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).

Just to clarify - I haven't read his book. I also said upthread that I don't have an opinion on his book since I haven't read it.

One of the reasons I haven't read it is because of some of the reviews on Amazon. I have read Goldacre's Guardian pieces quite a lot and I am also pretty familiar with his website.

Having done these things, I suspect that I wouldn't get on with his book as I don't like his writing style and I found criticisms similar to those I make of his column, in Amazon reviews of his book (patronising, arrogant, a tendency to personally attack people, going for easy targets, repetitive, pretty pleased with himself, lacking in in depth analysis, presenting his own opinion as fact, very in accordance with lobbies such as Sense About Science).

I think the way he has gone after individuals such as Gillian McKeith is horrible. The crowd on his website have gone after Dr Myhill in a very unpleasant and personal way too - and Goldacre allows this to go on, indeed he cracks jokes about it. The man is a bully with all his little pals egging him on and bigging him up.

As to any 'hijacking' on this thread - I said numerous times that I was interested in Goldacre's presentation of himself as impartial journo with no affiliations - something that is clearly not true.

I have, out of politeness, answered some queries directed to me about MMR stuff - I have also said that I think that whole debate is somewhat irrelevant to what I think are potential COIs for Goldacre. I didn't engage with challenges about Wakefield stuff, patents, etc because I felt they were really very irrelevant.

Indeed one could make arguments about Goldacre's potential for bias whilst never even referring to MMR.

For instance he has commented in the Guardian, on the risks of mobile phone use and EMS, whilst refraining to mention that the good old Institute of Psychiatry conducts research in this domain (research that is part funded by the telecommunications industry). The IoP's stance on the above is that there is nothing to worry about and it is all in people's head's i.e. manifestations of psychiatric illness.

They may well be right - but again, I think Goldacre should make it known to the public just what his role in the IoP is and who he works under. I have seen his name came up time and time again with regards to Simon Wessely for instance.

Thunderbolts: "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."

It may be obvious to you and me, but it's presumably not obvious to the people who commissioned her television series or the people who buy her books - and there are an awful lot of them. I've certainly come across people who regard her as a bona fide expert on nutrition.

I said they share your concerns, Thunder. I thought it was odd that you came on here suggesting that he was cagey about being a doctor and not a PhD and not having done much research so I googled this and the conflict of interest stuff and some right weird sites came up.

I've even been on the David Icke forum!

No, I'm not saying that's where you go.

This kind of thread is always so freaky, yet the info that gets posted on them is really useful and interesting.

So why did you bring it up then NG?

You seem to be with bruxeur on the snidey veiled insinuations front.

Beach, you say again 'The IoP's stance is blah blah'. This seems an odd way to talk about a large education and research establishment.

Do they have a crib sheet with their various stances on things so that all their members know what line they are meant to take?

Because, thunder, I asked you where you got them from. Out of interest.

I think I listed my sources here e.g. Ben Goldacre's website where he doesn't actually list his professional activities or qualifications.

I certainly remember going on PubMed way back when to find out his (lack of) research track record.

He does mention his honorary doctorates though, bless him:

"He?s received lots of awards for writing, and a few honorary doctorates."

No they don't have a crib sheet NG - what a silly thing to say.

I don't think you understand how influential the IoP is.

The IoP, and certain members of its research team, classed ME as a psychiatric illness for years. The IoP was considered the UK authority on the subject. If you wanted funding to study ME/CFS you pretty well needed to be at Maudsley. The influence of the IoP, and notably Simon Wessely, held back useful clinical research into ME for a very long time.

The current UK authority on illnesses suspected as being related to mobile phone use, is also the IoP.

The research work done at the IoP is considered authoritative and is very influential. Like many research institutions in these modern times, they receive a substantial amount of funding from all manner of industries. This is why it is generally accepted that it is a good idea for everybody to be transparent and declare any funding sources, etc.

And yes they do have a stance on mobile phone use - it is on the page I linked to and explored in the studies helpfully linked to on that page. I imagine that they link to those papers in order to illustrate, in a scientific manner, why the department holds the view that it does. Which is fair enough - again I am not disputing what they say about this issue. I am disputing Goldacres's presentation of himself as just any old journo, with no impartiality issues, when in fact he is affiliated with an influential research organisation which accepts funding from industry.

Which is just the sort of thing he would have a smart arse patronizing rant about other people doing. I don't like hypocrisy.

Thank you JuicyFruits but I'm not actually that bothered by being personally attacked - other than finding it a slippery way of going about a discussion.

Rather similar to Goldacre's style really.

So do you feel that BG's attacks on Big Pharma are compromised too?

I'd like to know how those saying things like "he doesn't live by his principles" and so on know what his principles are? Do they know him intimately?

He does what he says he does. Nothing seems to be hidden, all info on him is freely available. He's not hiding anything about his qualifications or interests. I don'r know really what you are accusing him of?

oh beach right up until ' I'm not actually that bothered by being personally attacked - other than finding it a slippery way of going about a discussion.

Rather similar to Goldacre's style really.'

I was going to dive back in....but what a childish thing to say.

Which attacks do you have in mind?

I have tended to find that he isn't very hard on Pharma, but that may just be my perception.

For example this wishy washy article about the Vioxx scandal (written once the whole affair had come out and Merck had moved on to public relations and harm reduction).

Hardly hard hitting boat rocking investigative journalism is it?

He goes after poor old Gillian Mckeith with much more vigour than he does Merck which killed thousands of people with its hiding of data, false medical journals and cover ups. And what about publisher Elsevier - who have a massive influence on modern medicine? He hardly says a word about their hugely concerning duplicitous behaviour.

The reason he went for Gillian McKeith is because of the fact that loads of people believed her, bought her books and were taken in by her. A perfectly legitimate target. Poor Gillian McKeith, indeed!

Hardly hard hitting boat rocking investigative journalism is it?

Could you maybe point out where Dr Goldacre has ever said this is what he aims to do?

Entropy I have had it insinuated on this thread that I am an anti-vaxxer, that I am crazy, that I am a conspiracy theorist, that I read extreme crazy websites and base all my opinions by rote on what I read there, that I am not well read enough to have an opinion, that I am a single issue poster who wishes to turn everything into an MMR debate.

None of them very nice things. Excuse me for being human and losing patience.

"Hardly hard hitting boat rocking investigative journalism is it?"

You see, you inadvertently have a point there.

There's no way one person can go through all the data for every drug on the market (and didn't Merck keep most of the bad data in-house, too?), which is why BG's focus is on giving people the tools to analyse scientific information for themselves.

He's not claiming to be an investigative journalist. So it would've been difficult to write about Vioxx before the information came out, right?

Perhaps seeker - I think he went after her because she was an easy target.

Buying one of her books and being careful about what you eat is hardly in the same league as being killed by a dangerous drug, that the manufacturer knew to be dangerous and sold to the medical industry, and the public, using fraudulent and duplicitous means.

I say poor Gillian because I think he has attacked her in a very personal way. I don't see him going after the big boys with quite the same aggression .

Thing is, there's a difference between hiding your bad drug data, and openly making claims about quantum water/vitamin pills curing AIDS/whatever.

He can't write about stuff that isn't known..?

Comments on the Rath case from the anti BG brigade?

"Dr" Gillian got everything she deserved. She made a fortune peddling lies and bad science. She put herself up as a target, serves her right to get shot down.