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).

mama yes but I can denounce murder at the same time as having failed to send my tax return in on time....

BG is not whiter than white but is whole lot more principled than people selling snake oil.

On the CoI thing, as beach said, he may have been influenced by Rutter etc. or he may never have met them. It would be difficult I think to expect him to remember to mention that he was not in fact influenced by someone he never met. As previously mentioned this would be a long an rather dull list. If of course he was best buddies and spent a lot a time discussing the issue with Rutter et al then I would have expected him to mention it. At the moment we dont seem to collectively know if he did know him or not. So its pretty harsh to judge IMO.

I've ordered this book, really looking forward to reading it now!

entrophyg, hands off tim minchin, he's mine I tell you! Might have to indulge myself a few youtube moments (canvas bag song ,shirt off ) before I get back to work....

This is an odd thread, really. I know it started off about a fancying Goldacre thread - and of course there's no right or wrong answer to that - but it has become more about, "Is Goldacre right?" or even "Is Goldacre good?". Surely the whole point of Goldacre's work is to popularise understanding of scientific research so that we can more intelligently read it, argue with it, and form an opinion. Rather than being at the mercy of media headlines that are often sensationalist and poorly informed. And on that we can surely all agree that he has done some good work. He has been tremendously effective in helping ordinary people to understand, for example, what samples and control groups and meta-analyses are. That has to be a good thing, right?

A secondary point is the conclusions he draws about certain areas of scientific research - like MMR or Big Pharma practices. Even if you disagree with his conclusions, his work will help you argue your case more effectively. I suspect he would be happy with that outcome.

I'm no Goldacre groupie, and I have no interest in proving him to be flawless. In fact, I've got no particular interest in defending any particular view on any particular area of science. Right now, the evidence on the MMR debate is stacking up on one side. But as research progresses we may find that changes and, if and when good quality research shows that MMR causes autism, I will change my view. Our knowledge is only as good as the latest best evidence, and that changes all the time. I'm comfortable with that, and I'm pretty certain that Goldacre is too.

Maybe he just thinks you don't have to continually declare things that are so hidden that they are on wikipedia?

I agree, pqrqnoidandroid- or may I call you Marvin?. But I wonder whether he might have been better to just mention it so the ravening horde couldn't get a toe hold?

Because apparently it's only on Wiki because he can't control what others say about him..........

JF, it's not a lie that I suspect it.

If you're not an anti-vaxer, then good for you.

Renee, I'm not comfortable with the suggestion that the evidence on the MMR is stacking up on one side right now and that might change because that suggests that a controversy and people forming opinions prematurely. The accumulation of evidence on one side of the MMR debate suggests that it is very unlikely that it is going to be proved that there is a general link. If there was a link, it would have been expected to have been credibly evidenced already.

JF, you saying that doesn't change the view of the Cochrane Collaboration on the topic.

And I'm afraid that I place more weighting on their review of the literature than yours.

JF, if you have come on this thread because of general concerns about Goldacre and are not just focused on his articles on MMR and only want to talk about MMR then you are not a single-issue poster so I'm not sure why you would have identified yourself as such.

So who are you talking about NG?

Hey, thunder. I've read a lot of your posted concerns with Goldacre on bizarre conspiracy sites. Where did you find them?

JF, no one accused you by name and in fact I didn't have you in mind when I wrote my post. It's not all about you, sorry.

"the view of the scientists who carried out a study in 1992"

Um, it's 2012. You don't think the research has moved on a bit since then?

Cochrane included 31 articles in their review, I'm not sure where these scientists got the number 2 from.

Are you implying I go to "bizarre conspiracy sites" NG. You'd be wrong.

I've always thought he was a tool BTW. Anybody who goes after Gillian McKeith and acts like he's fighting a good fight as if it wasn't completely obvious that she's a quack when it comes to science is definitely one of those.