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).

Going by his profile he should have done an absolute hatchet job on Merck.

www.badscience.net/about-dr-ben-goldacre/

Also he has given at least one presentation at the Centre for
Investigative Journalism summer school. On 'Evaluating Experts' I believe - world renowned investigative journalist give talks there.

I was under the impression that he considered himself a pretty hard hitting bad science player.

If everybody considers him a lightweight how come he has such influence on public opinion then . How come people give so much credence to what he says and hold him up as an authority on medical controversies?

Off out now, not ignoring anybody.

Who does? You are assuming such a lot. Like I said, way upthread, you are far too unscientific in your language, far too many leaps and assumptions and inferring without good basis.

Beachcomber, I don't think you read the same article as me! I thought the Vioxx article was very good and very clear. He explained the issues in plain language. Don't forget, he is bringing out a whole book later this year that attacks the way pharmaceutical companies operate.

You say he goes over the top about people like Gillian McKeith, but before he started his Bad Science column, nobody was writing about this stuff. The papers used to just peddle this crap uncritically. He provided a really valuable service, I think. The fact that McKeith can no longer call herself Dr is a real achievement.

I disagree JuicyFruits.

I know, JuicyFruits, and what about those links, eh?

Yes he always picks easy targets. Like Matthias Rath, for example.

I don't think he does have much influence on public opinion? Sure, he has his followers, but there will be far more people reading a Daily Mail article on blueberries preventing cancer, and accepting it uncritically, than there will be BG fans picking the article apart to see they'll actually prevent one case of cancer every twenty years or whatever.

Well, not least that BG fans are unlikely to be reading the DM (2 million readers) rather than the Guardian (a tenth of that)....

Beach, follow up from yesterday. Quick little internet search comes up with quite a few papers showing that ASD diagnosis does account for a large proportion of increase in ASD prevalence. I'm also not an expert, just a layperson, and I managed to access these papers very quickly.
eg
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14695031
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18384386?ordinalpos=5&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/117/4/1028.abstract

Of course you're entitled to an uninformed opinion just as much as the next person but I find it bewildering that you would go to the lengths of searching out scientific articles that confirm what you say yet completely ignore those that don't. Why would you do that if you're genuinely interested in finding out what the science says about a topic?

You see, Juicy, now what I find ironic when you accuse BG readers of swallowing things without criticism? At least he TRIES to give a broad overview of ALL the evidence rather than just searching out cofirmation of a pre-established position.

Well, what would you call an opinion that is based on searching for literature that backs it up? Uniformed? Biased perhaps? Possibly mistaken since you don't know what might counter what you've read? But as Beach says, as a layperson she is indeed entitled to hold such opinions.

It's exactly this kind of biased cherry picking that BG rails against. Good for him!

Matthias Rath was an easy target though - I mean in terms of being a figure that is easy to criticise. I doubt Goldacre and the Guardian thought for a minute that he would try to sue them. That one came back to bite them on the arse! (Although not really because Rath has dropped the case hasn't he?)

Matthias Rath is a rich and fairly powerful individual, but Merck he 'ain't.

Hackmum, the Goldacre commentary on Vioxx is pathetic. Honestly it is - he explains the bare bones of the story and timidly suggests that it is not quite cricket to behave like this. Vioxx is on a level with thalidomide in terms of medical scandal, actually it is worse due to the fake medical journals and the involvement of probably the most influential medical journal publisher there is.

Goldacre describes medical fraud, gross misconduct and gross negligence that led to the deaths of thousands of people as; 'A fascinating court case'. He mentions that Vioxx increased the risk of heart attack, but fails to mention the thousands of people who actually lost their lives.

Coming back to the Matthias Rath thing - the HIV/AIDS situation in Africa does appear to be complicated and not without contoversy. I don't know a lot about it, but I have come across things which concern me. I think Goldacre's reporting on the whole thing was pretty lightweight and mainstream. Again very non boat rocking and in accordance with the pharma lobbies.

Beachcomber, it sounded in your last paragraph there, like you maybe don't think HIV causes AIDS or something? What controversy do you mean exactly?

Because she said so, JF. Read the thread and you'll see. I actually assumed she HAD done so since she spoke so authoritatively and was interested in how she came to her conclusion.

Woooooooh- we're not in HIV doesn't cause AIDs territory here, are we? That's waaaaay above my pay grade.

If folk are interested in skeptic stuff, my DP and mates run a website here. Dunno if any of them are as handsome as Goldacre though.

I guess you didn't read very closely then. I didn't complain and I only mentioned ASD diganoses in response to Beach's statement - which I found out was based solely on the reading of papers which, you've guessed it, didn't show a relationship. The ones which did were conveniently not mentioned. Is this not cherry picking? Or just an incredible coincidence that all the papers that Beach happened to read happened to be those which supported her original position while when I googled it I found a range of papers. I still don't understand why someone who was interested in the truth would do this

Read the papers - yes, including those ones whose findings you may not agree with before you read them - and then you'll find out a bit more about ASD diagnoses. I did (yes, including the ones Beach linked to, whaddya know)

"I meant 2002, it was a literal. You quoted Cochrane, and Cochrane relies on many of the studies considered flawed. I didn't quote Cochrane, you did. "

Right, you will notice, JF, that I actually linked to Cochrane's summary when I referred to it. You have talked about a couple of scientists who reckon that their study in 1992, no wait was it 2002 was definitive and Cochrane is crap.

But no names, no links, no accurate information. Nothing that anyone could actually follow up yet you expect people to take your pronouncements seriously?

PS: Why do you keep speaking for Beachcomber? I'm sure she is capable of speaking for herself if she wishes.

I see no straw men. Beachcombers comments could certainly be interpreted to mean that she is not convinced that the HIV is not responsible for AIDs in sub Saharan Africa.

I was given this book by my SIL and it was interesting but I thought BG was a bit full of himself too. I'd like to meet him, and reject him.