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's been polarised by the use of phrases like shit, shite, hooey, woo woo, random gubbins, useless nonsense, and so on and so forth

Well, that's just people being rude. Happens every now and again. Particularly on t'Internet.
It's possible to rise above it and continue the debate.

(I'm not seeing 'stupid' in the OP...?)

Dittany - you can't take part in rational discussion, when you lie and fantasise.

Who used the word "stupid"?

You can have quite a good understanding of science and empirical studies without agreeing with every conclusion Goldacre comes to, funnily enough. I wish SaintlyDameMrsTurnip [a biochemist in training, IIRC] were here.

people that 'whitter on about nonsense' are not stupid? Just impressionable perhaps?

it may just be being rude, but it's a bit silly to then complain about the debate being polarised, when you polarised it

not "you" you Heathen, I mean "one"

when one contributed to its polarisation

grammer

I think I'm ok to consider Holford to be hooey actually, without it making me an agent of patriarchy. I researched a lot about birth etc when I was pregnant and felt confident in going for an active home delivery based on that- I don't want to be patronised by arrogant medical sorts as much as the next person on here. I don't think I have been personally rude to anybody here, or about women more generally. If you can point out where that has happened and I am mistaken about that, I will of course apologise.

mmrsceptic , it seems that what the ant-science contingent have in common is that you can't read properly.

I never complained about polarisation of any debate. I'm not even sure you are debating what you think you are.

Oh God how incredibly rude and patronising AvrilH.

avril do you actually read any of the posts you haven't written yourself

god knows I don't know everything but I know that you don't either -- a fact which seems to have escaped you

you seem completely unable to actually think about anything that's been posted here

anti-science? what are you blithering about?

i didn't say you've been rude BoF, but use of terms like hooey along with all the others do serve to polarise the debate

on the holford point: have you actually read any holford?

you can see when you read it which studies are less reliable and which are more reliable

they are all cited, so that you can see when it's him and a friend taking sixty children and following them for a week, or whatever

but you can also see the citations from peer reviewed journals

i've never ordered his supplements as they seem rather exploitative, they shouldn't be that expensive as they're really cheap as chips, eg the generic zinc i buy is about 50p a sheet

it is possible to read holford and make your own assessment, which is that it is neither hooey nor an oracle, and take what you need

i've missed out on the "holford phenomenon" in the sense that i didn't know he was a big name, a big star, good morning tv etc, so have in no way fallen for that in case that's what I'm being accused of

his is one of many, many books I've read on nutrition and there are some very useful parts

I still think his success has been his downfall: there is a campaign by pharmaceutical companies to limit the use of vitamin and mineral supplements and it's easy to see why

must admit: the first time I saw the holfordwatch site a year or so ago I couldn't understand why he was the focus of such an intense campaign: to me he was just one of a number of writers on nutrition

Like you, I've read bits here and there (we used to sell his stuff in the bookshop I worked in), and it seemed fair enough- healthy eating and so on. I'm more worried about his credentials since his association with the HIV sceptics in South Africa etc, and his dodgy, slightly misleading stature as an academic giving him so much credence and authority. The pill-selling doesn't help either. And I do think that he cherry-picks evidence for his claims.

It's the inflated impression of him as Expert and the fact he has made so much money off that status which makes me dismissive of him- sensible healthy eating advice can be found all over the place, but he has made some rather more dubious claims and garnered a fortune in the process. Which makes him quack like a duck in my opinion.

thanks, that's so much more interesting than "hooey" (which in case you hadn't noticed got right up my hooter)

it's not really the science then, it's all the other stuff that goes with it

i knew it

I had a doctor in one of the Euro countries I lived in.. he was an MD.. but a sort of three in one -- he would prescribe pharmaceuticals, homeopathic remedies and supplements

if you went to him with a problem, saying you wanted one of the alternative routes, he would do it with confidence and sincerity, not as a placebo

however he would also say: no, it's time to refer you or prescribe you drug X

it was a great approach I thought, and he was a regular MD

Hambo I was horrified to hear that your dh bought you Anthea Turner - Perfect Housewife.

And then I remembered that dp bought me Debrett's Etiquette for Girls.

and Beach ..you've probably gone, but am glad you've found a treatment and I hope it progresses well

I seldom manage anything more insightful than "hooey" on a Saturday night after wine has been consumed, mmrsceptic, I thought that much was obvious

"there is a campaign by pharmaceutical companies to limit the use of vitamin and mineral supplements and it's easy to see why"

...is it because said pharma companies make vast amounts of money off those supplements?

actually the codex initiative would require all vitamin and mineral supplements to be tested to the standards of pharmaceutical drugs, with prescriptions required for any but the lowest doses

this is brief and rough, you can find a bit more out yourself if you're interested

they're currently covered by food safety regulations

what it would mean in practice is pharmaceutical companies effectively taking "control" of vitamin and mineral supplements as the costs of clinical trials and so on would be overwhelming to the small producer

it's true that some producers are already under the pharmaceutical wing eg Seven Seas is owned by Merck and GSK have a couple of labels too

but this was going to be a new level of control that worried a lot of people, i think it's been approved in Europe but was fought here in court, but to be honest am a bit behind on how things progressed -- i think it was approved in the US

it means not being able to buy 1g vit c capsules, just for a small example -- i have seen 1g vit C sold "under the counter" as if it was dope, am not kidding

anyway have a look into it if you're interested

Yy am aware of new regs.

was just addressing your dark mutterings about big pharma suppressing vitamins etc when actually they own most of the big brands.

Don't think it's totally unfair to stop selling megadoses of vits when it looks like some actually increase cancer risk. If you're that desperate to take a huge vitamin dose, surely you can just take a handful of smaller ones?

but i don't think they've been imposed in the UK? not yet anyway

this isn't about safety though, more about control

haven't got time now but have a look, there's quite a lot out there about the sort of thing that would be heavily restricted and when you think of the dangers of pharmaceutical drugs (eg the ease which which prescription painkillers become addictive) in comparison it seems ridiculous