Hayfever page complaint

mathsstudent

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/health/cheap-hayfever-remedies#light

I am a regular reader of this site and have come to trust the information and opinions it presents, however I was appawled to see so called 'light therapy' being recommended as a treatment for hayfever. I think that MSE.com is in a position of trust and authority and that is very irresponsible to promote such nonesense - especially as it is very expensive.
There is no evidence that 'light therapy' has any effect greater than that of a placebo, nor is there any scientific reasoning behind why it should work. If red light really does 'desensitise nasal passages' as this very site claims, then the same effect should be gained by standing outside in the sun - as any school child will tell you, white light is made up of the spectrum of visible light (see rainbows, CD's, and 'Dark Side of the Moon') - as this has no effect, we should conclude that light therapy, at least in this case, is a load of rubbish and expensive rubbish at that. If the placebo effect is what you're after, then there are many cheaper ones available.

I would like to ask that this recommendation be removed from the page along with any similar recommendations of untested and unscientific quackery, in order to maintain the high standard of information on the rest of the site.

I look forward to your responses, and the enevitable anecdotes about "how light therapy worked for me".

twinklyrach

I totally agree with mathsstudent. As someone who has been hospitalised thanks to so-called 'homeopathic' remedies I would at least like it pointed out on the page that the evidence that these things work is anecdotal and any treatment should be discussed with your GP first.

dmg24

mathsstudent wrote: »

There is no evidence that 'light therapy' has any effect greater than that of a placebo,

Wrong. The Medinose product is backed up by clinical research.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=9109708&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum

dmg24

twinklyrach wrote: »

I totally agree with mathsstudent. As someone who has been hospitalised thanks to so-called 'homeopathic' remedies I would at least like it pointed out on the page that the evidence that these things work is anecdotal and any treatment should be discussed with your GP first.

Medinose is not a homeopathic remedy/ product. I think you are confused.

mathsstudent

The point I think twinklyrach was making was that these sorts of treatments should not be recommended at all as there is no evidence that they work.

dmg24: That study seems to be the only one to test this type of treatment. This by itself means that any results are not conclusive. Actual medical treatments have to go through many different trials in order to be accepted as a viable and this just has not happened with this product. There were also many flaws with the blinding during this study. By this I mean that the placebo selected was not suitable - it consisted of using the same LED's, but just not turning them on. As it is fairly obvious if you have a red nose or not, it must have been clear to the control group and their doctors that they were on the placebo and thus the non-control group would have done better as a result.
The number of people taking part in the trial was statistically very small, this means that any results are subject to very large deviations from the actual population and make any results even more unreliable.
Furthermore, as I stated above, the laws of physics state that white light contains red light, thus this treatment would surely have no greater effect than standing in the sun - as this does nothing to relieve hayfever, indeed in my own case it makes it worse, we should conclude that this treatment has no demonstrable effect greater than that of a placebo.

For a more detailed review of the trial, I would recommend you read this page: http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2008/05/26/blind-to-the-rudolph-effect/

Kool_Kool

Well I always thought mse was not supposed to promote medical advise, or is it different for the main site, on the forum we cant give or recieve medical advise.

Peartree

mathsstudent wrote: »

I look forward to your responses, and the enevitable anecdotes about "how light therapy worked for me".

If that is true why didn't you post on the hayfever thread and stimulate some debate rather than stick it on this forum? Clearly you feel the need to put people straight - so why don't you do it in the right place?

I don't think the hayfever thread is giving medical advice. It is simply a group of people who suffer from hayfever sharing experiences on what has, and hasn't, worked for them. It is not as though someone is suggesting crack cocaine as a remedy for hayfever!

Clearly you feel defined by your status as a 'maths student'. If you were studying the experimental sciences you would know that 'proof' isn't so cut and dried. Maybe the product you are so appalled by doesn't have a whole pile of clinical trials behind it. However, it clearly works for a lot of people and whether that is a placebo effect or not is immaterial. How other people spend their money is up to them.

What is interesting is why you've got yourself into such a lather about it.

MSE_Martin

I think you make an interesting point. Ive reread that section and while includng it is important as people buy them sthus saving people money on them is important - i think we need to be more clear about the alternative nature of it i will tweak it this week

mathsstudent

Peartree wrote: »

If that is true why didn't you post on the hayfever thread and stimulate some debate rather than stick it on this forum? Clearly you feel the need to put people straight - so why don't you do it in the right place?

...

Clearly you feel defined by your status as a 'maths student'. If you were studying the experimental sciences you would know that 'proof' isn't so cut and dried. Maybe the product you are so appalled by doesn't have a whole pile of clinical trials behind it. However, it clearly works for a lot of people and whether that is a placebo effect or not is immaterial. How other people spend their money is up to them.

And I suppose you 'feel defined' by "Pear Tree" do you? Of course I am aware of the nature of 'proof' in experimental science, however it seems that most people are not, which is why one flawed trial can convince millions that sticking lights up your nose will cure hayfever.

How the product works - by the placebo effect or otherwise - is important. Firstly, accepting these claims 'on faith' promotes a misunderstanding of science and the scientific method and encourages people to spend their hard earned money on things that will do them no more good than a sugar pill.

How people spend their money is, of course, up to them, but what I think is wrong is for anyone, especially this money-saving website, to promote these (very expensive) treatments when there is no evidence they work at all.

As to looking forward to the personal anecdotes - I apologise that irony does not come through well in print.


Martin: thank you for looking into this, but I worry that highlighting the 'alternative' nature of this will not be enough. Indeed, calling something an 'alternative' instantly gives it credibility as a treatment, which this product just doesn't have. As I said before, I love this site and trust the information on it but I worry that someone will read about this product and be conned out of a lot of money.

MrJuggles

mathsstudent wrote: »

I look forward to your responses, and the enevitable anecdotes about "how light therapy worked for me".

It really did work for me, and if it just psychosematic then god bless my self delusion. However, I think this summer will be the acid test as I took it last time half through the year when I was most debilatated. I have been somewhat evangelical about it and can't attest how it would work from person to person. But for a half the summer it seemed to work shockingly well for me :j

mathsstudent

MrJuggles wrote: »

god bless my self delusion.

Martin: You're right that people buy these products, and I agree that saving them money is important, but why not do the job properly and explain why they shouldn't buy one in the first place? Let me try an example:

Suppose someone has a headache, would you:
a) Tell them to throw £1 down a wishing well and wish it away,
or: b) Tell them to spend £2 on an asprin?

Expensive asprin I know, but surely you would tell them to get the asprin? In this hayfever case, the choice is even easier, as the 'asprin' is cheaper than the 'wish'! Surely it's a no-brainer?