Originally Posted by LeMaltor How do I know if I have rickets or not then?
I think you would know if you had it. Like if your bones brake all the time or you're deformed in some way. Drink milk, eat fish and be outside a few days a week and most people are fine.
For the record, if anyone is concerned about their health... multivitamins are cheap and plentiful. A bottle will last you a couple of months and will be quite affordable to almost anyone. It's not a replacement for proper diet and nutrition, but it will prevent vitamin deficiencies and other such things. I'm surprised more people don't take them.
You really don't have to get very much sunlight to process enough vitamin D to stay healthy. Clearly the research shows that lack of ingestion of vitamin is the issue, but the scientist conducting it is probably old, and wants kids to play catch in the park, and ride penny farthings and such.
Its a free newspaper published by the Daily Mail what else could you possibly expect?
As for the scare of MRSA with regards to that book in the article, there is a reason to be worried. If there wasn't, research companies and Universities wouldn't be putting so much money into antibiotic research. Just thought I'd point that out but its VRSA you need to worry about :P
Since Vitamins were discovered there still to this day is NO clinical evidence to support that they have any benefit AT ALL on the human body.
So lets put them in our food just in case, what a load of complete tosh, and is probably something a government steering committee is currently deciding....idiots.
Leave us alone you meddling morons.
Originally Posted by Locknload Since Vitamins were discovered there still to this day is NO clinical evidence to support that they have any benefit AT ALL on the human body.
So lets put them in our food just in case, what a load of complete tosh, and is probably something a government steering committee is currently deciding....idiots.
Leave us alone you meddling morons.
To be honest, I was under the impression that the vast majority of the studies linking Vitamin supplements to improved health were done on those with pre-existing and often severe deficiencies or health problems. The average person, even with the s**t diet we eat in this country still has mare than enough vitamins and minerals. Sorry I don't have any sources to back this up, and so it should be taken with a pinch of salt, but a quick google might help.
I am sure Cardjoe will not enjoy you saying "take it with a pinch of salt", as his reply may contain a brief message on how to best live with cardiovascular disease....lol... and..ARSE.
First of all, good article - I was literally smiling as I read all of it. Some of my favourite subjects (science, bad science, scepticism, bad science journalism and video games) on a bit-tech article - nerd heaven! ;). This is exactly the kind of scepticism that should be encouraged when you read articles like the one in the Metro. An important note is that scepticism does not equal cynicism. It does not mean that you reject everything outright and instantly assume that everything written is wrong - it means that you employ some critical thinking; you do the research, you read up on the subject, you look at the evidence and you make your own mind up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by [ZiiP] NaloaC As a PhD student and scientist, I appreciate and applaud the article in showing it as the farce that it is. Goldacre's book is indeed an interesting read and would recommend it to many, especially those who view homeopathy and such nonsense as valid medical practices. The placebo effect is a powerful one, but one we do not understand fully and as such, there is no need to play on it and potentially endanger peoples lives.
Also, tune into the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast. The subjects of pseudoscientific "alternative" medicine, bad science, etc., come up and are debated/debunked quite often (as Tim Minchin put it, "Alternative medicine has either not been proved to work, or been proved not to work. Do you know what they call alternative medicine that has been proved to work? Medicine."). The subject of vitamin D "deficiencies" was also discussed recently. Fantastically interesting, though a bit mind-melting sometimes!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoy0YO A lesson for ALL to learn: Correlationdoes not equal Causation
QFT. When you start to look for it, you will be amazed at how often you will see this fallacy.
I'm threadjacking a little, as I could go on and on about this subject for ages...
I used to read the Metro every day when I went to uni on the train. Used to think it was a good paper compared to the Daily Record which was the paper I used to read at my folks house. Now on the rare occasion I take the train, I realise half of the stories are pure sensationalist rubbish and the other half is usually semi-alright.
With reagrds to the topic, it takes something really wrong in your life to get rickets. You don't need to be out playing all day every day to get enough vitamin D. At the same time, you shouldn't be inside on computer games, reading or anything else. As with everything else in life, balance is key.
I always like reading a newspapers where they describe a quote as being "A source close to X told us", its obvious they're making a quote up from thin air and are using the term "source" to pretend they want anonyminty (spelling is obviously worng) . I read a post on the internet, can't remember for the life of me where though, where someone analysed the "quotes" in various news stories and could match the quotes in different stories to the same journalist just on the style of the quote. This either meant that the journalist was paraphrasing quotes to his/her own writing style or blatantly making the quote up and had the same writing style as the rest of their articles. I know which one seems most likely to me.
Originally Posted by MacWalka I always like reading a newspapers where they describe a quote as being "A source close to X told us", its obvious they're making a quote up from thin air and are using the term "source" to pretend they want anonyminty (spelling is obviously worng) . I read a post on the internet, can't remember for the life of me where though, where someone analysed the "quotes" in various news stories and could match the quotes in different stories to the same journalist just on the style of the quote. This either meant that the journalist was paraphrasing quotes to his/her own writing style or blatantly making the quote up and had the same writing style as the rest of their articles. I know which one seems most likely to me.
Let me give you a great example of just how badly wrong the media gets it when it comes to science reporting (mentioned on the latest SGU podacst). This is totally unrelated to the rickets article, but relevant to the discussion.
The Sunday Times - the Times that is, supposedly a respectable paper - recently published a story with the headline declaring "Blonde women born to be warrior princesses". This article cited a small study on around 150 (ish) people done by a researcher at the University of California. What the study actually looked at was the "Napoleon complex" - are short people more aggressive? It also studied both women and men, irrespective of hair colour, and what it found was the opposite of the Napoleon complex - that people who are attractive and, in men, physically strong are more likely to display aggressive tendencies and be more "war like". This conclusion was identical in both genders. The journalist contacted the researcher and asked him if he could break down the data by hair colour, which the researcher duly did. He found that hair colour made no significant difference in either gender - therefore, blonde women are not more aggressive than others. However the journalist decided to either completely ignore this or got it completely wrong - hence his headline conclusion that "Blonde women born to be warrior princesses". Several other media outlets also picked up on this story and published the same conclusions - without bothering to do their own research and get the story right. One of these outlets was the BBC, who later altered their article but still got a lot of it wrong.
You might argue that this is inconsequential - it's only a small study whose conclusions are not exactly groundbreaking upon which life-and-death decisions will be made - but that's missing the point. It's a great example of science journalism gone wrong - the actual conclusions of the study have been completely ignored, and the results twisted or fabricated to fit the story that journalist actually wanted to write.
Science are being moar and moar abused in these "type" of newspapers that are spreading like a disease throughout the population. Where is F is the criticism? if there is something children need to learn in school it is criticism and doubt before belief.
I see more damage caused by newspapers like this than the headlines they create, like the latest big headliner, swine flu, a big bloody LOL.
Originally Posted by Invectus Science are being moar and moar abused in these "type" of newspapers that are spreading like a disease throughout the population. Where is F is the criticism? if there is something children need to learn in school it is criticism and doubt before belief.
I see more damage caused by newspapers like this than the headlines they create, like the latest big headliner, swine flu, a big bloody LOL.
Make no mistake, "swine" flu (or more correctly, variant H1N1) can cause a serious risk. However that risk has so far only been seen in the elderly, very young children or people with underlying health problems - exactly the same risk factor as "normal" seasonal flu. As yet, there is no evidence to show that "swine flu" is any more virulent or deadly than "seasonal" flu.
Still, that's no reason not to get your children vaccinated. Alongside the normal flu strains, it could prove to be a particularly bad flu season, so it's not to be underestimated.
You are correct though, in that mainstream media has whipped up a storm in a teacup over this. I am glad to see that even the normally rabble-rousing BBC Breakfast News started to tone down their "swine flu hype machine", in favour of more rational, calm and measured responses.
Ahem. I will now cease the blatant threadjack.... :D ;)
Reminds me of what happened in Germany, there games are now either heavily censored or banned if not censored due to the crap the media was talking...
Even if some people realise that the media is not always right (especially in the uk, sorry but the level of some media here is rockbottom) the damage done can't be reversed and they will eventually get games banned.
bah bunch of crap.. maybe stress exercise with the younger kids in elementary- some kids are stuck inside when they get home.. also think all kids should play sports if possible
I played soccer from 3rd grade up and learned alot about teamwork- winning, losing.. how to be a good sport.. we didn't get trophies for losing either(kinda like they do today)
probably more the parents not feeding their kids right, esp if the only good meal they get is at school.. but blame on video games, bet with the ricket cases, the kids are malnourished
Comments 26 to 45 of 45
ReplyI think you would know if you had it. Like if your bones brake all the time or you're deformed in some way. Drink milk, eat fish and be outside a few days a week and most people are fine.
And we all know what comic spells backwards - satan is my lord!
As for the scare of MRSA with regards to that book in the article, there is a reason to be worried. If there wasn't, research companies and Universities wouldn't be putting so much money into antibiotic research. Just thought I'd point that out but its VRSA you need to worry about :P
Correlation does not equal Causation
So lets put them in our food just in case, what a load of complete tosh, and is probably something a government steering committee is currently deciding....idiots.
Leave us alone you meddling morons.
don't have any then and enjoy your rickets
Also, tune into the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast. The subjects of pseudoscientific "alternative" medicine, bad science, etc., come up and are debated/debunked quite often (as Tim Minchin put it, "Alternative medicine has either not been proved to work, or been proved not to work. Do you know what they call alternative medicine that has been proved to work? Medicine."). The subject of vitamin D "deficiencies" was also discussed recently. Fantastically interesting, though a bit mind-melting sometimes!
QFT. When you start to look for it, you will be amazed at how often you will see this fallacy.
I'm threadjacking a little, as I could go on and on about this subject for ages...
With reagrds to the topic, it takes something really wrong in your life to get rickets. You don't need to be out playing all day every day to get enough vitamin D. At the same time, you shouldn't be inside on computer games, reading or anything else. As with everything else in life, balance is key.
I always like reading a newspapers where they describe a quote as being "A source close to X told us", its obvious they're making a quote up from thin air and are using the term "source" to pretend they want anonyminty (spelling is obviously worng) . I read a post on the internet, can't remember for the life of me where though, where someone analysed the "quotes" in various news stories and could match the quotes in different stories to the same journalist just on the style of the quote. This either meant that the journalist was paraphrasing quotes to his/her own writing style or blatantly making the quote up and had the same writing style as the rest of their articles. I know which one seems most likely to me.
Let me give you a great example of just how badly wrong the media gets it when it comes to science reporting (mentioned on the latest SGU podacst). This is totally unrelated to the rickets article, but relevant to the discussion.
The Sunday Times - the Times that is, supposedly a respectable paper - recently published a story with the headline declaring "Blonde women born to be warrior princesses". This article cited a small study on around 150 (ish) people done by a researcher at the University of California. What the study actually looked at was the "Napoleon complex" - are short people more aggressive? It also studied both women and men, irrespective of hair colour, and what it found was the opposite of the Napoleon complex - that people who are attractive and, in men, physically strong are more likely to display aggressive tendencies and be more "war like". This conclusion was identical in both genders. The journalist contacted the researcher and asked him if he could break down the data by hair colour, which the researcher duly did. He found that hair colour made no significant difference in either gender - therefore, blonde women are not more aggressive than others. However the journalist decided to either completely ignore this or got it completely wrong - hence his headline conclusion that "Blonde women born to be warrior princesses". Several other media outlets also picked up on this story and published the same conclusions - without bothering to do their own research and get the story right. One of these outlets was the BBC, who later altered their article but still got a lot of it wrong.
You might argue that this is inconsequential - it's only a small study whose conclusions are not exactly groundbreaking upon which life-and-death decisions will be made - but that's missing the point. It's a great example of science journalism gone wrong - the actual conclusions of the study have been completely ignored, and the results twisted or fabricated to fit the story that journalist actually wanted to write.
I see more damage caused by newspapers like this than the headlines they create, like the latest big headliner, swine flu, a big bloody LOL.
Make no mistake, "swine" flu (or more correctly, variant H1N1) can cause a serious risk. However that risk has so far only been seen in the elderly, very young children or people with underlying health problems - exactly the same risk factor as "normal" seasonal flu. As yet, there is no evidence to show that "swine flu" is any more virulent or deadly than "seasonal" flu.
Still, that's no reason not to get your children vaccinated. Alongside the normal flu strains, it could prove to be a particularly bad flu season, so it's not to be underestimated.
You are correct though, in that mainstream media has whipped up a storm in a teacup over this. I am glad to see that even the normally rabble-rousing BBC Breakfast News started to tone down their "swine flu hype machine", in favour of more rational, calm and measured responses.
Ahem. I will now cease the blatant threadjack.... :D ;)
Even if some people realise that the media is not always right (especially in the uk, sorry but the level of some media here is rockbottom) the damage done can't be reversed and they will eventually get games banned.
I played soccer from 3rd grade up and learned alot about teamwork- winning, losing.. how to be a good sport.. we didn't get trophies for losing either(kinda like they do today)
probably more the parents not feeding their kids right, esp if the only good meal they get is at school.. but blame on video games, bet with the ricket cases, the kids are malnourished
-
« Previous
-
1
-
2
-
Next »
Discuss in the forums