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).

ElaineBenes I don't know what % is considered to be unexplained - I don't think even the CDC have solid figures on that. I just know that there has been a shift in attitude in the US from - there is no increase to there is an increase but it is probably down to diagnosis to;

"Although improved ascertainment accounts for some of the prevalence increases documented in the ADDM sites, a true increase in the risk for children to develop ASD symptoms cannot be ruled out............These results indicate an increased prevalence of identified ASDs among U.S. children aged 8 years and underscore the need to regard ASDs as an urgent public health concern."

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19479197

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20023608

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20158232

There was a more recent study done by the US Department of Health and Human Services citing prevalence as about 1 in 91. I'll see if I can find it.

endo - I do agree that in many ways it is great. I am no scientist and appreciate a book I can understand. But I do see the point that BG does like to get personal about other people and I bet if it were another person in his situation, he'd be making sly comments about it all. And he likes pointing out flaws in other people's experiments, but leaves a gaping flaw in his own thought experiment. The man is not perfect. No reason he should be, but he does get a shedload of credit IMO.

Yep, sure. It was all a big conspiracy

Was Ben Goldacre in on the conspiracy?

In the interest of good science, Beach, I'd also be interested in the studies which DO show that improved diagnostics and surveillance account for a large % of the increased reported prevalence.

Or was it the lizards?

Sorry, am getting silly now, think it's time for bed.

Well I'd be interested in those too ElaineBenes once you've had time to look them up. Thanks!

talking jovially at a conference about taking blood samples at a party for money, with children fainting and throwing up for added comedy value.

But I'm sure all his research was impeccably ethical and there was no reason at all to strike him off

Can anyone convince me that it wasn't Andrew Wakefield who made the link between autism and MMR from his research which started the whole mess off?

Because otherwise criticising Goldacre for referring to that research as linking MMR and autism when it was 'just about gastrointestinal disorders' would otherwise be a bit rich if its lead author did exactly that.

JF, I've also read the detailed findings from the GMC decision to strike him off and seen which findings were upheld against him. Have you?

JF, not on the NHS. It is obvious that that recommendation directly to the public would be problematic.

JF. Yes. That's what 'also' means.

There have been many studies showing that there isn't a link between MMR and autism. The mess is that many parents believed there was and hence didn't vaccinate their children.

Failings in Ben Goldacre's integrity appear to be that he has a well-respected father in the medical profession and he is a member of a world-renowned institute.

Shame on him.

Entropyglitter, do you really not see the difference between;

a) you going about your business at work, not having a duty to tell everyone you meet in a work context which institution you are affiliated with.

b) a well known and very influential journalist, writing for a high circulation national newspaper, about a major medical controversy, failing to mention that he has a fellowship within an institution which has members who have been key players in that medical controversy.

He may have nothing to do with these key players, then again they may be his bosses or mentors within this institution or people that influence funding decisions. The problem is that we have no way of knowing because Goldacre has never seen fit to even mention it.

I mean he has quite a chatty style so he could easily have slipped in something like 'la la la you that Rutter study which I often cite? The one that shows Wakefield to be full of twaddle? Well I passed Rutter in the corridor of my workplace the Institute of Psychiatry the other day and I thought I'd pat the old man on the back. Ha ha not really, he wouldn't know me from adam'.

Or, you know just something, at some point, after all these years.

OK, Beach, will do. Hopefully tomorrow as off to bed now.

Sorry - I just assumed you came to your position regarding the effect of changed diagnostics through reviewing ALL the literature rather than establishing your position and then finding the research to back it up. Gives a rather skewed picture of thigns, you know, and doesn't help establish the truth.

So to sum up, JF ( as I predicted earlier)
Richard Horton = BAD
Ben Goldacre = BAD
General Medical Council = BAD

Andrew Wakefield (the one who was struck off) = GOOD

Any thoughts on the editor of the BMJ? Let me guess BAD, right?

Beach, the whole point of Bad Science is reviewing the evidence.

Science isn't about authority figures or personalities. It isn't so because Ben Goldacre says it is, it's so because 'here's a link to the evidence which you can review for yourself' If Ben Goldacre said 'my mate Professor Sir Michael Rutter says Wakefield spouts shit' then that would be wrong. That's why he doesn't. He says 'this study says this, and this is why it is better than this other study which says bullshit'.