to buy all of my female relatives copies of "Bad Science" for Christmas?

[AvrilH]

I am sick and tired of them wittering on about the importance of "superfood", omega 3, manuka honey, homeopathy and whatever nonsense is being spouted by charlatans like Gillian McKeith.

So I am pondering Ben Goldacre's book (which I have not read myself) as an antidote. And out of curiosity as to how they take it... From reading his column I am assuming that they might at least learn what evidence means. The worst that can happen is that it will be like when they buy me books by self-styled experts and it will be passed on unread to a charity shop.

AIBU?

But are there any studies to suggest that in otherwise healthy people it is beneficial to take them?

Or not?

www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab007176.html

It becomes woo woo when people (by that I mean pill-sellers) are making claims which sound plausible to the general public but which are not backed up by proper studies.

Must go out and enjoy the sunshine now.

edam - Christies are also currently recommending the use of Lifemel honey, which is honey made by bees who have been 'fed' (not sure if thats the correct term) on herbs such as echinacea and goldenseal.

Now that's something that I'm sure many on here would class as total woo woo, but Christie's seem to be getting really good results with their Chemo patients immunity.

There again, no scientific studies to back it up, could be placebo, who knows ? But if it helps, it helps....

Golgi - I'm sure many newly pregnant women are completely healthy but it doesn't stop your GP / midwife / consultant insisting that we take folic acid for the first trimester to reduce the risk of spina bifida in the foetus.

Now surely if we were completely healthy, we wouldn't need to do this ?

Beautiful day isn't it ! Hopefully it's not the last we will see of the sun...

"I know, he's so unreasonable - he will insist on finding evidence for things and disbelieving all the stuff which is patently made up and exists only in people's heads"

Hmmm. So would you tell a Christian or a Muslim that their religion is a pile of crap because it's based on myth, there being not a jot of evidence to support a belief in god?

Or do would you come to the conclusion that finding solace in God is like finding solace and relief in alternative therapies - something many people turn to in desperation when they've been unable to find help from any other quarter - particularly conventional medicine, which is probably responsible for causing almost as much ill health as it's cured.

Believing in alternative therapies for which there's no proof is about as irrational as believing in an all powerful, all knowing god, in my view.

Actually it's probably a bit more rational, as at least there's anecdotal evidence for the efficacy of alternative therapies, where as the only people who claim they've received proof that god exists generally turn out to be complete loopers.

[goes off sniggering at mental image of mumsnetter in pith helmet and Cath Kidston safari suit,brandishing a copy of Ben Goldacre, while patronising tribal people for their 'silly' and pointless traditional rituals and medicines]

Thats a bit of a straw man argument sabire. Religion is all about faith in the absence of proof, about personal belief and internal reality. Alternative therapies are touted as if they have proof, as a sound and rational alternative to scientifically tested and proven methods, only backed up by "belief" as a last resort when shown how their theories are not supported by logic. Its not at all the same thing.

You can prove the ineffectuality of reiki or homeopathy, you can't prove anything about religion whatsover, you're not meant to.

poo, agree words are important (I'm a journalist and a pedant). Your first response to my post just seemed rather ill-natured.

puffy, that's fascinating. Can't wait to see the results.

Sabire, you may snigger at that image, but I would reserve my scorn for the Western quacks promoting homeopathic cures for AIDS in South Africa, and the likes of Holford and his unproven claims that Vitamin C is more effective than AZT, which has encouraged Mbeki's government to deny retroviral drugs to thousands of sick people, literally condemning them to an early death.

edam, wasn't intended that way, but I am pretty grumpy at the mo and not very good at conveying tone in writing either, so I get that a lot!

(Am obviously turning into my mother!)

Puffy - I'm genuinely surprised that you're comparing the precautionary supplementation of the diet of women trying to conceive with folic acid - to double the usual RDA where there is a proven link that this reduces the risk of a foetus developing spina bifida - with the supplementation with large doses, often many 100s of time of the RDA of single vitamins, where there is some cause for concern that they will actually do harm, and little evidence that they will do any good.

"and very often does harm people"

Unlike conventional medicines, which do no harm at all.

Jeez.

You should try reading the lists of known side effects which come inside common prescription medicines.

Everyone I know who uses homeopathy, acupuncture, CTM etc, uses it as a complement to Western medicine, not 'instead of', unless they've tried conventional treatments and found them to be harmful or ineffectual.

Of course practioners should be clear about the research evidence (or lack of it) about these therapies, though I'm not sure that knowing these things necessarily puts people off using alternative therapies, when they have access to anecdotal evidence that it can provide relief for symptoms that can be difficult to live with.

"You can prove the ineffectuality of reiki or homeopathy, you can't prove anything about religion whatsover, you're not meant to."

That's such a cop out. Religious texts are full of stories of miracles and of the work of god on the material world - which billions of people believe in, despite scientific proof that these miracles are impossibilities as they would break the known laws of science and nature. We don't feel duty bound to force religious people to acknowledge that this is true though do we? Or want to deny them the comfort that these beliefs bring?

'The only people talking any sense are UQD '

Except that he seems to believe that manuka honey is sugar pills... And Omega 3.

My doctor, conventionally trained, told me to take Omega 3 pills because it would help me reduce my good cholesterol. The blood tests indicate that he was right--I'm that bit nearer to avoiding a stroke. Nice for me, and nice for my children, I'd like to think.

I can also work again properly now that I'm taking sub-lingual B12 for my anaemia (which I can't absorb through diet). It's good to be able to do something other than feel completely wrung out all day. I can even go for runs and cycles.

But obviously it's all in my mind (or sinister people at the labs fabricated the blood tests because they were in the pay of the omega 3 manufacturers).

abra1d

Why do you need to reduce your good cholesterol?

"That's such a cop out. Religious texts are full of stories of miracles and of the work of god on the material world - which billions of people believe in, despite scientific proof that these miracles are impossibilities as they would break the known laws of science and nature. We don't feel duty bound to force religious people to acknowledge that this is true though do we? Or want to deny them the comfort that these beliefs bring?"

Again, its not the same thing. Personally I think that believing in gods and miracles is as bonkers as believing in reiki and crystals, but its not really the same deal. Religious belief is supposed to be outside of the laws of nature, you can argue to a religious person how exactly you can never turn water into wine or raise the dead, but they can always wave their trump card that God works in mysterious ways blah blah and that the laws of physics don't apply to omnipotent beings. Which makes me do a and think they are nutjobs, but not in quite the same way as someone who will earnestly tell me how homeopathy just does work, and how wonderful reiki is. Because they don't have the thousand years of cultural acceptance of religious belief to back them up, and they try to apply science to nonsense.
Somehow the religious mumbo-jumbo is rather more honest, iyswim?

Sorry, INCREASE good cholesterol! Not decrease.

I was sceptical at first but six months on, it has made a measurable difference, along with porridge and those little drink things.

plenty of evidence for efficacy of omega 3 - that's why it is one of the essential fatty acids, i.e. we require it in our diet as our body cannot manufacture it.

However, there are some overblown claims about links to intelligence with very little research to back it up. Especially in NT children - seems to be some evidence in children with SN although I haven't checked to see how robust it is.

I've spent a long two years being ill with and then being treated for cancer. By the end I just wanted to thump people who asked me if I'd tried reiki or some special supplement as it had helped their grandma's next door neighbour's friend. People just dollop out this bollocks unasked masked as advice and expect you to be grateful.

And the number of people who seem to believe that a healthy diet will prevent you getting cancer. Aaaaargh! While it's clear that a large percentage of certain cancers are caused or exacerbated by environmental and lifestyle factors it is not true that a healthy diet can prevent all kinds. I think people like to kid themselves that they'll be OK because they eat all the right things and do all the right things. It's almost as if some want to believe that anyone who has cancer has only themselves to blame. It drives me insane.

One of the things to watch for in nutrition research is that it is often with very small samples for very short periods of time. dh used to get Mens Health, and it was always quoting the latest evidence of this or that food or supplement, but the research was little more than anecdote the samples were so small, and yet the magazine never ever explained that that meant the research was in the "maybe" category rather than the definitive. Research is often both badly done and badly used.

MrsSceptic, that's really the point, I think that whenever large claims are made (of anything) one should be able to peel back the lid of the claim and check that what ever evidence the claim was based on actually supports the claim, and then be able to check that there isn't other evidence out there saying somethign quite different. Personally I'm not convinced unless I'm presented with a balanced argument in the first place that there is any vigor to the facts behind the claim. But then given that my degrees are in Politics and Public Health perhaps I've been conditioned to see half truths everywhere!

Sorry just to say this made me laugh. that's a fab idea - wish I had the guts. I've just joined Mumsnet today and already finding threads to make me laugh out loud. Wish I'd found it earlier when mine were younger.

"Religious texts are full of stories of miracles and of the work of god on the material world - which billions of people believe in, despite scientific proof that these miracles are impossibilities as they would break the known laws of science and nature. We don't feel duty bound to force religious people to acknowledge that this is true though do we?"

we should do.

Well as that's the point of miracles, I don't think a religious person should be upset to be told they are impossible. However any cure/treatment/pill touted as a miracle is clearly a fraud. You should not be taking a leap of faith with your health IMO (and certainly you should not be paying through the nose for it).

OP - it is a fab idea as these kind of mumbo-jumbo busting books are usually bought by the those already in the know, they will achieve much more by preaching to the not yet educated.

Like people who believe that water has a memory and that "chemicals are nasty" when in fact we are all made of chemicals, breast milk is chemicals(although, yes,of course, much much better chemicals for a baby than any other kind) all food is chemicals whether it is a froot shoot or an organic superfood smoothie. It's all sugar and salt and water and other chemical compounds. Your body doesn't actually know or care whether something is man made or biodynamically grown, vegan, organic or whatever.

And it makes sod all difference whether you get cancer or a lot of other illnesses.

That said, most drugs come from plants, like aspirin etc and complementary therapies can work in some circumstances as well as conventional medicine because the placebo affect occurs widely in both.

mrsboogie I think quite a lot of that is mumbo jumbo

I don't understand why people are bothered by other people who use complementary therapies of any type??? If it is not your thing then don't use them. But why does it matter to you if other people do??? I am surprised that so many people seem to feel so strongly about it in a negative way...what harm do you believe it is causing?

haven't read 10 pages so apologies if I duplicate but...

doctors used to believe bleeding patients was good for them, I wonder how many graves that filled? There is an awful lot of bad science published in medical journals. A lot of studies involve 95% confidence intervals -fine but 5% of them will be misleading. This is why you need more than one study.

It's quite difficult to get good studies done on traditional medicines and therapies because there is no money for drug companies in something that can't be patented.

Wouldn't say I sit in the middle as I'm definitely much closer to the scientist end that crystal healing. However I've found out the hard way that conventional medicine doesn't have all the answers. Sometimes less conventional treatments can be useful. Personally I don't have such a closed mind that I'm not prepared to consider alternatives. Some have been a total waste of money, some have been helpful.

If I wasn't prepared to be open minded I'd still be trying to find solutions to some health problems.

It rather annoys me that the NHS sometimes wastes money when non-conventional treatment can be cheaper. I would like to see more evaluation for some non conventional therapies/ treatments - then availability on prescription where cost effective.