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?

"it is not true that a healthy diet can prevent all kinds"

Oh come on - nobody sensible really believes that a healthy diet can prevent all kinds of cancer.

But I think it was the Imperial Cancer Research Fund who were recently suggesting that perhaps 40% of breast cancers were probably diet and lifestyle related.

"Personally I think that believing in gods and miracles is as bonkers as believing in reiki and crystals"

There was an interesting news article this week about the idea that religious belief is encoded into our DNA - here

Personally I believe that our knowledge of our own mortality, and the fact that our lives revolve around loving relationships, mean that most people need religion and a belief in the afterlife in order to function well emotionally. I've always been a non-believer, but the closer my family and I get to death the more I feel the pull of the church.

Also excellent on alternative health: John Diamond's "Snake Oil". He was Nigella Lawson's husband, died of ?throat cancer a few years ago, and writes brilliantly about all the mumbo jumbo alternative health options he was offered.

Did he die because as a result of taking up these options???
If not the book is rather ironic...someone calling alternatives mumbo jumbo while using conventional medicine...then dies...

is it true he tells the story of the bloke with cancer who used to come down to the radiotherapy clinic ranting at everyone to give up their radiotherapy as it was killing them and go alternative instead

then he wasn't coming any more and Diamond asked the nurse what happened and the nurse said he'd got better

is that true bunny

bed goodnight

A small number of people will get better sponteously though. With less dramatic illnesses than cancer it's much more common. Regression to the norm, I think it's called. If the person happens to have been having reiki or listening to "energy patterns" on their i-pod, then they will often attribute their recovery to that. If the "cure" can't be replicated in a properly controlled study, then you can't consider the treatment effective, regardless of individuals' experiences.

"Did he die because as a result of taking up these options??? "

What?

We went to buy lawn feed today - the organic one was advertised as "100% chemical free" - wonder what was in it?

I'm not bothered by people using complementary therapies - I've used some myself.

There isn't necessarily any harm in the therapies - what damage is homeopathy going to do to anyone, for example? Where there is harm is when vulnerable people are believing that these therapies can do something that they can't. For example telling people with AIDS in South Africa that Vitamin C is more effective than AZT.

And yes, there is a need for folic acid in early pregnancy, and B12 for anaemia, and Omega 3 to reduce cholesterol. This is not the same thing as selling Omega 3 to parents on the basis that it will make their children cleverer.

Sod properly controlled studies, they are never entirely objective anyway. It is so completely patronising and controlling to pretend that only medicine that has undergone scientific testing works.

I think reiki and energy patterns on an ipod are rather extreme, and are far removed from herbalism or accupuncture, 'normal' people return to them...we are not all stupid, if something works for an individual why the hell not use it just because it has not undergone scientific testing. And if it works what is wrong with labelling it the cure...why is it that individual's experiences are considered less reliable than a scientific test? Why is a scientists subjectivity more highly valued than a patient of alternative medicine's subjectivity!!!??? Scientists are only humans.

BoF - I think you may be thinking of regression to the mean, which is about statistics/probability.

Cancer sometimes goes into remission.

lazyemma it was in reference to the post directly above it!

That's it edam, I got that mixed up.

Manatee - I don't understand this statement:

"Sod properly controlled studies, they are never entirely objective anyway"

Well that's kind of the point.....

And you are right, we can't say that only medicine that has undergone scientific testing works.

Many complementary medicines do work for individual patients - this is discussed in Bad Science. The placebo effect is powerful, and as you say, if it works for someone why not?

A good scientist would not be subjective. Obviously, they are not all good. Some may have funding from dubious sources, others may use flawed methods. But "science" as a whole is objective.

I just feel that science seems to hide behind this image of objectivity, when it is not so simple. What bit don't you understand!? Because I don't understand that you said you don't understand and then dissected my quote as if you do understand!

I'm by no means 'anti' conventional medicine, but am very anti people condemming others for their choices and what they do to their own bodies. Forcing treatment onto people's bodies (I think, but have no citation!) is much more rife in conventional medicine than alternatives, which people tend to pay for themselves because they have chosen to do so.

Manattee you are right you should approach all research with healthy skepticism. But you also need the skills to be able to figure out whether the results match up with the claims, whether the stats were used appropriately, counfounders taken into account, bias etc. Just because something is published in a good journal or labeled an RCT doesn't mean that you should take it's results at face value. Unfortunately the skills to decipher research are generally only taught at post graduate level (I think they should be taught at school).

However the experiences of an individual are just that. Just because something has worked for one person doesn't mean they will work for another, and indeed just because a person gets better when they happened to have a particular treatment does not necessarily mean that the treatment had anything to do with their recovery. The only way you can be sure is when a whole lot of people try something and it works, balanced with a whole lot of very similar people who didn't try it still having the same problem. And then you have to be very sure that there wasn't something else going on, that the two groups were really similar enough, that enough people were involved to make sure the outcome wasn't just random, and that the people in the control group were treated in the same way as the trial group. A good study attempts to isolate the treatment so that you can be sure that that is the only difference.

On the other hand I see absolutely nothing wrong with an individual saying I tried [what ever they tried] and it worked for me, why don't you give it a go? Just that that is very different from someone selling their treatment saying it will work for everyone on the basis of a few stories about individuals (especially when these are rarely documented). That's where the fraud angle comes in IMO.

Oh, and you can't (in general) force people to be treated. All invasive treatment requires explicit written consent, and medicines (in general) have to be taken, so can be declined. Of course this is not true for the very old, the mentally incapacitated or children, but then that's true for any scenario.

Nooka, I totally agree with what you are saying...I think I am just saying it from an angle of being quite sensitive to people telling me what to do to my body, and having left some hospital appointments (generally related to my wierd joint condition) crying because I felt so out of control.

It is a shame that a fraud angle exists, although I suppose fraud is everywhere.

The forcing thing - I was thinking of a few friends I know who have been forced to have stomach tubes put in due to eating disorders. Which is such a medicalised condition rooted in far more than the medical model can account for, it angers me to the core...but that is another debate!

People seem to be arguing about this book on the basis that it's trying to deal with alternative medicine in the same gentle, loving way Richard Dawkins deals with religion - which is making me think that just maybe you haven't read it?

It is actually about how to deal with information that is thrown about in the guise of science/medicine reporting. Goldacre discusses how to assess reliability of information, result-fudging tricks to watch out for etc; then he uses these tools to look at several different issues. Yes, he covers homeopathy and Gillian McKeith, but also mainstream pharma, the Sally Clark case, anti-drug campaigners... it's a genuinely interesting book.

It also discusses why similar trials can have different outcomes, as mentioned above.

Avoiding the thread content... it's a fun book and will be loved by anyone a bit geeky who is already interested in the subject, but for a more general audience it does get a bit ranty - try John Diamond's book on the same subject instead, lots of anecdotes and persona experience of people trying to get him to try all sorts of stuff when he had cancer.

My dad's getting another copy of BS this year because his mate borrowed it and has been quoting it at his wife all year in an attempt to get through to her... I told my dad this meant he could now have the version with the extra chapter previously excised because Goldacre was being sued at the time.

Ah yes. The world of mental health. I guess one day we will/may understand the brain enough to have treatments that actually work. That's where things tend to break down, when no one really understands the disease/ disorder, so treatments become a bit hit and miss. There is no doubt that treatment should be more holistic, and less face symptom orientated.

Ah yes. The world of mental health. I guess one day we will/may understand the brain enough to have treatments that actually work. That's where things tend to break down, when no one really understands the disease/ disorder, so treatments become a bit hit and miss. There is no doubt that treatment should be more holistic, and less "face symptom" orientated. I don't think many research methodologies have captured that whole person approach, because of all the variabilities that entails.

Oops!

I mean as a sentence it contradicts itself - a properly controlled study is objective.

Schools are starting to teach about How Science Works (often comes with capital letters, for some reason) - I have been recommending Bad Science to A level students because it is an easy and entertaining introduction to the subject and doesn't assume any prior scientific knowledge.

I'm glad to hear that I think it's a very valuable skill. It was certainly a surprise to me to learn for example that things published in the BMJ could still be methodologically poor.

Nooka I'm still pretty much on the opposite side of the fence to you but your posts have been really interesting