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?

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.

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.

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.

Enjoy your tea. I like green tea. Without milk.

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!