to be a little in love with Ben Goldacre?

[entropyglitter]

Just read 'bad science' (finally) and I think I am in love.....

my favourite bit was Gillian McKeith thinking that oxygen (generated by chlorophyll) in your gut is not only plausible, but at all a good idea....

presumably this is at the same time as main lining anti-oxidants (which had been shown to increase your risk of disease rather than decrease it).

Sorry I was just cramming baby signing into my head .

I was not trying to down play BG's association with the IoP, I know very little of the organisation indeed. All I am saying is that if it is similar to the organisations that I have found myself a member of then it implies nothing about a CoI. I would assume that anyone active in research is involved in numerous of these types of loose affiliations (god knows my inbox is always packed with a load of seminar invites etc. from the three I have been sucked into at work) and I would not expect there to be any effect on anyones impartiality due to them.

Most importantly I would not expect people to openly announce these affiliations when publishing because noone thinks they mean anything.

I know very little about other researchers opinions in the institutes that I am a member of, and I am sure there are some crackpots in there that I would rather not be sharing building space with. To say that I should have to acknowledge that I work in the same building as someone who thinks X, Y or Z is unreasonable, as it impacts my thinking not one jot.

So to cut a massive load of drivel back to the point I think:
a) there is no CoI in being a member of the same institute as another researcher
b) this is not a dirty little secret that BG has carefully hidden from the public, it is just something that it probably never occurred to him to be relevant or interesting enough to publicise because frankly it isnt.

beach so are you saying that you feel the IoP is biased because it only investigates one of a list of possible causes of ASD?

According to the beach point of view simply working in the same building as the owner of the patent is more than sufficient to assume a CoI.

I disagree entirely with this for both BG and Wakefield.

elaine - hope you enjoy it.

juicy yes I think its fair to say that the role of over blown exposure is the central issue here....

A paper that doesnt even directly make a specific claim starts a chain of reaction that causes death and suffering.

Certainly applies to MMR and may apply to ASD for all I know too....

I think it's worth reiterating that BG's central point on MMR in 'bad science' is that it was the misunderstanding, misquoting and in some cases totally fictionalized interpretation of the paper by the press that actually caused the problem.

What? Beach said that being a member of the same institute was a source of CoI that should be declared! Several times!! That often is identical to working in the same building as institutes are often arranged around academic departments as this one is....

perhaps I should have said that I have at no point in this thread claimed that Wakefield was subject to a CoI.

My point was that you cant on the one had claim that BG is CoI because he is a member of an academic institute but then claim that Wakefield was not CoI due to a patent held by his academic institute.

Either both are innocent or both are guilty....

In fairness, there clearly are some members of the anti-vaccine community who have also taken on board new evidence, and adjusted their positions accordingly.

I doubt she gets much credit for it from her erstwhile colleagues, however.

Too bad one dr has been struck off for dishonesty and the other dr has received accolades for his writing. Spot the difference.

"The Institute of Psychiatry (IoP) is Europe?s largest centre for research and post-graduate education in psychiatry, psychology, basic and clinical neuroscience. " (from its website)

I expect a psychiatrist might join it for its reputation for world-class research. I expect that might be a reason for a journalist to quote studies that have been conducted there.

Or perhaps it's some sinister conspiratorial clique. Who knows?

Juicy I do not know what Wakefield's current position is?

I dont think that BG had any particular beef with the findings of the case series paper (certainly there is little criticism in the book - just mentions the ethical questions and pending GMC case). If the findings had been presented as what they were, a cause for further testing, then a cohort/case controlled study would have followed and would have shown that the hints shown up in the original paper were not born out in larger controlled conditions. There would never have been a furore and there would not be outbreaks of disease now.

SGM - it is depressing how many people turn out to be pillocks in RL.

Btw, I like 'asshat' - I take it this is the fruits of the search for non-ist insults?

JuicyFruits - have you read "Bad Science"?

Oh the irony juicy