Most health reporting in the press is not based on good evidence

[Fuschia]

Think we kind of knew this ...

http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/17/bad-science-health-reporting?cat=commentisfree&type=article

[Moos]

Perennial theme of Ben Goldacre of "Bad Science". Quite worrying.

Even on this forum people will often include a link to a scientific-sounding article to prove a point that quite often when one actually takes the trouble to read it and the greater trouble of following up the research basis, turns out to be questionable or even nonsense. But most people don't have the time, so it's a good way of winning an argument. A good recent example was a homeopathic medicine salesperson with a link to an article that supposedly proved the efficacy of homeopathy but when you actually read it admitted that testers had to abandon best practice standards in order to do so. The power of the written word...!

[srisky]

Spot on Moos - I counter-argued with the homeopathic person when she advised such treatment for babies/children. She provided a link to 'research' supporting such treatments but this was funded by homeopathic companies. In the end admin removed her post.

[Yak]

I have to say that I recommend Bad Science (along with Risk, by Gardner) to friends who are expecting over any baby book. You're so vulnerable as a parent to the latest health revelation / miracle cure reported in the press.

[Fuschia]

Many of the popular baby care and feeding gurus aren't even qualified in any way

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Please say it isn't so otherwise I'll have to change my lifestyle based on this press report

[buggie]

:( I can't drink red wine... If only White had the same effect!