years" (to 2010) on the basis of an ABS sugar series that was discontinued as unreliable after 1998-99, over a decade ago.

Awkwardly, the authors in 2011 were unaware – or hid the fact from readers and (any) independent reviewers? - that the basis of their preferred FAO sugar series had been discontinued as unreliable by the ABS. Yes, that discontinued ABS sucrose series (4306.0) fed directly into the preferred FAO measure, as it would and had for decades (Slides 21 and 22 in http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/22Slideshowaustraliangoestoparadoxcanberrafinal.pdf ).

Evidence that the University of Sydney’s senior scientists were clueless on this critical data issue is found in the fact that there are readings for 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 in their chart despite no real data existing for those years. The conspicuous flat green line on the right-hand side of Slides 21 and 22 screamed to competent observers that the ABS had ceased publication!

Again, the only real sugar series in 2000-2003 was “no more”, “deceased”, “expired”, “stone dead”, had “ceased to be", was "bereft of life”, “resting in peace" and “pushing up daisies”. The dead ABS series was not “stunned”, “tired” or "pining for the fjords", awaiting the University of Sydney and its business associates to breathe life into its broken dead body, and nail it back onto its perch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218 ).

That our underperforming publicly funded scientists were clueless about the relevance of the death of the ABS 4306.0 sugar series is a sign of serious negligence. Their behaviour became somewhat more serious than simple negligence when they failed to mention "the ABS/FAO mix-up" in their Australian Paradox Revisited rebuttal of my correct critique, instead choosing to misrepresent my serious and correct concerns about their paper as mistaken:

"Unfortunately, there are factual errors in Mr. Robertson’s essay and misinterpretation of the distinctions between total sugars vs. refined sugars, sugar availability vs. apparent consumption, sugar-sweetened and diet soft drinks, and other nutrition information".

Again, the authors disingenuously failed to mention that they had published a chart that spans a timeframe that goes years beyond when the real data ended. That's an academic disgrace, and perhaps something much more serious.

And now the University of Sydney "scientists" are embracing the sugar-industry's bogus contribution to the debate as reliable despite it being the academic equivalent of nailing a dead parrot to its perch and passing it off to the plebs as just "stunned" and "pining for the fjords"!

My question is whatever happened to academic and scientific integrity at the University of Sydney?

The authors of Australian Paradox and Australian Paradox Revisited have since March 2012 refused to correct the obvious errors that dominate their papers. The dispute would end today – and we could be assured that scientific fraud is not an issue – if the scientists simply corrected the basic errors in their supposedly “peer reviewed” paper.

It’s not saying much to say that we need to be cautious about the benefits to public health that might flow from the unusually deep links between universities and the sugar and other sugary food industries. After all, it’s well documented that "Big Sugar" set out in the United States over half a century ago to scramble and mislead science on the links between modern sugar consumption and chronic diseases: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/10/sugar-industry-lies-campaign

Indeed, the head of the Harvard University nutrition department in the 1960s and 1970s - Professor Fred Stare - became America's "most public defender" of "modern sugar consumption" as harmless, with Harvard’s (made to order) "nutrition science" corrupted by heavy funding from the sugar and sugary food industries.

Dr Bradley, who's day job - if anyone's - is it to act to limit the false misrepresentations made by high-profile "scientists" in important public debates like that on obesity, together with diabetes (diabesity") the biggest public-health challenge of our times?

I am an ardent supporter of evidence-base medicine and a harsh critic of shams, scams, corporate self-interest, and plain intransigence in the health sciences. I note your reference to the 1992 introduction of "evidence-based medicine" as a watershed, which is surprising in itself.

I also note you reference to Richard Doll and his work on RCTs (also smoking and lung cancer). Yet Doll, in 1955, also noted the powerful association between asbestos exposure and lung cancer, some of which we now know to be mesothelioma. In Australia, this was mostly ignored for 20 years, even in the face of further evidence. What, no RCTs? Rarely possible of course with environmental and occupational exposures. The death toll from asbestos-related diseases in Australia is expected to reach tens of thousands in the next few decades.

Br J Ind Med. 1955 Apr;12(2):81-6. Mortality from lung cancer in asbestos workers. DOLL R.

Evidence-based medicine is not only about evidence, it's also about breaching the substantial socio-political constraints to the practice of it.

Now, who is going to take on the issue of children being exposed to heavy lead burdens in mining towns in Australia? Why are our lead standards outdated compared to comparable countries like the US and Germany (evidence based by the way)?

Trust me, I'm not a doctor.

Sue Leraci, you really got stuck into Laurie Willberg. As a journalist, what a duffer he turned out to be. Lucky you were here to correct him on every point. Sue, everyone seems to have been so busy learning really good stuff in medical science at the University of Sydney when you were there. I assume that the other science streams also were pretty sharp back then. So how come the University of Sydney's highest-profile nutritionist scientists and food-industry service providers were not taught the difference between up and down when they went through? They apparently were still so confused on that matter years later that in their now-discredited Australian Paradox paper - after publishing five separate indicators of per-capita sugar consumption: four trending up and the fifth discontinued as unreliable - they somehow managed to claim "a consistent and substantial decline" over "the past 30 years" (Slides 13-23 at http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/22Slideshowaustraliangoestoparadoxcanberrafinal.pdf ).

It's not a paradox, Sue, but it is a real puzzle how that now-discredited paper was ever published. I guess it helped that the lead author - who loved the paper - and the Guest Editor - who oversaw publication of the paper - happened to be the very same person? But how does that fit with the recent claim by the University of Sydney’s head of academic quality control and scientific integrity – Deputy Vice Chancellor, Research, Professor Jill Trewhella – that quality control for the Australian Paradox paper involved “internationally accepted standard practice”? (http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/Sept2012-Conversations.pdf ).

Now, whenever I hear the words “standard practice” used to describe anything about the Australian Paradox episode, I think of Dr Evil’s childhood – described as “pretty standard really” – in the movie “Austin Powers”. (It’s here on youtube, starting from 32 seconds to 1.24 minutes at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTJj4wbmAhk . Caution: some bad language is used.)

Sue, do you think that the authors of Australian Paradox will ever do the right thing and simply correct or retract their negligent paper, the one with the silly false conclusion of "an inverse relationship" between sugar consumption and obesity?

And, Sue, how can we be sure - given the rather disturbing "science for sale" experience involving Harvard University's nutrition-science department as recently as the 1970s - that deep links between the University of Sydney and the sugar industry will bring benefits to public Australian health? http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/10/sugar-industry-lies-campaign

Paul Rogers, I'm sorry I have bored you. I had you confused with the other Paul Rogers, the one who earlier claimed to be "an ardent supporter of evidence-base medicine and a harsh critic of shams, scams, corporate self-interest, and plain intransigence in the health sciences". The first Paul wouldn't have stumbled at the first hurdle, Paul 2, being so silly as to promote as reliable the bogus information funded and "framed" by the sugar industry, the same bogus information that your Mr Bill Shrapnel and the University of Sydney's other high-profile nutritionists now are misrepresenting as reliable. Poor old Sue made the same silly mistake a week or two ago.

So obviously I'm not writing for you or for Sue, Paul 2. I'm writing for other readers who - like me - are rather surprised and rather disturbed that the University of Sydney published - and now disingenuously defends - the negligent Australian Paradox analysis, in the process inadvertently or deliberately promoting the excess consumption of sugar: http://www.smh.com.au/business/pesky-economist-wont-let-big-sugar-lie-20120725-22pru.html

Yes, Paul 2, I saw that Mr Bill Shrapnel had put in his two-cents worth. For a supposedly Sceptical Nutritionist he was very quick to embrace the sugar industry's obviously bogus pro-sugar contribution to the Australian Paradox dispute as reliable and insightful.

In that dispute, Paul 2, Mr Bill Shrapnel is what Sue and the authors might call an "independent" observer. Yes, the Deputy Chairman of the Sydney University Nutrition Research Foundation says that the University of Sydney's "shonky sugar study" is top-notch and suggests I'm just another clueless idiot from who knows where. http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/research-causes-stir-over-sugars-role-in-obesity-20120330-1w3e5.html

Paul 2, why would a supposedly sceptical nutritionist like Mr Bill Shrapnel unwisely embrace the sugar industry's Green Pool report as a reliable contribution to the dispute when it actually is bogus and nonsense based (as I will show clearly below)?

Oh, I don't know. But here is Bill alongside one of the Australian Paradox authors promoting (low GI) sugar and sugary products as healthy: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/a-spoonful-of-sugar-is-not-so-bad/story-e6frg8y6-1226090126776

Disturbingly, Mr Bill Shrapnel uncritically promotes the sugar industry's bogus pro-sugar contribution as a reliable and insightful analysis. Also in that pro-sugar direction, boy, doesn't he give it to that hopeless mob at the NHMRC and their silly "myth" based plans to toughen the Australia's nutrition guidelines against harmless old refined sugar. Yes, the sugar industry is getting the analysis exactly right while the Government's health adviser's reading of science is as dumb as........ Given those relative levels of competence - as assessed by The Sceptical Nutritionist and the University of Sydney - we probably should put the sugar industry in charge of public-health analysis and policy. How about that, Paul 2?

Indeed, the University of Sydney's highest-profile nutritionists and food-industry service providers - in their published papers and in their pro-sugar media efforts - seem to be saying that refined sugar is basically just a really tasty health food in the proper hands. It's so yummy and, when added, makes other foods taste yummy.

The problem for Mr Bill Shrapnel and Professor Jennie Brand-Miller and Dr Alan Barclay - and they may be starting to realise this - is that they have misread "the science" on modern sugar consumption as badly as they misread the reliability of the FAO/ABS "apparent consumption of sugar" series on which they haplessly bet their academic and scientific credibility, and so too they misread the upward trends in the four other per-capita sugar indicators in the Australian Paradox dispute (Slides 13-23 at http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/22Slideshowaustraliangoestoparadoxcanberrafinal.pdf ).

The problem for the University of Sydney's low-GI crew is that it is increasingly obvious to even the slow-coaches across the nutrition world that sugar in modern doses is indeed a serious health hazard: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

So why does the University of Sydney insist - against increasingly clear scientific evidence - that modern doses of sugar consumption are not a problem? I really do not know. The scientific evidence to me seems rather convincing.

Maybe the authors have an undisclosed conflict of interest that somehow has blurred their vision on the problems caused by unnaturally high doses of added sugar, half of which is super-low-GI=19 fructose. Readers, super-low-GI "fructose is the "sweet-poison" half of added sugar; the other half is glucose. The University of Sydney has itself in tangles in part because while super-low-GI fructose is a key driver of global obesity and diabetes, that doesn't really play well for a business that is based on the idea that low-GI foods are good.

Paul 2, I find as an outsider that when there is an undisclosed conflict of interest, as there is, it is hard to know where the science stops and the scientists' business interests begin. This brochure showing lots of yummy sweet stuff perhaps provides a hint: p.10-11, http://www.gisymbol.com/cmsAdmin/uploads/Glycemic-Index-Foundation-Healthy-Choices-Brochure.pdf ).

In any case, what's that? Away in the distance. Riding in fast. Flogging a dead horse. Or is it a Dead Parrot? Is that really the University of Sydney's business associate, the sugar industry, rushing to the rescue of the now-discredited Australian Paradox paper and its ham-fisted authors? http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/New-nonsense-based-sugarreport.pdf

Yes, Paul 2, extraordinarily, in what appears to be a rather brazen if lame attempt to rescue the University of Sydney’s "shonky sugar study” and the industry’s underperforming business associates, the sugar industry recently funded - and "framed" - the results of a bogus “new” sugar series that took the Australian Paradox scandal to a more-disturbing place.

Wow, you don't see that every day: the sugar industry instructed a paid consultant to dig up - and then pretend to breathe life into - the ABS's long-ago-abandoned “Apparent consumption of sugar” series, a series that was discontinued as unreliable after 1998-99 (ABS 4306.0). The paid consultant did exactly as the sugar industry instructed: it did not waste time considering why it had been sent on such an obvious "fool's errand".

The "fly in the sugar ointment" for the sugar industry, Paul 2, is that outsiders with half a clue and an ounce of competence can see that what Mr Bill Shrapnel and now Professor Jennie Brand-Miller and Dr Alan Barclay are promoting as reliable information from Green Pool is simply bogus: sorry, but the ABS series was and remains “deceased”, “no more”, “expired”, “stone dead”, had “ceased to be", was "bereft of life”, “resting in peace" and “pushing up daisies”.

Unfortunately for the University of Sydney and its associates at the sugar industry, the ABS apparent consumption of sugar series is as dead as Monty Python's "Ex-parrot”! The ABS's Dead Parrot series is as dead as a Dodo and no amount of pretending does anything to change that fact.

Paul 2, the dead ABS series was not “resting”, “stunned”, “tired”, “shagged out”, or "pining for the fjords", all the while waiting for the University of Sydney and its sugar-industry business associates to pretend to see life in its broken dead body, and nail it back onto its perch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218 ).

"Look, it moved!" No, sorry, it didn't! That is, given the reliability concerns the ABS and others had for many years/decades before that series was discontinued, anyone with any real competence - anyone who takes the time to gain a sense of the extremely difficult counting/methodolgy issues involved in counting all the added sugar in the tens - or perhaps hundreds - of thousands of product varieties in our food supply (http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/New-nonsense-based-sugarreport.pdf ) - would have run a mile before they staked their scientific credibility on what in fact is the scientific equivalent of John's Cleese's "Dead Parrot".

Regardless, the sugar industry went ahead and now the University of Sydney's "shonky sugar study" is being supplemented, extended and defended using the sugar industry's new "shonky sugar series". Wow, why does the sugar industry care so much about the "shonky sugar study" and its underperforming authors?

Then what happened?

Yes, Paul 2, surprise, surprise: unconstrained by the usual desire to maintain academic credibility, Mr Bill Shrapnel - the Deputy Chairman of the Sydney University's Nutrition Research Foundation, presumably one of the University's key links to the food industry, and clearly a close associate of that least one of the authors (The Australian has a nice photo) - enthusiastically but unwisely embraced the sugar industry's "shonky sugar series".

Then, in all seriousness - and with a really straight face - he declared victory for the University of Sydney's underperforming high-profile nutritionists in Australian Paradox dispute.

Paul 2, are the apparently strong links between the Australian sugar industry and the University of Sydney a cause for concern? Should we be concerned that the University's high-profile nutritionists seem to be making analytical error after error in a pro-sugar direction. Are they all just accidents?

In the US, "Big Sugar" set out over half a century ago to scramble and mislead science on the links between modern sugar consumption and chronic diseases: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/10/sugar-industry-lies-campaign

The head of the Harvard University nutrition department in the 1960s and 1970s - Professor Fred Stare - became America's "most public defender" of "modern sugar consumption" as harmless, his "science" corrupted by heavy funding from the sugar and sugary food industries.

In Australia and elsewhere, Paul 2, everyday people need to be cautious about the public-health benefits flowing from the links between universities and the sugar and sugary food industries, given the increasingly obvious evidence that modern doses of added sugar are a serious health hazard: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Finally, Paul 2, please be very critical - and then correct me - if you think I have made any factual errors or unreasonable statements in my discussion above.

Paul, apparently you did not "get it", either the first time or the 42nd time. You won't respond in detail to expose me as clueless, although you "could" if you wanted. Yeah, right. Like Sue, you know I am wrong but you just can't put your finger why. Even if your life depended on it. If I had to take a wild guess - and I could easily be wrong, Paul - I would guess that like Dr Karl, Sue Leraci, David Driscoll and Bill ShrapneI, you have some sort of link to the University of Sydney that has blurred your objectivity on this matter.

So you are saying Dr Rosemary Stanton is clueless as well, Paul? This is what she has said on the Australian Paradox matter: "And yes, I agree with you [Rory] that we have no evidence that sugar consumption in Australia has fallen"; “I have many objections to that particular paper and to the idea that sugar is not a problem”; and "I have expressed my opinion about the paper to the authors ... I will almost certainly cite it at some stage as an example of something I consider to be incorrect" (Slide 18 in http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/22Slideshowaustraliangoestoparadoxcanberrafinal.pdf ).

Yes, Paul, beyond Dr Rosemary Stanton - after many decades still Australia's only really well-known and trusted nutritionist - it remains a struggle get credible responses from health/science professionals and commentators on this important Australian Paradox matter. Those with obvious links to the University of Sydney for some reason seem to be the ones inclined to defend the University's "shonky sugar study" instead of defending the need for an approach prioritising scientific integrity.

Even poor old "Dr Karl" recently dealt himself into a tangle last week, forgetting to be objective about the obvious problems with his favourite University's "shonky sugar study".

When asked about the Australian Paradox paper's credibility having being shredded, his response was pathetic, lamely stating on Twitter that Rory Robertson is "an economist, not dietitian" (sic) - as if dietitians have some sort of comparative advantage over economists in recognising up versus down and valid versus invalid datasets (https://twitter.com/DoctorKarl/status/267493718578302976 ).

Dr Karl's website says he "likes" Sydney University "all the time" - apparently even when it is misrepresenting facts in the important public debate on the causes of obesity, together with diabetes-"diabesity" - the biggest public-health issue of our times (http://www.drkarl.com/things-karl-likes/ ).

I do not doubt that he is a smart and honourable man, so perhaps Dr Karl at some point will step up and do the right thing: provide an objective and competent assessment of the quality of the Australian Paradox paper.

Awkwardly, his unbecoming "an economist, not dietitian" response comes across as lamely as the authors when they were in their "cars are eating the sugar" denial phase early this year: "Professor Brand-Miller says Mr Robertson is not a nutritionist and does not understand nutrition". Yep, that's been the strongest rebuttal of my work so far, Paul, although the carefully calibrated slippery false made up "the cars are eating the sugar" response was funnier (http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/research-causes-stir-over-sugars-role-in-obesity-20120330-1w3e5.html ; http://www.smh.com.au/business/pesky-economist-wont-let-big-sugar-lie-20120725-22pru.html )

On Professor Brand-Miller's argument that I'm wrong because of "nutrition" issues, is she arguing that Dr Rosemary Stanton is clueless on Australian Paradox because of nutrition issues as well?

Okay let's stick to really simple facts, Paul. I'll try to limit myself on interpretations on which you and I might disagree.

So, Green Pool says: "The fact that no Australian government agency currently collates and publishes apparent consumption data for products including [difficult-to-measure added] sugar is regrettable".

And indeed it would be. But contrary to Green Pool’s flawed understanding, Canberra still publishes apparent consumption data for easier-to-measure food and drink products, including beef, lamb, pork, chicken, butter, milk, cheese, beer and wine, but not for much-harder-to-measure refined sugar (see p 55, http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/1910819/food-stats2009-10.pdf and http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4307.0.55.001/ ).

That's a rather large dent in Green Pool's credibility right there, paul. It was either clueless or pretending that added sugar is not a special case: in fact, the counting issues for added sugar are unique and extraordinarily difficult: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/New-nonsense-based-sugarreport.pdf

Beyond the counting issue, Paul, Green Pool comes across as rather confused in claiming, again falsely: "Fructose is not produced in Australia (at least no current producers were found...". That's awkward when the Green Pool was funded by the peak body of Australia's largest fructose producers! (see section 7 in http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/New-nonsense-based-sugarreport.pdf )

In my opinion, Paul, the important bit missing from both Green Pool's "update" and the earlier Australian Paradox "study" is simple common sense alongside an obvious determination to get at the relevant facts.

In both cases, the obvious first question that needed to be asked was uncomplicated: Why did the ABS discontinue its apparent consumption of sugar series after 60 years? After all, discontinuing a data series after over half a century is rather unusual, especially when the information was getting more useful rather than less useful.

On that, it’s worth noting again that data-collection agencies in Canberra today continue to publish apparent consumption data for easier-to-measure food and drink products, including beef, lamb, pork, chicken, butter, milk, cheese, beer and wine, but not much-harder-to-measure sugar.

Now, the ABS obviously didn't give up counting sugar after 1998-99 because it couldn't find any. Importantly, the ABS stopped publishing figures on sugar because there was a particular problem with the reliability of the sugar-counting methodology. As noted above, the ABS's measurement problems intensified over time as refined sugar went from being bought in bags from the local grocery store, to being bought already added to many thousands of varieties of manufactured/processed food and drink products.

The ABS chose to "bite the bullet" and discontinue ABS 4306.0 in part because it judged its sugar counts had understated the true figures, reflecting the growing difficulty in keeping track of the added sugar scattered throughout our food supply.

How much added sugar did you eat last year? No idea? The core difficulty faced by the ABS in trying to quantify sugar consumption back then was broadly the same as that faced by those of us trying to avoid added sugar today: it’s in places you almost wouldn't think to look.

Beyond counting the added-sugar content of imported softdrinks, fruit drinks, flavoured milk, sports drinks, energy drinks, canned fruits, vegetables and meats, soups, jams, pies, cakes, biscuits, buns, slices, muffins, chocolates, lollies, ice cream, and other desserts, the ABS also would have to be diligent counting the portions of sugar in myriad breads, pizza, muesli and other “health" bars, yoghurts, sauces, salad dressings, mayonnaises, baby or toddler foods, otherwise processed fruits, vegetables and meats, and other assorted manufactured food products, including especially breakfast cereals.

The ABS then would simply multiply the proportion of sugar in each product by the weight of each of those tens of thousands of varieties of product. After that, all it would need to do is multiply that amount of sugar in each particular variety of product by the total number sold of each of those tens of thousands of varieties. That’s all!! I’m not sure many people have a clue how massive a task that would be.

As noted above, the ABS a decade ago simply abandoned the field after concluding a major feasibility study that suggested it was next to impossible - given likely resources - to accurately gauge the total amount of refined sugar already mixed into the tens of thousands of varieties of food and drink imports.

In particular, the ABS struggled to know how much added sugar was contained in the rapidly growing product varieties lumped into official groupings like bakery products, confectionery, soft-drinks, cordial and syrup, processed fruit and vegetables, and “other processed foods” (Slide 20 in http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/AUSTRALIAN-PARADOX-101-SLIDESHOW.pdf ).
As an example of the difficulty of the measurement issues involved, how much sugar, if any, should the ABS or anyone else assume is in the $700m worth of "concentrates and beverage base" imported annually by one firm that sells sugary softdrinks and other beverages in Australia? (Note 32 and footnotes 3 and 4 on page 84 of 96 in http://ccamatil.com/InvestorRelations/Documents/CCA%202010%20annual%20report.pdf )

With a growing lack of confidence in its estimates of total sugar imports generated using its increasingly outdated, overwhelmed and unreliable counting methodologies - and lacking the prospect of ever having sufficient resources to produce reliable estimates in the future - the ABS eventually gave up even pretending to count, because it did not want to mislead the public with its increasingly unreliable sugar series.

It would be good if others had such reasonable concern for the quality of information in the public domain. In any case, as noted earlier, the ABS provides an information line on the cover page of its discontinued dataset - "For further information about these and related statistics, contact Karen Connaughton on Canberra 02 6252 5337" - for those keen to better understand why the ABS concluded that its sugar-counting methodology had over the decades become increasingly outdated, overwhelmed and unreliable.

The bottom line here, Paul, is that one does not need to be a "peer reviewed" published scientist to know that it is absolutely unacceptable to conclude anything important about "the past 30 years" (to 2010) on the basis of an ABS sugar series that was discontinued as unreliable by the ABS after 1998-99, over a decade before the "shonky sugar study" was published.

Disturbingly, Paul, the negligent Australian Paradox authors published a chart with readings for 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 despite no real data existing for those years. The conspicuous flat green line on the right-hand side of Slides 21 and 22 screams to competent observers that the ABS had ceased production! (http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/22Slideshowaustraliangoestoparadoxcanberrafinal.pdf )

Sorry, Paul, but publishing charts and findings based on data that do not exist or were simply made up – invalid, and before that clearly were unreliable - is shonky scholarship; and the defence of such a practice is unworthy of any respectable scientist or University.

This very serious error should be formally noted and corrected in the publishing journal.

At least, Paul, we can agree on that.

Paul, thanks but I'll trust my reading of the science over yours. After all, you were absolutely clueless regarding simple facts here just yesterday when you - like Sue and Bill before you - were aggressively promoting the sugar industry's Green Pool report as reliable. As I have shown, it is a disturbing piece of misinformation, by design.

On the science, Gary's Taubes's assessment is that modern doses of sugar are a profound health hazard. I've not seen anyone lay a glove on that claim. Have you read "Good Calories, Bad Calories, Paul? It should be compulsory reading for everyone with an interest in the nutrition space.

In any case, Paul, my dispute with the University of Sydney at its core is not about science or nutrition, it’s about simple things like up versus down, valid versus invalid and the need to correct serious errors in the public debate.

As you know, Paul, the Australian Paradox paper is wrong on the authors’ own published charts:
*Five separate indicators of sugar consumption
*Four indicators trend up not down while the other was discontinued as unreliable by ABS a decade ago!
*So, what should we conclude? The trend is down! Huh??!

The dispute about Australian Paradox has morphed into a dispute about academic and scientific integrity, Paul, as the University of Sydney has refused to correct its errors, and then embraced the sugar industry's bogus information as reliable and "independent" (http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/university-sydney-falsely-declares-victory.pdf ).

Paul, the Australian Paradox paper is important because it’s been used as a spearhead for the University of Sydney’s and the food industry’s campaigns for the once-a-decade update of official dietary advice to “stay soft” on sugar: http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/research-causes-stir-over-sugars-role-in-obesity-20120330-1w3e5.html

Paul, you say that "None of the people" I reference are "supporters of excessive sugar consumption". Yet "sugar is not a problem" is the strong and clear - inadvertent or deliberate - message that flows from the published claim of "an inverse relationship" between sugar consumption and obesity. “Eat more sugar, get leaner”. Yeah, right.

"But that's not their real message", I hear you complain. Yet that is exactly their real message: it's peer-reviewed and published scientific fact, they keep insisting.

Indeed, that (bogus) “scientific observation” from the prestigious University of Sydney’s nutritionists’ formally published science paper provides a critical (false) intellectual justification for putting Heart Foundation ticks and LowGI stamps on sugary junkfoods and claiming they are “healthy”.

That's a disgrace and somewhat of a hoax, Paul, given the increasingly clear scientific evidence that added sugar in modern doses is a serious health hazard: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Most recently, Paul, it's been rather interesting to see that the sugar industry has broken cover and rushed to the rescue of its underperforming business associates with that bogus new "shonky sugar series" (Page 10 at http://www.gisymbol.com/cmsAdmin/uploads/Glycemic-Index-Foundation-Healthy-Choices-Brochure.pdf )

My concerns about what might be happening with the involvement of the sugar industry in the local nutrition space would be downshifted, Paul, if your friends at the University of Sydney simply corrected or retracted their error-ridden pro-sugar Australian Paradox paper.

Again, the bottom line here is that one does not need to be a "peer reviewed" published scientist to know that it is absolutely unacceptable to conclude anything important about "the past 30 years" (to 2010) on the basis of an ABS sugar series that was discontinued as unreliable by the ABS after 1998-99, over a decade before the "shonky sugar study" was published.

Disturbingly, Paul, the negligent Australian Paradox authors published a chart with readings for 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 despite no real data existing for those years. The conspicuous flat green line on the right-hand side of Slides 21 and 22 screams to competent observers that the ABS had ceased production! (http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/22Slideshowaustraliangoestoparadoxcanberrafinal.pdf )

Sorry, Paul, but publishing charts and findings based on data that do not exist or were simply made up – invalid, and before that clearly were unreliable - is shonky scholarship; and the defence of such a practice is unworthy of any respectable scientist or University.

This very serious error should be formally noted and corrected in the publishing journal.

At least, Paul, we can agree on that.

Paul, it was inevitable that you would be chopped up when you started defending University of Sydney's doomed Australian Paradox paper. As you now know, the "shonky sugar study" is indefensible.

But I'm surprised you chose to "out" yourself as clueless on nutrition in general. "It's bullshit", was your neat summary of the book "Good Calories, Bad Calories".

So, the science writer for The New York Times spent five years reviewing the detail of developments in "nutrition science" over the past century or three. But Paul the local nutritionist knows better. "It's bullshit". Right.

With that sort of overconfidence, Paul, I would not be surprised to learn that you were trained in nutrition at the University of Sydney.

In my opinion, Paul - and it is true that this time I wouldn't really know - "Good Calories, Bad Calories could be the most-important book on nutrition science ever written. If other interested readers have the time, maybe start with Chapters 23 and 6.

The pro-carbohydrate foundations of modern “nutrition science” – especially the hapless embrace of refined sugar and other refined carbohydrates as harmless - seem so poorly based that it’s not only fascinating and eye-opening but seriously disturbing.

Anyway, Paul, at least we can agree that the authors of Australian Paradox should simply correct their serious errors or retract their negligent paper without further unreasonable delay.

Good talk, Paul.

Paul Rogers,

I have found your website and for what it is worth I am very impressed (http://foodfithealth.com/ ). You clearly are a scholar of nutrition and fitness of some note. If we interact again at a later date, you will find me much more respectful. To be clearer, I would like to apologise for my "tone" in our discussion the other day.

I mistakenly "burred up" when you mistakenly defended the deeply flawed Australian Paradox paper, by promoting a disingenuous post that falsely declared victory for the University of Sydney (http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/university-sydney-falsely-declares-victory.pdf ).

Paul, I haven't had the opportunity to do more than skim across some of the areas on your website. I will be back when I have some time. In the future, I won't be assuming I can best you in any argument on nutrition beyond the extent of errors in Australian Paradox. Indeed, I would steer away from you in most such arguments because your nutritional knowledge is much wider and deeper than mine.

Good on you and have a good weekend.

Best wishes,
Rory