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?

YOu're a mad (if dedicated) woman! Hope there's plenty of chocolate in the house for the middle of the night just started breastfeeding munchies.

Yanbu. I'm currently working at a very lovely hippy festival which is full of crystal healing gong therapy chakra alignment laughter therapy nonsense. It makes me laugh but it's all such a crock of shit. My dad is a bit like that so i might buy that for him last year he got the god delusion and read it with interest so it might have an effect!

thanks OldLady
Yes, plenty of chocolate squirreled away! (In the FRIDGE, but then that's another thread)

complimentary medicine,gp asks have you lost wt

now i like that kind of buttering up,but damn aint medicine

sure as holford et al isnt scientific

Congrats, SGP

now where were we

somebody wanted this: US based, three years old

It's becoming clear that various people are somehow, for some reason, more obsesssed and angry about Patrick Holford than about the multiple terrible problems caused by pharmaceutical misconduct, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of real people.

Right, my daughter got up. flip

It's very intriguing. Where did it come from? BA describes failure in the pharmaceutical industry as "devastating", as I'm sure you all know. And yet somehow this catatrophe, which does indeed cause morbidity and mortality, doesn't lead to cackles, or loss of trust among you. This is where my "credulous" accusation comes from: it's a trust in the white coat which has been repeatedly found to be misplaced and yet is somehow never undermined: and when those white coats tell you to point your finger and cackle at something else, well away from them, you sit up on your hind legs and do so.

I'm not interested in conspiracy theories. It's hardly surprising that large corporations engage in market protection. It would be an impressive act of restraint if they didn't. This is what lobbyists do: this is what the placement men from government positions to pharmaceutical positions do: this is what a great deal of research is directed towards. It's the driving force behind the CODEX legislation, which would legally turn vitamins and minerals, when packaged outside food, into drugs.

Some of the research about the health value of supplements is the marketing equivalent of the Pepsi/Coke taste challenge, or eight out of ten owners say their cats prefer it, or the washing powder window test.

Why has all this ire and research been directed against Patrick Holford and against the use of vitamin and mineral supplements? There are thousands of snake oil salesmen out there, crystal vendors, ayurvedic healers, the list goes on and on. Why Patrick Holford? It's because he is successful, and a market threat. It's not because of his lack of qualifications: that is not the reason for beating him: that is the stick to beat him with.

Here are some of the sources he uses in Optimum Nutrition to support his theses.

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
British Journal of Urology.
British Medical Journal.
Journal of the American Medical Association.
Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry.
Journal of the American Geriatric Society.

and so on.

So when Patrick Holford is said not to be qualified, and then we find that the head of the department where he was examined was a consultant to the sugar industry with links to Wellcome, there's some interest from me. When so few of you are interested in the volume of deaths caused by conventional medicine, or in one case dismiss them because "death is one of the few certainties" it is hard to take your views seriously. Have any of you read Optimum Nutrition, or have you all just read the criticisms of him? UQD, you remain complacent in your reluctance to discuss the challenge to your trust in post-market monitoring.

I'm assuming that a fair number of you think of yourselves as cynical old goats, and congratulate yourselves on how insightful you are. However and this is the only thing I have to say in favour of BA you are not even handed, as he claims to be.

You are not interested in Vioxx and cases like it. You are not interested in anomalies of higher death rates, for example the SARS example I quoted. It doesn't mean I'm right, or that that the drug regime killed the SARS patients, it simply means you are not interested. Few of you are interested in the mortality rates of conventional medicine.

I find it so hard to understand why you are so blithe about these things and reserve your scorn and rage for Holford. The simple answer is that you're doing as you've been told.

I don't even know who Patrick Holford is, so have no wish to pour scorn on him. However there have been no studies that have shown health benefits of vitamins, and it is another multimillion pound industry, so has just the same incentive as the pharmaceutical industry to make money. I do have pharmacist friends who are very dubious about some of the practices within the industry, and I think they are quite right. As I used to run quality assurance and risk management within an NHS trust I am well aware that things do go wrong in medicine. That some treatments are not founded on good research, and that sometimes things happen which are unexpected, and that people cock up. Indeed there are many diseases/disorders that are as yet not fully understood, so of course their treatment is a bit hit and miss (I think of my mother's experience of arthritis for example, a disease that goes into remission/flares for unknown reasons, and where no treatment is effective in all cases).

However that does not stop me from wishing to make evidence based decisions when ever possible, or thinking that that is the way to go in the future. I don't decide that something is bad science because someone "with a white coat" has told me so. I use critical appraisal to look at the claims made, and if the evidence base is weak then I think that strong claims should not be made. Unfortunately an awful lot of claims are made on the basis of very poor "research", ie small groups, poor statistical analysis, no consideration of confounders, lack of blinding, no consideration of biological plausibility etc etc. All issues in social research too btw.

Now I'll go and look up said Holford, although really I'm not quite sure why you are so focused on him, as that's not really what this discussion has been about.

I didn't bring up Holford, I don't think.

On the more general points, I completely agree with alwayslookingforanswers, who was reasoned and not abrasive (as I've been in response to all that "eats shit" and "woo woo" and "gubbins").

Nooka, do you dismiss studies that show the benefits of vitamin and mineral supplementation because of their methodology, or are you saying there are no such studies.

mmrsceptic - I slightly resent the accusation that the reason I do not buy into the nutritionist stuff is because I am "doing as I have been told".

I prefer to think that it might be because I "understand how to look at the evidence".

And no, I haven't read Optimum Nutrition. But then you haven't read Bad Science.

I have read quite a lot of Ben Goldacre though. Have you read any Patrick Holford at all? Or any of the studies he refers to? Have just based your opinion on what others say? So that, while you may understand how to look at the evidence, you haven't actually looked at any?

Why do you think good nutrition is unimportant?

In fact, who has read studies about the efficacy of not nutrition but, say, homeopathy, that sort of thing.

Not trying to catch anyone out -- I haven't read any and my distrust of homeopathy, reiki healing, whatever, is based on prejudice and "common sense".

It's a mistake that nutrition has been lumped together with the more esoteric alternative treatments on offer.

Just to return to OP's question - I deployed subterfuge tactics last Christmas and got it for my stepdad. He has sense already, and would read it and enjoy it, and he can then mention the odd bit to my new-age-bollocks-obsessed mum. If I gave it to her I don't think she'd actually bother with it.

Have only skimmed this thread. but OP, YANBU. I am tempted to get a copy for my MIL!

BTW, I spotted omega 3 and "manuka honey" in your list of "nonsense". Not true! For the latter at least, manuka honey and its wound healing properties is the subject of serious scientific research here in NZ;
see this link

(sorry have just seen that a few others on the thread have referred to manuka honey...looks as if some is labelled "active" when it should not be).

Am a huge fan of Bad Science by the way.

Yes have to back up legspinner there re honey - in fact any honey is antibacterial, tis a fact.

I live near Glastonbury and I think I know woo when I see it. The place is a hot-bed of woo. Woo in all it's glory. But I had a chat and bought a leaflet from a chap who was collecting for a charity that helps children with cancers by teaching their parents about nutrition and providing fresh foods to help them cook for them. He didn't once suggest that chemo or radiotherapy was unneccessary.

That is not woo is my mind. That is simple common sense.

My chiropractor does not practice woo.

Yoga is not woo as it has huge mental and physical benefits - as does most physical exercise.

There are studies, but most of those I have seen either show no positive effect, or have poor methodology, or are too small or experimental (studies in rats, or cell cultures) so that they show only that a hypothesis is possible and further study merited. However I am in no way up to date (I don't work in health any more, and so don't have on-line access to health journals) so there may of course have been new high quality evidence produced of which I would be unaware.

I've now done a little digging around and seen a few clips of Mr Holford making what appear to be fairly huge claims on an incredibly broad range of health issues. Also anyone who appears on GMTV has to have their credibility rating seriously downgraded IMO. However I also think that some of the sites dedicated to debunking him can be somewhat over enthusiastic too.

Slightly off topic and sorry if its been linked before (or not allowed) but this sketch sums up the whole complementary medicine for me;

I would certainly agree that both food and exercise are highly important. But then so would most GPs. Different foods have different nutrients, and so a good balanced (and mixed) diet is very important. Dieticians (the ones that have gone through specific training that is) are very clear that unless you have a particular health problem then a good diet will keep you healthy, and that most nutrients are far better absorbed when they are part of food.

I also have to come to the defence of Manuka honey. I spent 5 years in the science department where the Manuka research is mostly done and flatted for years with a technician from the honey lab. Manuka honey has antiinfective properties beyond those of other honeys and there is proper research to back this up. I would certainly consider using it for skin infections (not for systemic infections obviously).

Morning mmrsceptic. I think you must have more time than me to spend on debating this.

I think your good nutrition unimportant comment must have been aimed at somebody else, as my earlier post makes it clear that I think it's important, but you get advice on that from a registered dietitian, rather than somebody whose decided they'd like to call themselves a nutritionist today. I did look into Patrick Holford at the time I was looking for some support, but can't remember now what he said. I do recall being deeply disturbed at the size of the upfront payments you had to make to get direct help from his organisation, and the longterm commitment to buying expensive supplements.

The article you linked to at 3.06 is interesting, but I don't think it quite supports the point you want to make. It says that one of the main reasons people die in hospital is medical error. Okay. It doesn't say anything about how many people treated with convential science die or get better. It also doesn't say anything about whether alternative/complimentary practitioners or techniques are any more or less prone to errors than conventional ones. But stats are collected and published on the conventional ones, which scrutiny is part of the reason we can have more confidence in the conventional approaches.

I'm a bit perplexed by your suggestion that we think that science does no wrong. It is precisely because of the scientific approach that we understand what went wrong with e.g. thalydimide now.

Thanks for the face at my statement that death is one of the few certainties. I had naively thought that was one thing that we could all agree on.

UQD - you made my morning, thank you! I went to bad last night muttering to DH that someone on the internet was wrong. Nice to wake up to someone on the internet thinks I am right!

sorry I am lolololing to myself that people seem to think that nutrition/supplements/super-foods are bad science

catrinm... loved the link!

Yes modern medicine is fab

3rd leading cause of death in the United States? Adverse drug reactions/medical error

The NHS spends 5 Billion every year treating smoking

and nearly half that treating adverse drug reactions