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?

I am making the time.

It isn't the scientific approach that exposed the issues around Thalydomide, Vioxx and so forth. When things go wrong with a drug, it is not medical academics or lab technicians who expose it. It is patients, victims, campaigning families, campaigning lawyers. It?s now all very well to say now, years later, well, yes, Vioxx, that was a mistake. We understand the problems through a scientific approach, but we learn about them through personal and anecdotal evidence.

It is quite something to be concerned enough about the claims made by campaigning patients, victims, families, to explore further with sincerity. People with no scientific background at all.

This is quite a central issue with me. Personal experience is dismissed, put in a box with anecdotal evidence, dusted with a coating of accusations of hysteria or paranoia or even scare-mongering, despite its obvious value.

Ben Goldacre's book is terrific. I have it and it is well-written and extremely interesting. I enjoyed it so much I bought a copy for my mother as well.

I'd thoroughly recommend it.

Nutrition is important, nobody has argued otherwise. "Superfoods" etc are marketing gimmicks. The notion that cancer can be cured by eating "anti-cancer foods" like pomegranate is a nastier marketing trick, since it prompts sick people and their loved ones to go to great lengths and spend a fortune on books and unusual food. Omega 3 and other supplements are just more marketing by the massive food supplements industry.

I won't argue on the manuka honey - as I said, it tastes nice and clearly has at least the beneficial properties of the standard honey which costs a fraction of the price. I am a bit suspicious because it is so very expensive and almost all the research comparing it to normal honey appears to have involved the same researcher. I think that conventional medical treatments are likely to be just as effective.

Nothing to add to the science debate but Ben Goldacre was the after dinner speaker at a publishing conference last year and he used his time to berate all the scholarly publishers in the room for publishing the crap that SOME of them publish. And for some fairly dubious publishing practices that had recently been uncovered.

He was very, very funny.

Omega 3 isn't just a marketing ploy, there's been umpteen scientific studies into its plausability as a treatment for raised cholesterol and hypertension with fantastic results. It's also available on prescription as Omacor for both those reasons and also (I think) as a treatment for metabolic syndrome.

Interesting how it is mostly women who buy into woo. I think that, Edam is right, our experiences with the medical profession bring distrust. Personally, I was horrified by maternity care I recieved, and the indifference and incompetence I encountered then and since.

Sorry puffylovett - I am no expert on omega 3, my mother tells me it is brain food for children and I should be giving supplements to my DD.

I don't think she has issues with cholestrol or hypertension

But it's also that men are generally less interested in their health and wellbeing - so women also tend to go to normal doctors more, eat more healthily etc. I think a lot of women's interest in woo is a combination of obsessing over their health/ailments, and lacking scientific understanding.

I think it's because we're more intelligent.

Well, to get back to OP, I think YABU.

You´re just trying to push your ideas on to them.

And if the book is only 3.60GBP, blöödy tstingy as well.

AvrilH, regarding the Manuka honey. Peter Molan is the only one who is working on it as far as I know, but he is a decent scientist, in both meanings of the word, a good scientist and an honest one. Not sure why it is so expensive, maybe because Australia/New Zealand are the only places where manuka grows.
I wouldn't defend Manuka if I wouldn't think the science behind it is sound.

I have looked (for work) a lot into the omega fatty acids claims and the story as a lot more complicated. I think the proper ratio of omega3 to omega6 (and probably omega9 as well) is a lot more important than actual quantities of intake. To maintain this ratio is very difficult to do with supplements.

hear hear Gracelo - niche science for you!

OP, I loved reading bad science but I think you should buy it for your relatives for christmas if you think they will like it, not because you think it is something they need to read.

It's an awesome book, thoroughly recommend it.

Gillian McKeith - is she a charlatan? YES. Is she an actual, real, qualified doctor? NO. Yup, seems pretty simple to me...

I think this is a book that equips you to make up your own mind, it is especially good on the explanations of how medical trials and research actually work (or don't work) - this is knowledge you can apply to analysing whether stuff is bumf or solid data in the future. Personally I found it pretty empowering stuff especially as I read it whilst pregnant - when you are constantly being bombarded with information about what you should / shouldn't buy / eat / avoid like the plague etc.

superfoods are not woo woo

Grumpla, do you think that Doctors are the ONLY ones who can advise on health then? Do you realise how tiny their time spent on nutrition is a medical school?

You may as well go to the optician with a broken arm as go to the GP and ask about food

Not sure what you mean, legspinner. I'm a microbiologist/molecular biologist/biochemist, not exactly niche as far as biological sciences goes.
I was looking into omega3/6 production with one of our marine fungi and we (the small biotech company I work for) decided not to get involved in it because we were not convinced of many of the claims made are sound.

One of the reviews on Amazon to a book linked to on the first page made me laugh (the one will a medincine bottle on the cover). The review was saying how great this book was, that showed no real science behind complementary therapies/medicines...and the final sentance said something like 'we should not just take these things because they make us feel better'!!!
WTF...we should only take things that make us feel better if they have been proven through 'objective' scientific methods should we ...lets just let scientists control our bodies shall we, they clearly know best!!! sarcasm

Thanks Gracelo, re. the Manuka honey.

Hula, care to back up your statements about superfoods?

Nooka, should have said: thanks and fair play to you for having a look. I would still beg to differ, but you sound like the sort of person who it would be really interesting to sit down with and go through the refs. in the back of Holford's book. It's not all him and his mates down the local comp handing out fish oils to random hoodies. I'm sure you'd find somethings to take seriously and I'm sure you'd find some things for me to take less seriously.

sorry Gracelo, I meant the manuka research aspect, which seems rather unique to NZ, rather than the omega 3 part..and certainly didn't mean to imply that microbiol / biochem /mol biol are not mainstream (used to be in biochem / mol biol myself).
sorry for the confusion - must be near bedtime

Having read the thread I can't help but want to shout at those lumping all 'complementary medicines' together in a bit pile.

How can you compare the 2000 years (at least) of trial and pracitice that has gone into developing Chinese Medicine. The univeristies set up for 100s of years in China to study the fundamental principles behind the theory and practice. We something like crystal therapy.

Though many clinical trials of acupuncture/TCM have been positive there are many problems inherent in trying to fit a western 'scientific' doctrine on to a eastern 'scientific' doctrine.

For example in a double blind trial, the practioner is not meant to know who is ebing treated with a placebo and who with a out, yet an trained acupuncturist would know.

Also for a trial each treatment is identical, but in acupuncture each treatment, to be successful has to be tailored to an individuals symptoms, not their illness, thus rendering many trials ineffectually.

I could go on and on.

But my point is that beliving 'science' to have to proove everything is as naive as believing every headline you read in the papers.

I agree it's rude to give a gift which is so loaded with agenda; fantasize about giving it, though, if you like.

I was shopping yesterday with a friend who is battling cancer. I browsed and pondered about buying Goldacre's book. He has a section on debunking detoxing, and a section on statistics, but most the rest weren't controversies that interested me.

'Detox' is my friend's big thing, in her strategy to beat the cancer. May only be placebo effect, but I think she needs that right now as something she thinks that she can do about her situation; in addition to conventional treatment. I'd be careful who I handed a book like Goldacre's. Some people need their myths to keep their morale up.

I would LOVE a volume of scripts from the Radio 4 Programme More Or Less, mind.

Ah, legspinner, yes I think it is quite niche in that respect. I wasn't involved in it myself, I was an extremophiles biologist at the time (and still would be if there were any jobs) but I knew everybody in that group and heard all the research talks and discussions and stuff.
Bedtime? Where are you?

Am in NZ...where it's been a gorgeous day.