Two people who know me well have recently pointed me in Ben Goldacre’s direction. One friend lent me Bad Science (the book) and the other sent me a link to Bad Science (the blog) which is now in my blog-reader-roll on the right hand side. Goldacre’s “niche” is challenging supposedly authoritative pronouncements on science, statistics and related topics. He has recently hit the headlines for challenging an LBC presenter about her sustaining the hysteria surrounding the MMR jab. Most people will know about this popular panic already: A certain Dr Wakefield published a paper suggesting that the MMR jab caused autism; newspapers picked it up without thinking; a panic ensued; the Prime Minister fuelled the hysteria by refusing to say whether his new-born son had had the vaccine; etc.. It turns out, several years later, that Dr Wakefield faked his study. Later studies have shown that the MMR jab does not cause autism. Sceptics like Ben Goldacre (and me) never really believed the hype. Silly people who should know better continue to spread paranoia amongst parents which, of course, leads to higher infection rates for measles, mumps and rubella. Duh.
There is lots and lots of bad science around. I have great pleasure in reminding people who swear by 1000% vitamin C tablets that the human body can only absorb so much and the rest gets flushed down the toilet. My flatmate says that there are measurable amounts of vitamin C in the Thames because of so much ignorance.
So I am deeply sceptical when I read articles like this one which extols the virtues of drinking green tea. The article is intriguing, it says
Green tea is full of EGCG, whereas black tea has very little. Research suggests that it may be worth working on your green tea brewing skills to raise your daily intake of EGCG to benefit your heart and waistline. According to scientists from Athens Medical School, sipping a cup of green tea has recently been shown in volunteers to widen the artery that runs from the shoulder to the elbow by 4 per cent within half an hour of drinking, suggesting a short-term benefit at least on large blood vessels.
Apparently green tea also aids fat loss in dieters. Can this be true? The article doesn’t (as ever) quote much of the data it has used to come to the striking conclusion. I would love to believe it, but there is something rather unbelievable about the premise that changing your tea bag can make you live longer and help you lose weight. But then the human body is such a complex and barely understood machine, that perhaps the addition or removal of certain chemicals to our diets really can have dramatic effects.
I am a prolific tea drinker and I actually like green tea as well as regular “black” tea (although I drink it white, no sugar, thanks). There doesn’t seem to be any harm in drinking an occasional green cuppa, or am I just getting sucked into another fad?
I am one of those people you describe as “silly”. My children have not had the MMR. If the government made single jabs available, even at a price then I would happily consider/purchase those as I am not against vaccination. My son has presented highly allergic reactions since birth. Even the health visitor advises against combined jabs for him, his reactions are simply too strong. The health profession admits there is an ‘acceptable’ risk but it’s not “acceptable” to me when my child looks most likely to be in that category. It’s not true that they have “proven” MMR does NOT cause autism, they simply haven’t found that it has. Not the same thing. And injecting children with thimerosal preserved vaccines is a dodgy business, otherwise it wouldn’t have been withdrawn. The vaccines my son would have had before 2004 would have contained thimerosal. Common bloody sense would have told anyone that injecting babies with mercury is probably not a good thing but hey, the good doctors did just that! So doctors do do really dumb things. Drug companies market products inedequately tested because they want to make a few million/billion bucks, it’s big business. And studies are usually funded by….. drug companies. Doctors do fashionable treatments and I suppose the classic example is Thalidomide. What a success that was! Pardon me if I object to being called ‘silly’. If the government made single jabs available we wouldn’t have this problem.
P, I agree that medics do things which in retrospect turn out to be wrong, that is why it is so important that things are tested properly rather than by the tabloid newspapers. You are mixing up the autism “feature” with other features. When I was at vaccine age my GP told my mother that I was too sickly to have the jabs (there was no combined one in those dark days) so I didn’t. And I had measles and mumps at a young age. Mumps is pretty nasty, but if a kid has it as an adult it can render him/her barren. Quite a risky business you will agree. That risk is considerably higher than any risk of autism. My “silly” comment was aimed at people who do not look at risks in context. Perhaps you have in which case you are not silly. There are many very silly people out there don’t take offence just because you are a person.
Thalidomide was an excellent drug. The version that was approved by trials did not have the side effect which the manufactured product did. Why? Because in the manufacturing they did not separate out the opposite chiral form. That was not “doctors” at fault but the regulators not knowing any chemistry.
P – Allergic reactions to jabs are not the same as getting autism. You should know better than most how illogical it is to ask someone to prove a negative.
I do know that, Blue but I also know that being sterile or even blind is better than being autistic. I know all three; blind, sterile and autistic. The autistic man cannot live a normal life, cannot be allowed to walk down the street on his own and if a stanger enters the house he just screams. He’s in his 50′s and when his elderly parents die the burden of care, as it is a burden in many ways, will fall to his sister, who has a family of her own. Something he will never have. Blind men and sterile men do. Autism isn’t just getting a bit of help at school.
And whilst I can’t ask someone to prove a negative that’s exactly what the government is doing. Why they don’t just recognise the public feeling and provide single jabs is beyond me?! This isn’t down to clinical study it’s down to accounting and putting childrens lives at risk because of it.
Philipa, the only reason there is any worry about MMR is because someone FAKED A STUDY. There is no evidence to suggest the combined jab causes autism. There never was.
A friend of mine has an autistic son, he hates the suggestion that there’s some connection between Autism and MMR and is constantly complaining about stories like this one showing the effects of mass hysteria (no apologies, Philipa). Pseudo-science is hugely damaging to society, and the BBC are among the worst offenders for provoking hysteria with poor reporting and poor understanding.
For the record, My girl has had her MMR.
Psuedo-science doesn’t account for people noticing that a child is fine before taking the drug and not fine after. And why did one journalist get fake mail supporting the MMR case? The whole business stinks. There is no reason for the government to withold single vaccines if they are THAT concerened about an epidemic and value childrens lives.
Out of interest what are your qualifications in science, Stu?
I don’t think the government witholds single vaccines, it is my understanding that the NHS guidelines (NICE) are that MMR should be paid for by the NHS but others should not, because the evidence shows that MMR does not cause autism and therefore the taxpayer does not need to subsidise the more expensive single injections.
Anyway, this post was not about MMR but about GREEN TEA.
“Bad Science” is an excellent book. I have just finished it, having chanced upon it while browsing in Waterstones (Stu – please note, I then bought it on the spot!)
His discussion of MMR struck a chord with me, as my first was born at about the time this erupted. Mrs P was very worried, so I investigated the scientific basis behind the media reports, decided they were utter rubbish, and insisted on the jab (despite the many allergies in our family, P). Part of my concern was that the reports would inevitably lead to a drop in the vaccination rate, so vaccination of my kids would be correspondingly more important.
The “fun” moment was at an NCT class, where we were all forced to stand in different groups according to our views on vaccination. I was (literally) the only one standing in the “I will vaccinate” group. The rest of the group stood either in the “Not under any circumstances” group, or in the “We won’t; we’ll rely on herd immunity”. The latter group presumably all walked there with their eyes closed….
With respect to “proving a negative”, if you take a large group and see which have the jab and which don’t, then track which develop autism and which don’t, and find that there is no difference in autism rates between the two groups, then you have in fact proved a negative.
Sorry BE … returning to topic. So, does green tea cause autism, then? I onmly ask as the evidence in favour of that hypothesis seems about as convincing!
The government DOES withold single vaccines becasue it won’t license them in this country for doctors to administer even if people are willing to pay, so I’m told be health professionals. I’ve asked my GP and chemist and there is no license for the single jabs. Therefore the only option is to go to backstreet places administering something that there is no control over so they might be injecting ANYTHING into your child. THE GOVERNMENT IS WITHOLDING SINGLE VACCINES. I’ve got children, Blue, do you think I haven’t looked into this?
Enjoy your tea. I like green tea. Without milk.
Not a fan of the green stuff, I’m afraid, BE. Too much of that EGCG stuff, spoils the flavour
My favourite is the pure Assam variety. The standard English Breakfast blend is made mostly of Assam, but the unblended is stronger and more flavoursome. I am actually addicted to coffee, though.
Philippa I have none – unless you count good GCSE’s in all three subjects (none of that ‘combined award stuff’). Engineer by qualification. What you’re playing on there, though, is the fallacy of the appeal to authority. Not being a qualified scientist does not make me unqualified to cast aspersions on the ability of the BBC to report science stories effectively – that’s what this post, and the Bad Science blog, is all about. I might just as easily ask what qualifications the BBC journalist who wrote the story has.
P if that is the case then either the drug licensing authorities are evil, or there is something (different) wrong with the individual jabs. Because the government is not in the habit of witholding licences for perfectly adequate drugs – it seems happy to let people pay privately for virtually anything…
Stu that is a good point. It is worth repeating that mantra about what you read in the media: when it’s something you know about in detail, the media invariably has it at least partially wrong. We should all be very sceptical about what we read or hear in the media – for mostly it is dumbed-down crap intended solely to sell more copies of that paper. For some reason the BBC also engage in this ridiculous populism as well, even though they don’t need the circulation figures.
Blue – they are evil because that is exactly what they are doing. Because of the controversy surrounding MMR they do not license single jabs as the combined is cheaper and if they did there might be a call for the more costlier drugs to be administered free (safe drugs for the rich argument). It is POLITICALLY better for them to insist on the combined jab, there is no clinical need for the combined over the seperate.
There is also the science argument in that ‘qualified scientists claim’ therefore it must be true ergo the closer you are to having scientific qualifications the nearer you must be to understanding the truth. You know – silly housewife who knows nothing doesn’t take account of men with intelligence. If,as you say, it doesn’t matter then I see no reason why my opinion is neither sensible nor valid (it is) given that it is based on reason and research, and if scientific qualifications count, including the study of chemistry and complex systems (and the study of those actually doing these studies) then hey, I outrank you both. But Stu, reading a blog rather than clinical data obviously makes you the man in the know! The clinical data I read didn’t make me feel all warm and cosy. Incidentally Stu, an ‘engineer’ by qualification yet without a degree, would that be a welder? Just wondering.
Who says I don’t have a degree? I just received my diploma the other day, I’ll have you know. Just to further the irrelevance of said qualification, the field of engineering is Acoustics (quite a long way from welding) and bears no relevance whatsoever on the current debate.
I’m sorry, I don’t understand your line of attack (nor the personal nature of it). I am simply trying to be appropriately sceptical of anything I read in the mainstream news – especially the BBC or the Daily Mail. I have asked and been told many times by qualified doctors, nurses and healthcare professionals – who are far more qualified than I am – that there is no danger whatsoever from the MMR jab. This also chimes with the reports that the original link had been faked. To me, the extremely low risk (based on one report whose veracity has been called into serious question) that there is some danger in the combined jab is massively outweighed by the significantly higher risk of my daughter contracting one or more of three dangerous illnesses which could have permanent effects on my daughter’s life. That’s my judgement. I understand that you didn’t want your kids immunised with the MMR, and however misguided I feel that decision is I couldn’t possibly hold against you your wish to protect your children from harm.
One last thing: both of us have significant emotional involvement in our respective positions (this is our kids we’re considering here, after all) and are unlikely to be persuaded by any argument in the near term – especially not on the comments of a blog post. It seems wisest to leave it there, so I shan’t say any more on the subject.
You’re right, Stu, I am motivated by a significant emotional involvement in this issue; the protection of my children. Seeing doctors perfectly happy to inject mercury into my child does not inpire my confidence in their opinion. My experience of post-graduate study only serves to understand the pressure and motivation of such studies, namely that he who pays the piper calls the tune. I can’t tell you how hard this decision has been. Continues to be. I sincerely wish I could source single jabs. I would pay in a heartbeat. You are right; it seems wisest to leave it there, so I shan’t say any more on the subject.
“Apparently green tea also aids fat loss in dieters. Can this be true?”
Actually it is true in the short and long-term. When consumed in either drink, pill, or patch form (the later two by green tea extract rather than in it’s raw form), it naturally energizes on any given day. In theory, with more energy comes more physical activity (aerobic or anaerobic depending on what you’re doing). Even if this increase were as little as an extra 1/2 mile of walking or playing an extra game of 10-pin bowling, add that up in a 3-month period and you’re bound to loose @ least 2lbs more than if you didn’t have green tea as part of your diet. True, you can same the same thing for the “sugar rush” or a cup of coffee, but are they as healthy for you as the recommended amount of green tea/day?
Thanks for that tip, PEP.