Last chance to buy certain supplements (getting outlawed by EU)

aaarrrggghhh

antonia1 wrote: »

Also, for those which do work, the side effects need to be fully understood in order to be licensed. For instance, many people take St John's Wort for depression (and I think it is first choice prescription in some countries) but without ever being told that it can reduce the effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives (eg the Pill, implants).

And this is a perfect example of why evidence-based medicine is so important. It is disgusting that people promote the crap sold at SS with no care for the real damage it is doing to real communities, real people and real lives.

jjtsu

adammccance, you've exposed yourself as a hypocritical fundamentalist.

Earlier, you confidently said that you'd 'EAT YOUR HAT' if there any peer reviewed study whatsoever that supports the efficacy of an alternative, natural product.

Yet when someone provided you with a number of them, you simply dismiss the study, alleging without any evidence or reason that the researchers bent the study to suit their hypothesis.

Any study that supports YOUR hypothesis, you're happy to recommend. Any that supports an alternative hypothesis, you dismiss! Just like a fundamentalist, not open to any new evidence.

k18dan

adammccance wrote: »

There's plenty of evidence, propogated by the homeopathic industry. If you can show me peer-reviewed studies, meta-analysis or, hell, even a simple double-blind study that prove the efficacy of anything mentioned above, I'll eat my hat.

Best get eating buddy :money:

Enjoy

aaarrrggghhh

jjtsu wrote: »

adammccance, you've exposed yourself as a hypocritical fundamentalist.

Earlier, you confidently said that you'd 'EAT YOUR HAT' if there any peer reviewed study whatsoever that supports the efficacy of an alternative, natural product.

Yet when someone provided you with a number of them, you simply dismiss the study, alleging without any evidence or reason that the researchers bent the study to suit their hypothesis.

Any study that supports YOUR hypothesis, you're happy to recommend. Any that supports an alternative hypothesis, you dismiss! Just like a fundamentalist, not open to any new evidence.

k18dan wrote: »

Best get eating buddy :money:

Enjoy

I openly invited evidence. What I asked for was 'proof'. What was posted was a hypothesis with no indication of testing procedure, numbers of people tested, who was tested, splitting of groups, what was tested, etc.

It's NEVER as simple as saying, 'this works' even from a regular medical perspective, never mind alternative. Delving into the figures is important.

I can see what Ben Goldacre meant when he said arguing with proponents of this stuff is difficult as they regress to name-calling, cheap digs and fear of evidence-based practice.

k18dan

adammccance wrote: »

I openly invited evidence. What I asked for was 'proof'. What was posted was a hypothesis with no indication of testing procedure, numbers of people tested, who was tested, splitting of groups, what was tested, etc.

It's NEVER as simple as saying, 'this works' even from a regular medical perspective, never mind alternative. Delving into the figures is important.

I can see what Ben Goldacre meant when he said arguing with proponents of this stuff is difficult as they regress to name-calling, cheap digs and fear of evidence-based practice.

Oh your a Guardian reader - all is forgiven

flying_stamp

adammccance wrote: »

I openly invited evidence. What I asked for was 'proof'. What was posted was a hypothesis with no indication of testing procedure, numbers of people tested, who was tested, splitting of groups, what was tested, etc.

how can you have 'proof' of anything in a scientific sense?
A hypothesis cannot be 'proven' only supported, dismissed or somewhere in between. I'm open to ideas that are supported through the testing of hypotheses, whilst at the same time being mindful that any hypothesis can't be proven 100% true

a1cat

Milk thistle. I accept that so far there is no black & white case showing the positives, the 'must-have' nature of milk thistle in a medical sense.

But having read widely around it, I conclude that the body of evidence points to there being good, worthwhile benefits and I'm guessing that the scientific proof will catch up with the 'historically proven over millennia' idea in short order.

imposter

imposter wrote: »

Slightly off-topic, but adammccance, antrobus, mahri (and others) - please take ten minutes out of your day to watch this video about new age quackery, which will have you weeing with laughter! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U

Mahri wrote: »

That was brilliant! Absolutely brilliant! I laughed out loud, but I could have cried too, towards the end. Beautiful, poetic and P*ss your pants funny. Thank you very, very much Imposter, that was the best use I've made of ten minutes for quite some time :T

I am so, so glad Mahri! :j

I was shown the clip by a friend in April. It knocked my socks off. I was aware of Mr Minchin but I was astounded by how succinctly he described my life philosophy in 10 minutes :rotfl:

The bit at 7:32 when it pans out and shows the solar system gives me goosebumps EVERY TIME.

You've made my day that it made your day

loobylou232

imposter wrote: »

Slightly off-topic, but adammccance, antrobus, mahri (and others) - please take ten minutes out of your day to watch this video about new age quackery, which will have you weeing with laughter! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U

Thank you for posting this wonderful clip! I absolutely loved it and will share it around. In my younger days, I was a bit of a storm myself:rotfl:. You live and learn!