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?

Agree with alwayslookingforanswers.

Poo diagnosis for instance was very common in past centuries and to this day it's a damn useful way of seeing the existence of certain diseases. Just because a publicity seeking person with dubious qualifications got hold of the concept, doesn't make it all wrong.

and I see no-one has yet offered up an answer to my 18.00 post.

The "middle" is rarely where you think it is.

With some theories (e.g. evolution) nearly all the evidence is on one side, with only a bit of crackpot stuff on the other, so "sitting on the fence" makes no sense at all, as it doesn't mean ignoring 50% of the logged, peer-reviewed evidence - it means ignoring 99.9% of it.

Well, alwayslooking, your 18:00 post concerns mental health. The question of evidence still stands, whether drugs are involved or not - techniques and skills for helping people recover will be published, peer-reviewed and discussed in reputable journals of psychology. I'm not sure of the point you are making.

perhaps the middle isn't where you think it is.

my point is - what is "complementary" what is "proper medicine" at what point does a "crackpot" idea cross the line to become a recognised one??

how extremely know it all of you op

god, how nauseating to give that for a christmas present

look everybody, look what i think, and I'm right, and you're all stupid and wittery, including you poor ill person with ME which conventional medicine can do so little for, and you might be trying your best with different approaches but look, you're so stupid about it, happy christmas you dullard

alwayslooking, you keep asking questions which sound rhetorical but are actually easy to answer. To your last: it's when the majority of the scientific community has absorbed it because the overwhelming evidence from clinical trials and research is in its favour rather than against it. Broadly speaking.

My point about "sitting in the middle" is that this may sound very nice and equivocal, but you are taking up a position by doing so, even if you think you're not.

You could, after all, say that you refuse to take one side or the other about where babies come from, and would like to take up a position halfway between that crackpot "sperm fertilising an egg and incubating for nine months" theory, and the equally crackpot "brought by the stork" theory. I mean, there's evidence on both sides, surely. The Storkists may not be accepted by mainstream science but they have just as much right to their opinion...

Do it, but when you get Crystals and Healing Kits for every birthday and Christmas from here to eternity, just remember you have to smile and be grateful, just like they had to be

And that Isaac Newton, he was a total loon. I mean, gravity (tut). It's all just made up. Are we really supposed to believe that all bodies are attracted towards the centre of the earth? We don't even know the earth is round! I'm sitting on the fence on this one. And if I fall off, it won't be due to bloody "gravity".

(etc., etc.)

UQD = but what of research and clinical trials that are then later discredited, or show negative/negligible effects? After how long does something become "medicine", and when new research means that guidelines etc are updated - does that mean the old research (which had been accepted by the medical community) was therefore not credible?

These days research is progressing faster than it's ever done over history, there are some things where new research may show very little (if any) difference from older research. But in the world of medicine I think things will always be changing. Research doesn't stand still after something has been discovered and deemed credible , especially not in the medical world, I believe there will always be new discoveries that contradict the old ones.

Just like time doesn't stand still - neither does medicine. You only need to look over the last 50yrs to see how much things have changed with the care and treatment of humans. And it's not just been as simple as new antiobiotics and drugs that have been discovered.

no if you sit in the middle you get a nice broad picture. I don't just look for things which I already believe to be true, I look at both extremes as well and take research from both ends into account. I don't just sit at one end and say catergorically that everything that these people say is true.

Life is way too short to sit in a closed little hole and refuse to acknowledge other view points and research that doesn't agree fully with my own. Rather like my politics - I tend to sway from middle, to mid left to mid right - depending on what subject I'm reading about.

We're not talking about gravity and creation (at least that's not what the OP and subsequent threads mentioned) we're talking about medicine - the treating of human bodies. They're fragile things and I can't just sit and believe one view point over all the others.

Discrediting doesn't happen overnight, from what I understand. The old research may still be "credible" up to a point but the new research can give a new insight into the effects. One good example is the ongoing debate about whether it's good for older people to take half an aspirin a day or not.

Do you have any idea how much of a strict process a new drug has to go through in terms of purification, lab-testing, clinical trial etc. before it is unleashed on the world? I think for cancer drugs it can take something like 7-8 years?... This should be the yardstick for any so-called "alternative" medicine.

yes and of course there's been no history of "tested" drugs being unleashed on the world without having been tested thoroughly is there...

And you've spectalularly missed my point about medical research constantly progressing - but I guess that's what happens when you're so convinced you're right and that what anyone else says is wrong.

Personally I like to be open minded - it's quite therapeutic actually.

Do you mean herbal stuff, leonie? I believe it's tested in the same way as other medicines.

People who say "you have spectacularly missed my point" are usually not properly reading the responses they are given.

A drug is not just tested, unleashed on the world and then left to work without being monitored. New theories and tests are being applied all the time, following innovations in medical research. And that is how it should be.

Oh, buy a copy for everyone you know. Apart from anything else, he explains how science works and how to assess scientific research: the plural of anecdote is not data.

I know Goldacre vaguely, he is a very energetic, passionate chap who truly, thoroughly and completely knows exactly what he is talking about.

I only wish I could say the same about his detractors.

I actually don't know why I'm bothering trying to debate with you UQD. You're so convinced that everything you think and believe is right that you can't even begin to consider other stuff.

Not sure if it's worth asking whether you think all complementary medicine and alternative medicine are as much nonsense as each other.

The smugness on this thread is awful

The only people talking any sense are UQD and alwayslooking

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not lump in good nutrition/superfood with alternative medicine, nutrition is common bloody sense

and no drugs may not just be unleashed on the world without following up - but you can't possibly deny that there have been drugs leashed on the world which have had horrendous repercussions...........repercussions discovered after the testing has been completed and then consequently withdrawn.

So much for conventional medicine being so much safer and as well researched as alternative and complementary.