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?

dh has it his lovely wife got it for him
i like him as he is anti toxing

rofl at Edam's 'which sex is thickest?' quandry.

How do you know that about Gillian eh? Any evidence to back it up?

Well, I like to think there is just "medicine", no division between "real" and "complementary/alternative". Medicine works, other shit doesn't. The other shit is usually sugar and water. It's not (good or bad) rocket science.

Well, back to the OP.
I´m thinking that YABU-just tell them to stop wittering!!

Because I know a person who is closely involved... (don't want to out the person in case GMcK does a vanity google).

BitOfFun - I will refrain from commenting on that other thread if you don't mind! All too playground!!

Another excellent point from UQD.
In essence then, we agree that 'complementary' is a euphemism for 'useless'.

Yes?
Can I see a show of hands?

That's exactly what good complementary therapists and doctors say UQD. Indeed some of the most eminent doctors who are researching in this area or use comp. med as part of their everyday practice where appropriate.

So less of the 'women believe in woo' and more knocking idiots like The Food Doctor or Gillian, if you please!

I don't mind at all- I'm astonished anybody could even begin to unravel it...

Anyway, Ben Goldacre emailed me once and said I was interesting [smug]

Well I'm all for knocking woo. But what consitutes woo - yoga, chiropractic, acupuncure? All of which seem to have been adopted by the mainstream medical world to a great or lesser extent. Perhaps these can be categorised as woo-lite?

Crystals et al are clearly full-woo

edam - if women simply have more contact with health professionals (which I'm prepared to believe), is a lot of that not accounted for by the fact that an awful lot of women become mothers and so have to go to doctor, midwife, etc. for baby check-ups? That will skew the figures, surely?

If a man is ill, he goes to the doctor (eventually, after his wife has nagged him enough). You surely don't need more "interest in health issues" than that? I don't know a single one who will mess about with reiki, crystals, homoepathic remedies or or Gillian McScreech.

Moondog, I know you like to be provocative and I'm sure comp. med probably has no role in speech therapy, but there is actually evidence for some forms of complementary medicine in some situations. Just as there is evidence for some forms of conventional medicine or intervention in some situations and no others. See the NICE guidelines for lower back pain or google the Northern Ireland study on complementary medicine via your GP, for instance.

Of course there are quacks out there, many of them pretending to know something about nutrition. That's why it's important to have statutory regulation of groups such as acupuncturists - sadly something the anti-comp medicine campaign are trying to stop.

I have a friend who was telling me quite seriously about some homeopathic antidote to stress which involved the saliva of a rabid dog. Apparently it's very hard to get hold of . And while rabid saliva is fine, antibiotics are scary and dangerous.

I don't have the guts to get her the Goldacre book though.

UQD, yup, but also women's troubles and contraception. Women just have more stuff going on in their bodies at a younger age - the hardest group to get to go to the doctor is young men.

I think we need to know what we mean by "complementary". Are you counting stuff like feverfew and its effect on migraines? I'm far more prepared to accept that than a lot of the more woo-y stuff. There's some evidence, although what looks like a serious study here is sceptical. However, it's good that this kind of trial is being done. Anything which claims a medicinal effect should be subjected to it.

yes I'm curious to know what is "complementary" and what is "medicine" - what about in mental health - the drugs are frequently only a small part of the recovery/management process.

definitely do this. dh bought this for me (possibly for the reasons you mention) and i've never looked back. and it's so entertainingly written you end up laughing at yourself for ever believing the tripe these fraudsters peddle.

But feverfew on migraines makes sense. Aspirin is derived from tree bark isn't it?

Its dangerous to put all "complementary therapies" in together. The term is meaningless, it can mean different things to anyone. For example, acupuncture, (some)herbal medicines etc... so not the same quackery as homeopathy and reiki. You elevate the status of insane bumkum and insult practitioners of actually proven therapies.

A bit of logic goes a long way, if people would just stop and think a little. How likely is it that someone waving their hands over you is going to effect any change in you physically? Not very, so you don't need a science degree to realise that reiki isn't that legitimate.

RE the OP, manuka honey has had some very positive testing for its medicinal qualities, there seems to be some promising applications....

I don't get how you can read one book and claim that it's all true and all the facts are just "so" - is it because they quote research/journals/studies.

To me that's just as naive as believing everything McKeith says.

Life just isn't as black and white as that.

I personally thing McKeith and co, and Goldacre's and co are all as bad each other. Slightly barmy and wanting to push across their own view point with as much "research" as they can.

I like to sit in the middle personally.

alwayslooking - it's really simple. It all comes down to how much objective evidence you can cite. That's all we can really ask.

If you say "X is a nasty person" then that's just a subjective opinion.

If you say "X is a nasty person because she kicks dogs and swears at small children", then that's more convincing-sounding, but still just unproven hearsay.

If you say "X is a nasty person, and here is videotaped CCTV of her kicking dogs and swearing at small children", then that's pretty strong evidence.

So do you basically think science is 'slightly barmy' Alwayslooking?

but naturally no matter what "side" you're on you're going to find and cite the evidence which shows what you want it to show. It's human nature

You only need to look at a commonly debated "theme" on mumsnet to see "evidence" of that

children are better off looked after by their mothers at home until x age
children are better off in nursery from x age

etc etc

Perhaps people have read more than one book, always looking (although your handle strikes me as ironic, since it appears you are never looking for answers?)...

What a bizarre assertion...that citing journals, research and studies is the same as making it up as you go along...that scientific research is just as bad as people who buy their degrees on the internet and poke at poo to diagnose medical problems (usually wrongly).

Putting research into quotes does not make it less real, or less reliable. You stick there in the middle with your fingers in your ears and learn nothing.....

no I don't think science is barmy at all. But I doubt there's much that has been researched thoroughly that doesn't have totally contradicting, yet still reliable, studies done on it.

actually my name is derived from my former name. Nothing to do with my personality - trust me I'm asking lots of questions right now in RL.

Sitting in the middle is actually quite pleasant, you can read things at both ends of the spectrums and make your own mind up as to which bits are bonkers and which bits aren't. There's also quite a lot of scientific research that sits quite nicely in the middle for us sit on the fencers.