I watch a blog called Bad Science. The author of this blog does not like supplementation. So he is a critic of my pragmatic outlook - eat like you don't supplement and supplement like you don't eat. One needs critics - they keep you honest and on your game so to speak. However critics can be energy draining and divisive. Therefore I choose mine very carefully. What I like about Dr Ben Goldacre is that he is evidence based. Therefore when he is critical of some nutritional thing I know that he has good reason so makes sure I stay on the straight and narrow.
We today he has posted about medical trials and advertising in medical journals. It is shocking. The top medical journals like "Journal of the American Medical Association, the Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine" were analyzed for how well their adverts were backed up by "good" science.
The bottom line only 40% were backed up properly. That is less than 50% ! Even I am shocked, I have quite a suspicious take on modern medicine, but even so I expect that more than half would have been backed up by good data. I suggest you read the whole post, it will shock you.
No comments:
Post a Comment