Walk It Off? The New Therapy Trial Getting Aussie Men Talking
Published: 17 June 2025
Share Copy Link
Readtime: 7 min
Every product is carefully selected by our editors and experts. If you buy from a link, we may earn a commission. Learn more. For more information on how we test products, click here.
We've heard the statistics, we know the consequences, and yet the depression epidemic crippling Australian men remains as consistent as ever. New data from the University of Newcastle has revealed that while depression remains one of the country's leading causes of disease burden, less than 40 per cent of those experiencing mental health issues seek help. Even more concerning, nearly half of those who do attend therapy drop out prematurely, often after just one session. For many Australian men, the road to recovery is often paved with silence, but a new initiative is aiming to tackle the issue head-on.
Studies show that traditional therapy approaches fall short for many men | Image: Cindy Bartillon
The Walk and Talk Revolution
Unveiled as part of a broader Men's Health Week initiative, the Hunter Medical Research Institute (HMRI) is encouraging men to step outside of their comfort zones and into the great outdoors. Led by Associate Professor, Hunter Medical Research Institute and the University of Newcastle, Dr Myles Young, the new 'Walk-and-Talk' clinical trial is reimaging how therapy is delivered, swapping the leather couch and doctor's surgery for a more pristine and inviting environment. The idea is simple: by shifting the sessions outdoors and to a more relaxed setting, men will feel more comfortable, open and free to speak up.
'We are really excited about this study. At its core, we are hoping to answer a simple question: does changing the setting of therapy have an impact on how engaging and effective it is for men?' Dr Myles Young says. 'There are some potential added benefits of engaging in therapy outdoors, including the chance to be physically active and get exposed to nature. Some men may also like the shoulder-to-shoulder nature of the conversations.'
The innovative approach is designed to tackle what Dr Young believes is a significant mental barrier for young men: the rigidity of conventional therapy. Just as the causes of depression are complex and unique to each person, often the result of biological, psychological and social factors, so too should the therapy be tailored to an individual's needs. In an extensive study of almost 2,000 Australian men who had attended therapy, the most common reasons for dropping out were a lack of connection with the therapist, followed by a sense that attending therapy just 'didn't feel right'.
'Some men drop out because they feel therapy isn't relevant to them, too formal, or overly focused on emotions in ways that can feel confronting or uncomfortable,' Dr Young says. 'Others may struggle to see the immediate, practical benefits, or may feel shame for needing help. Therapeutic approaches that don't align with men's communication style or preferences can also lead to disengagement.'
Associate Professor Dr Myles Young from Hunter Medical Research Institute and University of Newcastle (R) | Image: University of Newcastle
Addressing the Hurdles
For many Australian men, mental health challenges remain a closely guarded secret. Issues surrounding public image and traditional ideals represent a significant barrier to entry, preventing a vast number of depression sufferers from seeking help.
'Many men value independence, problem-solving, and resilience, which are great strengths in most circumstances. However, these same qualities can also make it harder to reach out for support,' Dr Young says. 'Rather than a lack of willingness, it's often that men have been conditioned to believe they should 'push through' on their own. Reframing help-seeking as a courageous, proactive step can help, as it aligns with the values men often hold.'
'Traditional masculine norms like emotional stoicism, self-reliance, and the need to appear strong often discourage men from acknowledging distress or seeking help,' he continues. 'These norms can contribute to feelings of shame or failure when men face mental health struggles, making them less likely to engage with therapy.'
Hunter Medical Research Institute and University of Newcastle launch 'Walk-and-Talk' clinical study | Image: Lala Azizli
The Road to Long-Lasting Mental Health
The positive news is that things are changing. Dr Young reveals that a growing awareness amongst Australian men that seeking help is not a sign of weakness, but rather of strength, is spreading rapidly, buoyed by the spate of open discussions from celebrities, athletes and high-profile media personalities. As the mental health expert explains, the shift in sentiment is helping to create more avenues for treatment; however, there is still work to be done.
'It's great to see more male public figures openly discussing their mental health challenges. It's even more powerful to see everyday men start to have these conversations with each other,' he says. 'While men are still less likely than women to seek help for their mental health, the gap is closing over time. There is still a way to go, but there has been great progress in recent years.'
'As a society, we can continue to actively challenge social norms that suggest men should be tough, self-reliant, and emotionally restrained. By creating environments that normalise help-seeking and position it as a sign of strength and responsibility, we can shift the narrative around what it means to be a man.'
Hunter Medical Research Institute and University of Newcastle launch 'Walk-and-Talk' clinical study | Image: Lumeeo Chasseur Immobilier
Men's Therapy Study
While formal therapy settings clash with society's traditional expectations of masculinity, the 'Walk-and-Talk' method creates shared ownership of the space in which therapy takes place, and it's not the only initiative challenging the industry standards. As Dr Young reveals, a series of projects are being rolled out across the globe in a combined effort to make therapy more engaging for men.
The Australian Government's recent announcement of an additional $32 million in funding is one key step in supporting men's health and breaking the stigma around seeking support. Projects such as Movember's 'Men in Mind' program are specifically designed to equip mental health professionals with the skills and strategies needed to effectively engage, support, and retain male clients in therapy. According to Dr Young, the key to making therapy more accessible and inviting is understanding how mental challenges arise and impact everyday Australians.
'Research has an important role to play as it can help us understand the specific barriers men face, the types of language and strategies that resonate with them, and which therapeutic styles improve engagement and retention,' he says. 'By continuing to build this evidence base, we can design services that are not only more appealing but also more effective in supporting men over the long term.'
'There are many paths to good mental health. Therapy can be incredibly helpful, but it's not necessarily the right fit for everyone at every stage of their life. If someone is going through a tough time, a great first step is to have a conversation with a general practitioner, who can provide guidance and help explore the options that might work best for them.'
The 'Walk-and-Talk' clinical study, which is a collaboration between Hunter Medical Research Institute and the University of Newcastle, is set to kick off in the coming months. Tackling the depression epidemic with a fresh new look, the revised therapy approach has the potential to lead to improved engagement and clinical outcomes. For a group most at risk of falling out of therapy and through the cracks, the informal method could prove to be a lifesaver. Right now, the HMRI is calling for male participants to help shape the future of mental health treatment, one step at a time.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
9 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Most parents skip the flu jab for their children. Is that a bad idea?
The bulk of influenza infections occur in children; they are also the main transmitters of the virus within the community. One study of 29 countries, including Australia, found 19 per cent of flu cases were in children under four. Consider this study from Hong Kong that tracked the spread of flu through households: kids under 18 were up to 2.8 times more likely to pass on the virus than adults, and they were more likely to catch it. Children seem to shed more copies of the virus (including before they show symptoms); they also tend to have closer contact with adults. They are also less likely to wash their hands, and more likely to put things in their mouth. Why? Principally because they are immune-naive: their bodies have not had time to train on influenza. An adult has an arsenal of antibodies to several different strains of the flu. A young child has nothing beyond any left-over antibodies from their mother. 'They are new in the world, and they are getting infected with a lot of different viruses,' says Professor Kristine Macartney, director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance. 'While that's inevitable, what we don't want – and I promise you as a paediatrician who has cared for many kids critically ill in hospital with flu – we don't want to see kids with severe illness.' We often think of the flu as a nuisance for young people and adults, and a threat for the elderly. Consider flu vaccination rates: 60 per cent of Australians over 65 have had a jab, compared to 24.7 per cent of those under five. 'They are new in the world, and they are getting infected with a lot of different viruses.' Professor Kristine Macartney on the susceptibility of children But influenza hospitalisation rates among very young children are surprisingly high – higher still if you add in all those who have co-infections, such as RSV at the same time. Young children also tend to suffer the most from the flu. They typically have higher fevers, more severe symptoms, and shed more of the virus, which explains why they are such effective transmitters. Indeed, every year the flu kills about 250,000 to 500,000 people globally, including about 28,000 people under 18. Some years, the hospitalisation rate for Australians under five exceeds that of those over 65. And while children with comorbidities are particularly at risk, there does seem to be a lot of random variation, with some perfectly healthy youngsters getting severely ill and ending up in intensive care. 'The vast majority of kids we see hospitalised each year … are healthy children. When this happens, it is a shock to parents,' Macartney says. Per the most recent Australian influenza season report, 39 people died with the flu in sentinel hospitals (those participating in influenza surveillance) in 2023, nine of them children. When we are infected, or vaccinated, our bodies develop armies of antibodies specific to glycoproteins on the surface of the virus. Loading Over time, and under pressure from our new antibodies, the virus mutates – a process known as antigenic drift – eventually to the point where our antibodies no longer recognise it. We undergo another cycle of infection and immunity. Remarkably, antibodies developed to a flu infection in childhood may actually offer us lifelong protection against similar strains of flu, a process known as immune imprinting. Australia licenses two free vaccines for children under five. Unlike the adult vaccine, they are given over two doses. Vaccinating kids for the flu seems to work reasonably well. A large US study in 2020 found having at least one dose of vaccine cut the chances of hospitalisation from the flu by 55 per cent. 'So it's good, but it's not great,' says Professor Robert Booy, an infectious diseases paediatrician at the University of Sydney, who has run clinical trials of flu vaccines. The overall reduction in infections tends to sit at about 50 to 60 per cent, he says. There are also community benefits. Vaccinating children seems to cut the amount of virus that is spread around the community. Given the number of viruses parents have to endure from their children, avoiding one seems a smart bet. And the vaccine seems safe. Australia conducted one of the phase 3 trials for one of our vaccines licensed in children. It reported zero serious adverse events or deaths. Just 1.1 per cent of parents take their children to see a doctor in the days after getting a flu shot. Given all this, why are flu vaccination rates falling among kids? Loading The obvious answer is: the pandemic. During 2020, parents wanted to protect their kids from COVID, but there was no COVID vaccine, so they got a flu jab instead. 'People were trying to take action against something,' says Jessica Kaufman, head of the vaccine social science team at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute. After COVID was no longer front of mind, parents began putting less emphasis on the importance of flu protection. Parents are busy as it is without one more thing to think about – and kids don't much like having needles stuck in their arms. The flu vaccine is optional, compared to the more stringently recommended vaccines of childhood. Perhaps some parents worry about over-jabbing their kids? But the world is full of antigens, Booy says. Adding one more is not going to make much of a difference. 'It's a vaccine that is completely safe. It absolutely helps benefit not only the child, but also the immediate family and everyone around them. Children are super-spreaders,' Macartney says. 'It is definitely not too late to vaccinate. We have influenza on the rise at the moment – it's looking to be well above previous years.'
The Age
9 hours ago
- The Age
Most parents skip the flu jab for their children. Is that a bad idea?
The bulk of influenza infections occur in children; they are also the main transmitters of the virus within the community. One study of 29 countries, including Australia, found 19 per cent of flu cases were in children under four. Consider this study from Hong Kong that tracked the spread of flu through households: kids under 18 were up to 2.8 times more likely to pass on the virus than adults, and they were more likely to catch it. Children seem to shed more copies of the virus (including before they show symptoms); they also tend to have closer contact with adults. They are also less likely to wash their hands, and more likely to put things in their mouth. Why? Principally because they are immune-naive: their bodies have not had time to train on influenza. An adult has an arsenal of antibodies to several different strains of the flu. A young child has nothing beyond any left-over antibodies from their mother. 'They are new in the world, and they are getting infected with a lot of different viruses,' says Professor Kristine Macartney, director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance. 'While that's inevitable, what we don't want – and I promise you as a paediatrician who has cared for many kids critically ill in hospital with flu – we don't want to see kids with severe illness.' We often think of the flu as a nuisance for young people and adults, and a threat for the elderly. Consider flu vaccination rates: 60 per cent of Australians over 65 have had a jab, compared to 24.7 per cent of those under five. 'They are new in the world, and they are getting infected with a lot of different viruses.' Professor Kristine Macartney on the susceptibility of children But influenza hospitalisation rates among very young children are surprisingly high – higher still if you add in all those who have co-infections, such as RSV at the same time. Young children also tend to suffer the most from the flu. They typically have higher fevers, more severe symptoms, and shed more of the virus, which explains why they are such effective transmitters. Indeed, every year the flu kills about 250,000 to 500,000 people globally, including about 28,000 people under 18. Some years, the hospitalisation rate for Australians under five exceeds that of those over 65. And while children with comorbidities are particularly at risk, there does seem to be a lot of random variation, with some perfectly healthy youngsters getting severely ill and ending up in intensive care. 'The vast majority of kids we see hospitalised each year … are healthy children. When this happens, it is a shock to parents,' Macartney says. Per the most recent Australian influenza season report, 39 people died with the flu in sentinel hospitals (those participating in influenza surveillance) in 2023, nine of them children. When we are infected, or vaccinated, our bodies develop armies of antibodies specific to glycoproteins on the surface of the virus. Loading Over time, and under pressure from our new antibodies, the virus mutates – a process known as antigenic drift – eventually to the point where our antibodies no longer recognise it. We undergo another cycle of infection and immunity. Remarkably, antibodies developed to a flu infection in childhood may actually offer us lifelong protection against similar strains of flu, a process known as immune imprinting. Australia licenses two free vaccines for children under five. Unlike the adult vaccine, they are given over two doses. Vaccinating kids for the flu seems to work reasonably well. A large US study in 2020 found having at least one dose of vaccine cut the chances of hospitalisation from the flu by 55 per cent. 'So it's good, but it's not great,' says Professor Robert Booy, an infectious diseases paediatrician at the University of Sydney, who has run clinical trials of flu vaccines. The overall reduction in infections tends to sit at about 50 to 60 per cent, he says. There are also community benefits. Vaccinating children seems to cut the amount of virus that is spread around the community. Given the number of viruses parents have to endure from their children, avoiding one seems a smart bet. And the vaccine seems safe. Australia conducted one of the phase 3 trials for one of our vaccines licensed in children. It reported zero serious adverse events or deaths. Just 1.1 per cent of parents take their children to see a doctor in the days after getting a flu shot. Given all this, why are flu vaccination rates falling among kids? Loading The obvious answer is: the pandemic. During 2020, parents wanted to protect their kids from COVID, but there was no COVID vaccine, so they got a flu jab instead. 'People were trying to take action against something,' says Jessica Kaufman, head of the vaccine social science team at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute. After COVID was no longer front of mind, parents began putting less emphasis on the importance of flu protection. Parents are busy as it is without one more thing to think about – and kids don't much like having needles stuck in their arms. The flu vaccine is optional, compared to the more stringently recommended vaccines of childhood. Perhaps some parents worry about over-jabbing their kids? But the world is full of antigens, Booy says. Adding one more is not going to make much of a difference. 'It's a vaccine that is completely safe. It absolutely helps benefit not only the child, but also the immediate family and everyone around them. Children are super-spreaders,' Macartney says. 'It is definitely not too late to vaccinate. We have influenza on the rise at the moment – it's looking to be well above previous years.'
The Advertiser
12 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Major finding on health effects of PFAS revealed by NSW Health panel
The health effects of PFAS "appear to be small", a NSW Health expert panel has found. The panel, which released its recommendations on Tuesday, found "there is no clinical benefit for an individual to have a blood test for PFAS". The panel has 13 members, including Hunter New England Health public health physician Tony Merritt. John Hunter Hospital clinical director of endocrinology Shamasunder Acharya was also on the panel. PFAS contamination has been an issue at Williamtown since 2012. In more recent years, health concerns have risen across the country, amid reports of PFAS contamination of drinking water and the food chain. The panel's report said "many health conditions potentially associated with PFAS are common in the community and associated with well-established risk factors". Nonetheless, the report noted that studies had "reported an association between PFAS exposure and high cholesterol and reduced kidney function". Further associations were made between PFAS exposure and changes to the immune system, hormone levels, liver enzymes and menstruation. Additionally, these "forever chemicals" had been linked to "lower birthweight, high blood pressure in pregnancy and some cancers". But the panel said there were "inconsistent findings across different studies, with limited evidence of a dose-response relationship". "The amount of PFAS measured in some studies was low, similar to levels found in the general population. "These studies are unable to distinguish any effects of PFAS from the many other factors that can affect health." The report said there were "few high-quality studies of workers exposed to high levels of PFAS". It added that health effects associated with PFAS "may instead result from factors such as poor kidney function". "PFAS are partly excreted by the kidneys. This means people with poor kidney function will have higher levels of PFAS, which may result in apparent associations between PFAS and other health conditions." The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified PFOA as carcinogenic to humans and PFOS as possibly carcinogenic. The panel examined these findings, but said it was "confident that the absolute cancer risk from PFAS was low". It also stated that authorities should avoid using "currently available human epidemiological studies" to obtain PFAS threshold levels due to a high risk of bias. Research shows forever chemicals are in the blood of most people. A University of Newcastle paper, published last year, said mounting epidemiological evidence supports "negative associations between PFAS exposure and an array of human health conditions". The paper acknowledged that it was "challenging to definitively link PFAS exposure to impacts on human health". However, it found that "the balance of evidence" supports the potential for PFAS exposure to lead to adverse health outcomes. The Newcastle Herald reported in June that Hunter Water had welcomed revised Australian drinking water guidelines for PFAS. Tests confirmed that Hunter Water-supplied drinking water was safe and met the revised guidelines. Dr Kerry Chant, the chief health officer, said "updated NSW Health advice provides consumers with guidance on how to reduce PFAS exposure". "There is considerable concern, particularly in the Blue Mountains community, about exposure to PFAS through drinking water, and NSW Health takes these concerns very seriously," Dr Chant said. Nonetheless, NSW Health said it accepted all the expert panel's recommendations, which included "how to communicate risk in the context of evolving evidence". The health effects of PFAS "appear to be small", a NSW Health expert panel has found. The panel, which released its recommendations on Tuesday, found "there is no clinical benefit for an individual to have a blood test for PFAS". The panel has 13 members, including Hunter New England Health public health physician Tony Merritt. John Hunter Hospital clinical director of endocrinology Shamasunder Acharya was also on the panel. PFAS contamination has been an issue at Williamtown since 2012. In more recent years, health concerns have risen across the country, amid reports of PFAS contamination of drinking water and the food chain. The panel's report said "many health conditions potentially associated with PFAS are common in the community and associated with well-established risk factors". Nonetheless, the report noted that studies had "reported an association between PFAS exposure and high cholesterol and reduced kidney function". Further associations were made between PFAS exposure and changes to the immune system, hormone levels, liver enzymes and menstruation. Additionally, these "forever chemicals" had been linked to "lower birthweight, high blood pressure in pregnancy and some cancers". But the panel said there were "inconsistent findings across different studies, with limited evidence of a dose-response relationship". "The amount of PFAS measured in some studies was low, similar to levels found in the general population. "These studies are unable to distinguish any effects of PFAS from the many other factors that can affect health." The report said there were "few high-quality studies of workers exposed to high levels of PFAS". It added that health effects associated with PFAS "may instead result from factors such as poor kidney function". "PFAS are partly excreted by the kidneys. This means people with poor kidney function will have higher levels of PFAS, which may result in apparent associations between PFAS and other health conditions." The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified PFOA as carcinogenic to humans and PFOS as possibly carcinogenic. The panel examined these findings, but said it was "confident that the absolute cancer risk from PFAS was low". It also stated that authorities should avoid using "currently available human epidemiological studies" to obtain PFAS threshold levels due to a high risk of bias. Research shows forever chemicals are in the blood of most people. A University of Newcastle paper, published last year, said mounting epidemiological evidence supports "negative associations between PFAS exposure and an array of human health conditions". The paper acknowledged that it was "challenging to definitively link PFAS exposure to impacts on human health". However, it found that "the balance of evidence" supports the potential for PFAS exposure to lead to adverse health outcomes. The Newcastle Herald reported in June that Hunter Water had welcomed revised Australian drinking water guidelines for PFAS. Tests confirmed that Hunter Water-supplied drinking water was safe and met the revised guidelines. Dr Kerry Chant, the chief health officer, said "updated NSW Health advice provides consumers with guidance on how to reduce PFAS exposure". "There is considerable concern, particularly in the Blue Mountains community, about exposure to PFAS through drinking water, and NSW Health takes these concerns very seriously," Dr Chant said. Nonetheless, NSW Health said it accepted all the expert panel's recommendations, which included "how to communicate risk in the context of evolving evidence". The health effects of PFAS "appear to be small", a NSW Health expert panel has found. The panel, which released its recommendations on Tuesday, found "there is no clinical benefit for an individual to have a blood test for PFAS". The panel has 13 members, including Hunter New England Health public health physician Tony Merritt. John Hunter Hospital clinical director of endocrinology Shamasunder Acharya was also on the panel. PFAS contamination has been an issue at Williamtown since 2012. In more recent years, health concerns have risen across the country, amid reports of PFAS contamination of drinking water and the food chain. The panel's report said "many health conditions potentially associated with PFAS are common in the community and associated with well-established risk factors". Nonetheless, the report noted that studies had "reported an association between PFAS exposure and high cholesterol and reduced kidney function". Further associations were made between PFAS exposure and changes to the immune system, hormone levels, liver enzymes and menstruation. Additionally, these "forever chemicals" had been linked to "lower birthweight, high blood pressure in pregnancy and some cancers". But the panel said there were "inconsistent findings across different studies, with limited evidence of a dose-response relationship". "The amount of PFAS measured in some studies was low, similar to levels found in the general population. "These studies are unable to distinguish any effects of PFAS from the many other factors that can affect health." The report said there were "few high-quality studies of workers exposed to high levels of PFAS". It added that health effects associated with PFAS "may instead result from factors such as poor kidney function". "PFAS are partly excreted by the kidneys. This means people with poor kidney function will have higher levels of PFAS, which may result in apparent associations between PFAS and other health conditions." The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified PFOA as carcinogenic to humans and PFOS as possibly carcinogenic. The panel examined these findings, but said it was "confident that the absolute cancer risk from PFAS was low". It also stated that authorities should avoid using "currently available human epidemiological studies" to obtain PFAS threshold levels due to a high risk of bias. Research shows forever chemicals are in the blood of most people. A University of Newcastle paper, published last year, said mounting epidemiological evidence supports "negative associations between PFAS exposure and an array of human health conditions". The paper acknowledged that it was "challenging to definitively link PFAS exposure to impacts on human health". However, it found that "the balance of evidence" supports the potential for PFAS exposure to lead to adverse health outcomes. The Newcastle Herald reported in June that Hunter Water had welcomed revised Australian drinking water guidelines for PFAS. Tests confirmed that Hunter Water-supplied drinking water was safe and met the revised guidelines. Dr Kerry Chant, the chief health officer, said "updated NSW Health advice provides consumers with guidance on how to reduce PFAS exposure". "There is considerable concern, particularly in the Blue Mountains community, about exposure to PFAS through drinking water, and NSW Health takes these concerns very seriously," Dr Chant said. Nonetheless, NSW Health said it accepted all the expert panel's recommendations, which included "how to communicate risk in the context of evolving evidence". The health effects of PFAS "appear to be small", a NSW Health expert panel has found. The panel, which released its recommendations on Tuesday, found "there is no clinical benefit for an individual to have a blood test for PFAS". The panel has 13 members, including Hunter New England Health public health physician Tony Merritt. John Hunter Hospital clinical director of endocrinology Shamasunder Acharya was also on the panel. PFAS contamination has been an issue at Williamtown since 2012. In more recent years, health concerns have risen across the country, amid reports of PFAS contamination of drinking water and the food chain. The panel's report said "many health conditions potentially associated with PFAS are common in the community and associated with well-established risk factors". Nonetheless, the report noted that studies had "reported an association between PFAS exposure and high cholesterol and reduced kidney function". Further associations were made between PFAS exposure and changes to the immune system, hormone levels, liver enzymes and menstruation. Additionally, these "forever chemicals" had been linked to "lower birthweight, high blood pressure in pregnancy and some cancers". But the panel said there were "inconsistent findings across different studies, with limited evidence of a dose-response relationship". "The amount of PFAS measured in some studies was low, similar to levels found in the general population. "These studies are unable to distinguish any effects of PFAS from the many other factors that can affect health." The report said there were "few high-quality studies of workers exposed to high levels of PFAS". It added that health effects associated with PFAS "may instead result from factors such as poor kidney function". "PFAS are partly excreted by the kidneys. This means people with poor kidney function will have higher levels of PFAS, which may result in apparent associations between PFAS and other health conditions." The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified PFOA as carcinogenic to humans and PFOS as possibly carcinogenic. The panel examined these findings, but said it was "confident that the absolute cancer risk from PFAS was low". It also stated that authorities should avoid using "currently available human epidemiological studies" to obtain PFAS threshold levels due to a high risk of bias. Research shows forever chemicals are in the blood of most people. A University of Newcastle paper, published last year, said mounting epidemiological evidence supports "negative associations between PFAS exposure and an array of human health conditions". The paper acknowledged that it was "challenging to definitively link PFAS exposure to impacts on human health". However, it found that "the balance of evidence" supports the potential for PFAS exposure to lead to adverse health outcomes. The Newcastle Herald reported in June that Hunter Water had welcomed revised Australian drinking water guidelines for PFAS. Tests confirmed that Hunter Water-supplied drinking water was safe and met the revised guidelines. Dr Kerry Chant, the chief health officer, said "updated NSW Health advice provides consumers with guidance on how to reduce PFAS exposure". "There is considerable concern, particularly in the Blue Mountains community, about exposure to PFAS through drinking water, and NSW Health takes these concerns very seriously," Dr Chant said. Nonetheless, NSW Health said it accepted all the expert panel's recommendations, which included "how to communicate risk in the context of evolving evidence".
