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).

Gosh Elaine if only I had the time to read all the literature on this rather extensive subject!

I would expect there to be a fair bit on how diagnostic criteria accounts for a certain % - it seems a pretty logical and straightforward position to me.

I'm just a parent with a layman's interest in these things and I sometimes feel like nattering on about them on this parenting forum MN.

Didn't realise that it was a requirement to review all literature and provide links to order before one was allowed to express an opinion in the AIBU section!!

Has everybody else on this thread done that then? Goodness I'm behind!

JF, the paper's findings say 'Onset of behavioural symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children, with measles infection in one child, and otitis media in another.' The interpretation is 'We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers.'

Wakefield went further and recommended that parents should avoid the triple vaccine.

He was wrong to do this based on that evidence. The media was wrong to pick up and run with it in the way that they did.

Goldacre says that the media was the real problem.

It's a shame that this thread has been hijacked by the single-issue posters. There is a lot more said in Bad Science than just relating to MMR - as the posters would know if they had actually read the book.

I do think that an understanding of how to interpret scientific papers is important, especially as the mainstream press cannot be trusted to do so responsibly. This thread illustrates that point very well, I think.

See this is classic of what I think is wrong with people claiming they have done their research and probably what BG is getting at.

Have you read the CryShame diaries on the GMC hearing?

Surely if you were really interested in getting to the bottom of this you would be reading the GMC Transcripts and not reading a blog on a website and taking it as fact. The Cryshame diaries are a flight of fantasy and do not reconcile to what actually happened.

I suspect that their only contact with Goldacre has been via anti-vax websites sneeringly linking to his MMR article with a reminder that his dad also wrote about MMR. I would be interested to know if they could read the chapter on vitamins for AIDS linked to up thread and still come back and moan about him lacking integrity, being intellectually dishonest etc. The MMR article is such a tiny part of his output.

I've seen him talk about Matthias Rath. While his stuff about Gillian McKeith or the Daily Mail's ongoing oncological project to sort everything in the world into things which either cure or cause cancer is full of humour and could make him seem a bit of a lightweight picking on easy targets, when he talked about Rath he was passionate, eloquent and very, very angry. It is really important that the world has people like Goldacre willing to take on the charlatans and snake-oil salesmen, especially the incredibly rich ones willing to sue journalists personally.

What is also really important is that he challenges the pharmaceutical industry. He tirelessly lobbies for all trials to be registered. He publicises research showing how bad results get buried. It would be so easy to just snipe at homeopaths but he doesn't. He talks about things which are important to everyone's health regardless of whether he pisses off woo-merchants, anti vaxxers, big pharma or the government. His agenda, IMO is pretty clear.

My first and pretty much only contact with Goldacre has been on the Guardian Bad Science column, wondering why he has so many groupies who appear to think he can do no wrong, when in fact when you investigate further he appears to have the same clay feet of everybody else he is criticising.

For all the supposed defenders of science out there what do you think about Goldacre being a psychiatrist quite the most non-scientific, medical discipline.

And I'm still waiting for all his published research papers given that he's claiming to be an academic working in epidemiology. How is he getting away with producing nothing?

It's quite possible to think poorly of Goldacre and have no interest in the MMR vaccination debate whatsoever.

Beachcomber said they hadn't read his book and have no intention of doing so, I can't remember what you said, JF, about the book, I'm not taking notes.

I didn't say a PhD makes someone a scientist, I said it was a basic requirement.

An MSc is fine for most scienctific requirements, a PhD is more for academia.

Goldacre is perfectly well qualified to call snake oil in medical matters.

This thread just reinforces the fact that comfortable belief always trumps inconvenient rational thought.

"what do you think about Goldacre being a psychiatrist quite the most non-scientific, medical discipline."

You haven't read "House Of God" then? It's a popular choice of specialty for medics who don't like getting covered in blood/poo/vomit.

JuicyFruits, Beachcomber said she hasn't read the book (Wed 11-Jan-12 08:45:32)

JF, the 'conflicts of interest' have been endlessly discussed. And dismissed.

The late John Diamond wrote a book 'Snake Oil and other preoccupations' when he was dying of cancer. It's a very good read, but sadly unfinished. :(

He was an excellent writer and I would recommend it as a poignant read debunking the myths around alternative medicines.

"a PhD is more for academia"

He's in academia.

Psychiatrist non-scientific? Are you quite mad?

Cognitive neuroscience is unscientific?

ParanoidAndroid

Anyone on twitter? Ben's having a spat with the Alliance of Natural Health campaign.

He took an unusual route into academia though. A minority of academics don't have PhDs, but I don't see what's wrong with that. I was taught by two people who didn't have them and they were both great.

I'd say not researching is much more dodgy TBH. And being an annoying twit.

And I disagree, JF. Do try not to take it personally.

I'm a little bit on the fence still about the conflict of interest thing. I don't think the is one- but I do think it might have been sensible of him to pre empt the attack by listing anything which would enable his detractors to focus on him rather than his work But I think it's a shame that it's being allowed to overshadow his analysis of alternative medicine, the pharmaceutical industry, and the way science is dealt with in the media. oh, and the way pharmaceutical products are tested. And the immorality of the way people with Aids are dwelt with in sub-Saharan Africa.

If you're going to attack others for being unprincipled, it's a good idea to be principled yourself.

now now people.....no talking about the aids thing! I will cry and that wont look good....

Too much has whizzed past for me to comment on it all but what I would say is that I certainly believe that BG has feet of clay! I think the first step to being a real grown up scientist/medic/journalist is to acknowledge your limitations. It is almost totally impossible to do science without bias, without errors, and I would imagine it is the same for science reporting.

This thread was about being a little in love with a guy who is trying to engage the public in scientific method and reasoning. I am now in love with Tim Minchin even more than before because he is doing the same thing. I am utterly utterly in love with the cochrane collaboration because even their logo shows how they are saving lives by critical analysis of existing data.

We all have flaws....

We don't have any evidence at all the BG is unprincipled! Even if we agree- which we don't- that he should hqve declared a possible conflict of interest, ther is no evidence that that conflict has manifested itself.

And if we are not allowed to attack the unprincipled if we are not completely perfect ourselves, nobody will ever be able to challenge anyone!