Health And Fitness News 

Bogus Science - How To Discredit Natural Therapies

Given that scientific studies are reported with glee in the media - especially sensational ones that seem to challenge commonly held beliefs - it is concerning to find that 95% of medical studies published in prestigious journals contain misleading or false statistics. This was the number given in a review published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (Nature and Health, October 2006).

If you read a lot of the studies with a critical eye - and a browser open to google - you'll quickly see the truth of this.  One study I remember was on echinacea, where they concluded that it was useless for colds and flu. The study used a negligible amount of echinacea, certainly far less than that recommended when you are suffering from an acute infection. It's like saying any drug doesn't work because you didn't take a therapeutic dose.

This is a great tactic for 'proving' that natural therapies don't work, when in fact, well designed studies often prove that they do. Aside from using inadequate amounts of herbs and other natural substances, some studies use types of vitamins or supplements that are not beneficial.

For example, there are a number if different forms of vitamin E. Certain forms, the artificial ones, are not that beneficial. One study used this artificial form and trumpeted that therefore vitamin e didn't work (and I believe they may have even gotten an adverse result from their poor choice of vitamin e) for heart disease. When in fact, all they proved was that one particular form of vitamin e didn't work. The other forms of vitamin e actually have a very different effect in the body - and are beneficial.

Meta analyses are another way to get the scientific results that you want (great if you're trying to disprove something). A meta analysis is only as good as the studies it includes. If it includes poorly designed studies, you'll get twisted results. This is a common problem with them.