this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2026
1074 points (99.6% liked)

Funny: Home of the Haha

8971 readers
10 users here now

Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.

Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!

Our Rules:

  1. Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.

  2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.

  3. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.


Other Communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] tyler@programming.dev -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] tyler@programming.dev 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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:

  • Atopic Dermatitis
  • Allergic rhinitis
  • Allergic Fungal Rhinosinusitis
  • Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis
[–] evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] tyler@programming.dev 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.