Garlic, You and Science

Ever wondered how to stop cancer? Diabetes? Yes? The look no further, because the media is taking the curative gasses released from garlic reduce the risk of diabetes, heart disease and cancer. Because all ailments must cure cancer as per the law of media. This claim was seen in both the Daily Mail and The Independent

The study 

The study is a review article entitled Garlic and Gaseous Mediators and comes out of researchers from Nottingham University, which looks at the chemical compounds in garlic and their interactions with cell signalling. The study showed that garlic releases hydrogen sulphide and nitrous oxide into the bodies tissues and investigated whether the compounds that made this happen had any effect on the overall health. This review looks at laboratory studies, rather than looking at in-vivo human studies. This means the results concluded are only speculative, at best. If you have access to the review and have read it, you will notice that this is more of a narrative review. That means it is focusing on literature on a popular topic, but not generating new figures through a systematic review or meta-analysis. These types of reviews are good for us to be able to gain an overall understanding of the topic, but not a good thing to draw such a large conclusion from.

The study draws links between garlic and onions with improved health outcomes i.e: how onions reduce cancers of the digestive tract. The paper linked to this is vastly overstated and placing the reduction/increase in health solely down to one thing is very hard to do. The sole aim of this paper was to discuss whether the compounds in garlic affect cell signalling in the human body. This includes discussing the potential increases to health this may have; such as reducing inflammation. On the contrary to the articles published in the news, the study did not claim that eating more garlic will give you improved health benefits, nor did they claim that supplements are effective either. Dr Rose, who wrote the paper, however says:

“Variety is the spice of life, but understanding the chemistry of some of your spices is probably a very advantageous thing to do.”

Not as advantageous as marketing your research to make it out to be something it’s not though, eh?

Is garlic helpful at all?

It’s a very good flavouring, that’s about it for now. There is no evidence that garlic has any improvement on health. In 2016, a meta-analysis showed there was no effect on cardiovascular health. Again, in the same year a meta-analysis found a slight possible association between those who ate garlic and decreased cancer rate of the upper digestive tract. However, other meta-analyses have found that it isn’t helpful in other cancers. Individual studies making up most of these analyses are case studies, in which conclusions are drawn from people who have tried to remember how much garlic they have eaten in the past.  Do you recall how much garlic you have ingested over the last day? Okay, that’s an easy one. How about the last week? Month? Year? You can’t, surely. Do you know how much is put in your restaurant or take-out food? No. Unless you keep track of absolutely every little thing (which isn’t specifically stated in the studies I’ve read), there is no conclusive evidence for any benefits from garlic consumption.

I have been following food cancer stories for many years. It’s the stories like this that do turn people into sceptics. They are claiming to be able to reduce the risk of diabetes, cancer and heart disease; three massive burdens on the NHS and diseases that take many lives each year. If they were onto cure using an everyday item that is cheap to produce and easy to administer, don’t you think that would be widespread knowledge? I knew people who took garlic capsules to cure their colds, despite a Cochrane review finding zero evidence. It’s myth, but people will literally ignore overwhelming evidence if it is against their beliefs.

Conclusion

Sadly, as with most stories like this, where people don’t science correctly, there is a risk. Garlic has proven interactions with many medications including anti-coagulants, hypoglycemic drugs and quinolone anti-biotics. Thus, supplements should not be taken by people on these medications. A fact of which, all the articles fail to mention. So if you are the type of person who reads things and then just beleieves them because they contain the words 'science' and 'proven' then:

A) Congratulations for making it this far
B) Don't just eat garlic or take supplements
C) If you ignore B, check your medications and consult a doctor (who will most likely tell you the same information as is in the blog post).

There is potential for garlic to affect our health, so far however, it is only the adverse effects which have evidence. A more up-to-date meta-analysis of the evidence would shed light from the individual studies and reveal more information. For now, however, there is no evidence that garlic has any health benefits.

Exactly How Dangerous is Celebrity Culture?

I have written about the dangers of celebrity culture a little before with Gwyneth Paltrow here and here. But a few months ago, I stumbled upon a video of Zooey Deschanel (the actress from The New Girl) grumbling on about how organic is better than everything because she can afford it. This post really does highlight the dangers of celebrity culture. Now, whilst I have no issues with this actresses’ lack of scientific knowledge, I do take issue with her voicing it.

Humans inanely follow the charismatic characters they see on the television, they look up to them and use them as role models. Which means, sadly, they believe what is said by them without challenging the information given. This is even backed up by scientific research that shows that when listening to what we perceive to be authority, we switch off our critical thinking as the functional part of the frontal lobes close down. Now you know that, maybe you can manipulate your own thinking to actual give yourself a bit of a reality check – ‘is what this person telling me is true’?

An expert, is a loose term. In law, it is unclear as to what defines an expert. In society, it is more of a social construct given to you by the time you have spent on something – for example; he’s been playing with Lego for years, he’s an expert in it. The truth is, it is a lot more convoluted than that. There is even a book titled the “The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters” – this book is actually phenomenal and tackles many issues with expertise and the public’s attitude towards expert. Generally, it describes how respect for those with genuine expertise – gained through study and years of experience – has declined in the face of conflicting opinions. Sadly, you can google an opposing argument for literally anything and you will find it. We live in a civilisation where every thought, no matter how stupid, can be put out there and then be a manifestation in other people’s minds and snowball from there. This kind of thinking makes these people think their opposition is ‘free-thinking’ or ‘sceptical’, and it really is not. Just because you are opposing an authority, does not mean you are ‘standing up for the man’, most of the time, you are standing up against hard evidence and adding to ignorance. 

So, why am I talking about expertise? You will notice a trend in the celebrity culture touting uneducated messages – they are not educated in that area. I wouldn’t go to an art gallery to learn about quantum mechanics in the same way I wouldn’t listen to Gwyneth Paltrow when she tells me that I need to buy a fragrance because it has 'anti-bacterial' and anti-oxidant' properties. The problem with celebrities is they aim for the latter – make money off of fearmongering, and GOOP is the most successful of this.

I have had many discussions with anti-GMO, pro-organic, anti-vaccine and anti-[insert basic scientific concept here] and there is always one specific theme that comes out of it. Why should we trust in and bow down to the scientists and authority of academics when we can trust in our own knowledge and research? Well, here is why – scientific evidence tends to disagree with you and you are ‘researching’ incorrectly.

Back to the Deschanel video. She literally advises people not to eat vegetables and fruits such as tomatoes, peppers, potatoes and apples because they’re not organic. The old ‘if it isn’t organic; it contains pesticide’ pseudoscience that really just is not true – organic uses pesticides. This woman is telling people who could be too poor to afford organic food (it is bloody expensive) to not eat fruit and vegetables. There is zero evidence that pesticides pose a risk to the foods sold on the supermarket shelves (and if you are that worried about it, wash it). There are entire industries that test to ensure these fruits and vegetables are monitored for residue content, long before it hits the shelf. People who are on the poorer end of the economic spectrum tend to have poorer diets, telling them to avoid vegetables is a gross abuse of her platform and idiotic on the face of it. This type of information does and will harm people. She can literally waste money on having an onion grown in the naturally formed gold leaves from the palms of Goa, those who are economically challenged however, cannot. Disclaimer: I am not sure if such an onion exists, but If it did, it would taste the same as an onion I could grow in my garden with fertiliser.

I am all for challenging what people tell you to be true – but you need to make sure you have done your research before going at it – spreading misinformation is much worse than just believing it. I don’t mean ‘google it’ – I mean really research it. Look at studies, world expert opinion and the general scientific consensus. Not just what Zooey Deschanel, Gwenyth Paltrow, Robert DeNiro or Sarah Michelle Gellar are saying because they are bored with acting and want to try to ‘help people’, by ignorantly spreading misinformation and establishing pseudoscience.

Celebrities that are engorged in the Hollywood culture, without any actual educational expertise, often get the basics of science factually wrong. The general public should not be mistaking their status and platform as gospel truth, just because you like someone or even idolise them. Stick to acting and leave the science to the scientists. If you want to weigh in on scientific matters, feel free to go earn that right separate from your celebrity status and don’t use that platform to tout pseudoscience – it makes you look like an idiot and you lose the respect of a lot of people.

Déjà Brew: Coffee and Health

Is Coffee Really Healthy?

As an avid coffee lover, devourer and addict, I get asked at least four times a year ‘I bet you are glad about that news about coffee’. Each time I,  roll my eyes; it seems like there is a new health claim every other month when it comes to coffee, which always seems to hit the press with a tonne of bricks. Recently, another paper was published showing a positive trend between health outcomes in association with coffee consumption. Me being the sceptic that I am; I have read a few bad papers on this and never really paid any mind to it since. I don’t tell people its not good for you and nor do I tell them it is good for you; so, what is the verdict?

Coffee is derived from beans and roasted; inducing 1000+ chemically active compounds, one of which is the infamous caffeine. A few years ago I read an article on The Business Insider that had the subtitle: This is what you just put in your mug: Cocaine-like brain chemicals and the juice of death. I didn’t know where to begin in tearing down that article, so I just left it. Anyway, along with caffeine, we have an array of biologically active compounds, including anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidants and even chemicals with anti-cancer properties. Brilliant, that must mean that it cures cancers and ailments? Not so fast – you know it doesn’t work like that. Roasting, brewing, temperature and origin of the coffee determines what ends up in your cup as you drink. As always, your body will absorb what it absorbs, meaning that genetic differences influence the components of coffee (and anything really) that are absorbed. 

‘Coffee Consumption and Health: A Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses of Multiple Health outcomes’ was published in the Biomedical Journal and is, as it states, an umbrella review. You will have heard me hail reviews before (and correctly so), but an umbrella review is a systematic review summary. That is; a review of reviews. When we get to the point of reviewing reviews, we are at a point to make claims based on scientific evidence. This study analyses all the evidence between coffee (not just caffeine) and any associated health (or adverse health) outcomes. The study analyses 201 meta-analyses with 67 health outcomes and 17 meta-analysis with nine unique outcomes. This study is available on open access. The results of the analysis show that coffee consumption has some affect on liver disease association. However, as this is based on observational studies – correlation in this case, cannot equal causation. There is also the story of relative v.s. absolute risk. This is something I have discussed and demonstrated before in an earlier blog. Absolute risk is the risk of a disease developing and relative is the comparison from two groups of people.

How much should I have?

A recent meta-analysis (also noted in the above study) showed that three cups a day showed a lower risk of heart disease than non-drinkers. However, they stated that more coffee wasn’t exactly beneficial, stating that the coffee became less beneficial at higher intake as it had a reduced relative risk (0.83 when compared to no coffee consumption with three cups a day). A lower incidence of cancer was also observed in higher consumption of coffee, but again, very low and almost negligible in observational results. The effects on liver were probably the most pronounced of this study. They demonstrate that overall there is a reduced risk of fatty liver disease, cirrhosis and fibrosis than those who didn’t drink coffee.

“Most of this evidence comes from observational research that provides only low or very low quality evidence. Beneficial associations between coffee consumption and liver outcomes (fibrosis, cirrhosis, chronic liver disease, and liver cancer) have relatively large and consistent effect sizes compared with other outcomes”

Is it better?

Possibly not and we can definitely not say for sure. What we can derive from this study is that consumption of coffee is generally safe. I have heard people not to drink it as they think it’s bad for you and tea has so much more medicinal properties. Am I saying ditch the tea and take up coffee to prevent liver disease and cancer? Of course not. This study demonstrates that the observational benefits are only slight and may not even be incurred due to coffee consumption. Studies like this are hard to interpret and extract overly valuable information from.

Source: Winterbluemusic

So, to conclude: if you drink coffee, maybe stick to round 3 a day and you may be doing something good for yourself, and if you are working in/reading/hearing this within the media, let’s not overplay it. And maybe not take the pie chart picture too literally.

The Flu Jab - Go Get It

It’s autumn, yay! Leaves start falling, the darkness draws in, cold creeps up and the anti-vaxxers become rife with facebook posts. Flu season starts around October, that means, if you get vaccinated, you have two weeks to protect yourself before the flu vaccine boosts your immune system to a point where you won’t have to hide away from people anymore (although, I don’t discourage that). Sadly, as I said, that means anti-vaxxers come out in full force. Vaccines have been touted to cause autism; diabetes; aids; murder and even homosexuality. Fear not, however, as this is pure bullshit. Although, devastatingly, people do deny having a flu vaccination due to myths they have heard. Scientists and doctors have to make constant and repeated efforts to ensure people get fully vaccinated. I thought I would take a moment to dispel a few of those myths.

Vaccine Makes You Ill?

The first reason I hear people tend not to get vaccinated (above all the ridiculous crap) is that the flu vaccine causes the flu. Something I was arguing with the other day with a friend, who didn’t have the flu vaccine as the last time she had it ‘it gave her flu – no it wasn’t a cold’ she insisted, ‘it was the flu’. It is biologically impossible to get flu from the vaccine. There is a chance the flu was contracted after having the vaccine, by pure coincidence, but it is not the direct cause. It is likely that a person who contracts flu a week post-vaccination was already infected with the influenza virus prior to the vaccination.

With that, there are also side effects of the vaccine that make you feel a bit unwell. This includes headaches, aches, nausea, fever – all resulting from an over-stimulation of your immune system producing antibodies against the strain of influenza.

Deathly Ingredients

Can’t have a blog post regarding vaccines and no mercury chat, right? Wrong. See this post which details it. I am sick to death of explaining basic chemistry to people. The ingredients within vaccines are safe in the quantities that they are delivered. End of.

Cost

This is one that annoys me in the UK. I have always gone and purchased the flu vaccination – which costs up to £20. People are not willing to pay that, but can afford to have the week off sick? Better yet, carry the virus to someone else and let them have a week off sick? No, not a valid excuse. The other side of the cost is the anti-vaxxers lobbying the ‘big pharma pay packet’. The process of manufacturing the flu shot every year is tedious and hard. Scientists must determine the strain of the influenza virus each year and they sell it for cheap. Yes, cheap, flu vaccinations don’t really make a profit. Of course, to an extent they make a profit, they must, they’re a business. If no profit was made, no manufacturing would occur – think of the costs.

Myth List

I found a list of the top 25 flu vaccination myths here – complete with reasons as to they are completely wrong. A delightful read if you still have any concerns (then again, you can ask your doctor, pharmacist or consult a basic biochemistry textbook).

Should I vaccinate?

Yes, yes you should. No treatment or prevention is 100% effective, including vaccines. On average, last year in the UK less than 40% of the GP registered population bothered to get a flu vaccine. Which is phenomenally stupid. Some people are not able to have the vaccine due to allergies or other medications/illnesses. If you are around these people and you are infected with the influenza virus, they are likely to contract it also. The flu vaccine will protect against three virus types according to NHS:

• A/H1N1 – the strain of flu that caused the swine flu pandemic in 2009
• A/H3N2 – a strain of flu that mainly affects the elderly and people with risk factors like a long term health condition. In 2017/18 the vaccine will contain an A/Hong Kong/4801/2014 H3N2-like virus
• Influenza B – a strain of flu that particularly affects children. In 2017/18 the vaccine will contain B/Brisbane/60/2008-like virus

It is literally the simplest thing in the world. Book online at your pharmacy (Boots and Lloyds offer an online booking - I have given you the links) or go to your GP. If you have a pre-existing health condition or are pregnant the flu jab is free for you in the UK. You may have an achy arm for a day and feel run down, but that sure as hell beats the hell out of having the actual flu or passing it onto someone who cannot fight off the virus.

Conclusion

Vaccinate.

Turmeric: Spice or Remedy?

You cannot turn anywhere these days on social media, in the shops or a friend of a friend without hearing the magical curing properties of turmeric. Starting out as a spice, to a remedy to a drink ingredient for hipsters, turmeric is a widely used substance. But is it all it has cracked up to be?

Today, still in eastern culture, it is applied readily to wounds and is used as a ‘cure’ for chicken pox (even though they go away on their own). Over in the western world people take it as a supplement to help with almost any ailment known to humankind, including:

• Anti-inflammatory
• Assist weight loss
• Can be used as an antibacterial to disinfect
• Prevent cancer
• Reduce leukaemia risk
• Natural liver detoxifier
• Slows multiple sclerosis
• Prevent myeloma
• Delays liver damage
• Decrease chance of Alzheimer’s
• Remodels damaged skin
• Detoxification of skin
• Prevent prostate cancer and stop prostate tumour growth
• Help with cognitive ability
• Erectile Dysfunction
• Fertility booster
• Antioxidants

Sadly, there are many more to add to this list, but you get the gist. It cures a lot. Saying that, all of that list and I am sat here thinking ‘why does your liver need de-toxifying’? Thankfully, over here in the UK, the law requires a product to undergo vigorous testing before making health claims on products. So, you will not see your local Holland and Barrett advertising this crap as the above list of ailment cures. However, it does still sell it with the implication that it does actually have medicinal properties, so it is not a 100% win for now.

Does it cure?

Hypothesise this: If it worked on curing all the above. We cure cancer, we stop organ damage and we can prevent the chances of some of the worlds most researched diseases occurring. Surely, then this would be much bigger than naturopaths and hipsters consuming this stuff, right? Surely, if it worked, it would be advertised more as beneficial and the UK license laws would allow advertising of such medical claims on their packaging? Doctors would be prescribing it and people would be consuming it like there is no tomorrow. 

There is one simple reason as to why none of this is happening. No, not because we are in the pocket of big pharma and we need to keep them going (because that’s just not a thing). No, it is that this just simply does not work. Proponents of the turmeric cures all society we live in state that because it contains curcumin, it is a natural cure-all. But does that have enough evidence to tout about the inhibition of cancers and diseases?

 

Curcumin

Curcumin is widely known in ‘Ayurveda medicine’ – meaning ‘life medicine’. Essentially another way of indirectly saying ‘pseudo-medicine’ – because that makes it sound like it is made up. There is an interesting article on eastern medicine explaining the practice of Ayurveda medicine here. Mostly, curcumin is used as a food colouring, in cosmetic products as pigmentation and dietary supplements. So, why is it so special? What makes curcumin the know all chemical that cures all? 

Well, nothing. Many clinical studies have been undertaken to assess the medical properties of this compound. Very little in the way of evidence has been produced. And you should know by now, very little is all proponents need. I’m not going to focus and take down individual studies as there is literally no need. Earlier this year, a review article was published in the journal of Medicinal Chemistry titled: The Essential Medicinal Chemistry of Curcumin. This is an open access paper and can be read here for free. It brilliantly takes 120 studies and shows that out of those 120 clinical trials, not one has been successful in proving any cure. They conclude with:

"Unfortunately, no form of curcumin, or its closely related analogues, appears to possess the properties required for a good drug candidate (chemical stability, high water solubility, potent and selective target activity, high bioavailability, broad tissue distribution, stable metabolism, and low toxicity). The in vitro interference properties of curcumin do, however, offer many traps that can trick unprepared researchers into misinterpreting the results of their investigations…. This manuscript reviews the essential medicinal chemistry of curcumin and provides evidence that curcumin is an unstable, reactive, nonbioavailable compound and, therefore, a highly improbable lead."

Other studies proving a link between curcumin and cancer reduction have been previously classed as fraudulent and retracted from the papers. In fact, studies have been repeated to show that this information that was published, was fundamentally not true.

But what about this healing drink?

A blog wouldn’t be a blog without me getting a dig in at someone. This time I have chosen The Food Babe (again). Of course, she jumps on the avenue of turmeric cures all, why wouldn’t she? It has all the attractions a quack requires, it’s got availability; naturality; an array of weak studies behind it that says the medicinal properties are real and it can be added bottled and sold onto unsuspecting gullible people. 

Vani shows us this week how to make a Healing Iced Turmeric Latte. The biggest ever anecdotal evidence, that proves everything, she has witnessed is her own. What is amazing about Vani is that she always has an anecdote for her tall tales of ailment cures. It’s a wonder she didn’t die before became all natural and organic. She states that whenever she has an ailment, she turns to turmeric. I imagine she wouldn’t have the same view with a broken leg or a stab wound. Then again, we are talking about someone who blogged about how she wanted pure oxygen on planes. In this drink, we have all-natural cinnamon, milk, honey, coconut and the fat-soluble turmeric. I have no idea why she makes the point of saying that turmeric is fat soluble. She does hyperlink that word to something, but I am too afraid to click it in case I have an aneurysm at the stupidity of the reason. However, the reason I am including her here is one sentence that annoys the hell out of me:

If you can’t find fresh turmeric, go ahead and use organic ground turmeric from the spice aisle. Keep in mind that most spices are irradiated and grown with conventional pesticides, if not organic.

Organic uses pesticides. She knows this, she has been repeatedly told this. I think this just goes in the way of showing how ignorant this woman actually is. She will do anything to make money, directly underneath it is advertising spice products. Funny, I didn’t see one checkout store on the scientific papers when I was reading actual scientific facts about turmeric.

Posts may contain affiliate links for products Food Babe has approved and researched herself.

Researched? I think not.

Conclusion

Turmeric does nothing other than create flavour. There is no evidence it cures anything, acts as an anti-inflammatory or prevents cancer. Stop adding it to drinks to make them ‘healthy’, they just taste vile. Many of the studies are pre-clinical, meaning you cannot really conclude anything from them. You need to put these studies into action with clinical studies using actual humans before making scientific decisions on medical care. When I discussed this a few days ago I was told the world’s most stupid sentence ‘the absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence’. Meaning that because there are no medicinal properties proved, doesn’t mean there are none. 

Well, there is evidence to say there is no evidence that there are any medicinal properties. Meaning that; there is evidence that defies medicinal properties. It’s like me saying ‘I can spit fire, prove I can’t. You can’t prove it, so with that absence of evidence, it means I can’.

Ergo, there is evidence that turmeric as a medicine does not work.