Just read the paper (well, skimmed is more honest). They cite 5 human trials. The first study was not blind, and it also did not show a difference between the control group and the treatment group. The “mini-review” author made it seem like there was an improvement to the honey group over the control, but this was not the case.
The second study, I can’t access. The conditions were a bit more complicated, so I can’t fully assess, but the “mini-review” author notes that they were also treated with olive oil and corticosteroids. Also, the group sizes were tiny (11 people split into 3 groups), which makes me highly suspicious of any statistically relevant effects. There’s also no placebo.
The third study seems legit from a quick skim. They placebo controlled with flavored corn syrup. At the end of the study, the treatment group does not have a significantly different symptom score than the placebo group. The fact that both groups improve is again misinterpreted by the “mini-review” author. In their defense, the authors of that third study really wordsmith their abstract to make it read that way.
The forth and fifth study both show no improvement due to the treatment.
So 4/5 studies show no improvement over control/placebo, and the 5th study i can’t read.
I did find a randomized, controlled study on birch honey which seems good, and it shows an improvement over a regular honey control. That’s not in the minireview.
Overall, if there’s 4 studies saying no, 1 saying yes, and 1 inconclusive, I’m going to take that as a no.
The studies in that mini-review did not investigate different allergies. They each focused on different symptoms; either skin inflammation or mucosa inflammation (conjunctiva, nose, sinuses). The allergen responsible was not characterized.
The only paper that looked at a specific allergy is the one I cited.
I could also cite multiple studies showing that use of bee products can make allergies worse.
They literally did study different allergies. Are you just looking at some other paper than the one I linked? They literally have a column that states the allergic diseases that they studied.
You seem to be talking about specific allergens which I never said.
And like I mentioned before, 4/5 of those studies dont show an improvement due to honey over a control group. The fifth study, I can access, but it doesnt even have a control, and it’s not testing just honey, anyway.
Just read the paper (well, skimmed is more honest). They cite 5 human trials. The first study was not blind, and it also did not show a difference between the control group and the treatment group. The “mini-review” author made it seem like there was an improvement to the honey group over the control, but this was not the case.
The second study, I can’t access. The conditions were a bit more complicated, so I can’t fully assess, but the “mini-review” author notes that they were also treated with olive oil and corticosteroids. Also, the group sizes were tiny (11 people split into 3 groups), which makes me highly suspicious of any statistically relevant effects. There’s also no placebo.
The third study seems legit from a quick skim. They placebo controlled with flavored corn syrup. At the end of the study, the treatment group does not have a significantly different symptom score than the placebo group. The fact that both groups improve is again misinterpreted by the “mini-review” author. In their defense, the authors of that third study really wordsmith their abstract to make it read that way.
The forth and fifth study both show no improvement due to the treatment.
So 4/5 studies show no improvement over control/placebo, and the 5th study i can’t read.
I did find a randomized, controlled study on birch honey which seems good, and it shows an improvement over a regular honey control. That’s not in the minireview.
Overall, if there’s 4 studies saying no, 1 saying yes, and 1 inconclusive, I’m going to take that as a no.
You ignored that the studies were all for different allergies… so you can’t just take 4 “nos” and 1 “yes” as a no for all.
The studies in that mini-review did not investigate different allergies. They each focused on different symptoms; either skin inflammation or mucosa inflammation (conjunctiva, nose, sinuses). The allergen responsible was not characterized.
The only paper that looked at a specific allergy is the one I cited.
I could also cite multiple studies showing that use of bee products can make allergies worse.
https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/26/24/12074
https://www.jacionline.org/article/0091-6749(79)90143-X/pdf
https://www.jabfm.org/content/jabfp/7/3/250.full.pdf
https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/48090614/j.aller.2009.12.00320160816-9724-1n7hmnh-libre.pdf?1471351425=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DBee_pollen_a_dangerous_food_for_allergic.pdf&Expires=1771343622&Signature=QwHfgQ54yFKvSmv6fCWbdNP~QonKSLfnQIL4xf1CC1UAr3vgnO0PrSFd~kaDcgQPIWIjSf8Ljv8ln8~KHFUefmo5NA28rAY6-rAs7gL3wTvoixaFwYtzQFZet2QFlc16CdlZE6qXk5o7tBnrKDz9IDTFiCjnXvs~NdmpDdwmoNeYNy5T8KQpL1dXvXOp6UsnWN0RmFMfL5drkKkzEgUI9M1s~trmlnwWirH4zyzszHndreMJz651ZAJADzkKvxyD9XmLgIIqtFU4zqyb0R4kH~ucgBIgAqIN2uogmmIbeT2J~8dgmxrSZ4qhyvVGLXou7dj6Mf2pzK4~SXKe1Jqs~g__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
There are more, too.
They literally did study different allergies. Are you just looking at some other paper than the one I linked? They literally have a column that states the allergic diseases that they studied.
You seem to be talking about specific allergens which I never said.
Allergies tested:
This may just be a language thing. Those aren’t allergies to me, they are symptoms of allergies.
To me, allergies are things like a peanut allergy, penicillin allergy, latex allergy, etc.
The paper calls them allergies, and has a column for them. I’m going to go with what the scientists say.
The paper literally doesnt call them allergies. It says “allergic disease”, which is an effect (i.e., symptom) of an allergy.
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/hs/medical/pathophys/immunology/2004/misc/articles/NEJM_allergy_aller_dis_02.pdf
And like I mentioned before, 4/5 of those studies dont show an improvement due to honey over a control group. The fifth study, I can access, but it doesnt even have a control, and it’s not testing just honey, anyway.