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?

Conventional medical errors cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people every year.

Random gubbins looking good on that number line.

What I like about Goldacre is that he poo-poos the knee-jerk, "imigrants cause cance", Daily Mail headlines.
He actually asks where the journos get their data. Quite often the scientific papers these reports are based on aren't even published and the authours are furious their research has been twisted in this way.
(See "short skirts cause rape" and "Breast feeding bad for babies".)

I caught this when it was on the radio.

Beg to differ about manuka honey. It actually gets rid of MRSA. Pretty damn useful stuff. On a less dramatic note, it also got rid of the sepsis on my son's ingrowing toenail, to the amazement of our podiatrist, who assured me this wasn't possible without antibiotics.

This week I have also used it on my daughter's cold sore.

My doctor congratulated me on taking Omega 3 tablets in the form of fish oil. He showed me my blood test results and I could see the elevated 'good' choleserol figures for myself.

It's an excellent book.

Not sure your woo-hooked female relatives would appreciate it, though...

Just as a side point

Regardless of Mr Goldacre's readability,

why on earth would you buy such a passive aggressive present for Chrostmas?

Surely we usually tend to give people rpesents they like- buy it if you will, but Christmas?

Doesn't all honey have anti-bac properties?

Fair point DNPTRB.

I got it for Christmas last year. It was my favourite present.

I think everybody should read it.

But if you'd been taken in by woo-woo you might not appreciate the sentiment.

Yes it does, cranky, but manuka seems to work more quickly as far as my experience goes.

It's certainly not cheap. We use ours sparingly, for infections and sore throats. But it's saved me having to take children to the surgery for antibiotics on several occasions: usually for infected ingrowing toenails, which my son has a predisposition towards. I've just watched it, over three days, almost 'dissolve' a cold sore by my daughter's mouth.

DNPTRD, my Born Again sister gave me The Shack for Xmas last year. Should I give her a Dawkins this year? (I am atheist)

Na, I think I'll just stock up on "Bad Medicine" - it's an excellent book.

"Bad Science", even.

The new Dawkins is good, OldLady. & on half-price in Waterstones.

Not too polemical re: religion either - he makes the point early on that he's worn that t-shirt elsewhere.

Excellent present for your BA sister, IMO.

"Merck says its own meta-analysis shows that Vioxx is safe for the heart."

August 2001

Now that's what I call woo woo. Or bad science.

Why is Holford hooey?

mmrsceptic - to fully answer your Holford question you might need to read Bad Science - have you?

God no, why would I? I read the column and the blog.

So why is Holford hooey?

am off to bed, fill me in on why Holford is hooey, also if you have any comments on the number of deaths caused by conventional medical errors, failures of testing and monitoring, that sort of thing

or you could all just say hooey and woo woo again I suppose

holford has no formal training in nutrition.as nutrition isnt a protected title he can do this.

he a 2:2 in psychology.Holford?s only ?qualification? in nutrition is an honorary one

he endorses "nutritionist" selling supplements for profit in the IANT codse of ethics. ION code of ethics endorses sellong supplements for profits,"nutritionists" can make profit and commission from selling products to their customers. a conflict of interest that the nutritionist is on commission for every placebo they sell.

holford watch has laugh out loud holfordisms

unless you're saying holford is hooey because he sells pills? is that the only reason? i understood that to be BA's reason

Thanks, sm, I just couldn't be arsed cos I was watching Xfactor

i could cite numerous reasons holford is erroneous namely is poor grasp of science,biochemisty and nutrition

go goggle him, and his quasi-science claims. try bad science or holford watch

i find profit based consultation and treatment unethical.selling placebo but implying it has clinical efficacy is misleading

we x posted

so it's because he sells pills

have seen that website before.. it says qualifications don't matter by the way

you find profit based consultation and treatment unethical

better not move out of the uk then sm

Fight the good fight scottishmummy, I am a lazy fecker aren't I? Mmsceptic, wot she sez...

Loontastic