If Mr Tarvidas had not used the title I would have had no reason to look him up, and his statements would stand or fall on their merits just like the rest of us plebs.

That being said - Dr Tarvydas, my comment about endocrinologists was not really my main point. Don’t you think that the Cochrane review (which, for those who don’t know, is one of the highest standards of evidence as it reviews all available good quality research) and the other study I mention at least mean that we should be cautious before discounting the benefits of surgery?

I suppose I should have just stopped eating so much? - the same crap every skinny peron says - great advice, but pity it does not seem to be helping us.

While it’s nothing new for a pharma company to emply flexible ethics in pursuit of profit, Monash would seem to be on very shaky ground if its Allergan funded research centre is testing Allergan products.

To ensure non-bias that university should trial the product against comparable brands or stomach restricting techniques, meaning that the “30 indigenous Australians in the Goulburn Valley” would need to be sliced open on several occasions to bring humanity the wealth of scientific knowledge this trial will surely render.

Good on you. You are doing much more with your stance than is obvious but your overall attitude is commendable.
Amy’s “endocrinologists not in the pay of ” I am afraid that even she and them (endocrin’s) would not really know who’s paying who to influence who, that’s how sophisticated the system of influence has become. The generated ‘research’ (albiet some may be excellent) is designed as a necessity for the process (Govt acceptance & payment). Lots of meaningless research is given serious meaning by Doctors who really do not have the scientific skills (they think the opposite which helps to prove my statement often) to appreciate the meaningful from the meaningless. The predominant high self opinion in these matters clouds the appreciation of the scientific understanding that’s missing and as they are not scientifically trained it will never arrive. The relied on assessment is based on whether it makes sense to ‘me’ because ‘I’ understand science. Well a real scientist would never play in that muddy playpen. Medical practice can be pure and nobel in its own right (I know I have been a talent amoungs these that are so nobel and appreciate the bueaty of the work) and real scientists should be left to judge science.
There are many issues that evolve from this intellectual problem that seems too difficult to deal with for those of us who see the damage. Many thousands of patients suffer serious harm as a result and nothing is noticed while those poor unsuspecting Dr’s float about on cloud Innocence. How could one ever save a medical profession with this dilema.
The govt in all innocence depends on them even with a track record that would have one anticipate error in the opinion nearly everytime and sidelines scientists opinions.

Yes, I too am not so sure about how hard you are pushing this anti-surgery line. I think the jury is definitely still out on this one.

After all, a recent Cochrane review did find that surgery was better than conventional treatments http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD003641/frame.html and there are studies like the SOS Study that had ten year follow ups that found there were pretty good results from surgery http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/26/2683

I also think that the first study that you are using to support your argument is not appropriate because it seems to be an analysis comparing different types of surgery, not an analysis comparing the efficacy of surgery compared to other methods.

It’s still an issue worth watching, but I know a lot of endocrinologists (not in the pay of any companies) are really impressed with the results they are seeing from bariatric surgery.