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).

Oh for gods' sake. I don't have an opinion on this issue. I asked a QUESTION!

The point of linking to those papers was to demonstrate a flawed logical process whereby someone is making a statement without reference to any literature which does not support her view.

If I had used such bad reviewing techniques to declare unequivocally that there is no chance of any increase in ASD since it is all accounted for by diagnostics, you'd be absolutely right to call me on it.

It's bad science - and that's BG's point which I completely agree with.

"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."

This.

Indeed, Elaine. Cherry picking is human nature, however, and that is why systematic reviews of the literature are so important.

Here is Ben Goldacre writing on the matter :)

One reason the Cochrane Collaboration is so vital.

Well, Matthias Rath believes that HIV does not cause AIDS. Beachcomber said,in a sentence that started with his name, that the situation with AiDs in Africa is "complicated and not without controversy". Given his core beliefs, it seems to me to be reasonable to wonder if she shares Rath's beliefs, to some extent. No?

I've seen nothing on here which makes me question his integrity.

But I do think having their lives inspected under a microscope and every possible minute detail raised to suggestion corruption is par for the course for anyone who speaks out on the subjects Goldacre does.

Quite sad really and unnecessary.

JF, What points did you actually make about Cochrane?

You referred to some unnamed scientists and some vaguely remembered study which definitely showed that Cochrane was wrong. That's not an argument.

'I've seen nothing on here which makes me question his integrity.'

Me neither Elaine.

I've been on the conspiracy websites and it has been quite illuminating in some respects.

Apparently there's a powerful 'science lobby' which is obviously in the pocket of Big Pharma and they send out the quackbusters any time anyone looks like they're showing that industry or the environment triggers any medical condition, when they're not taking the piss out of homeopaths.

Ben Goldacre has been apparently been groomed by them and is their man in the media but he needs to hide his connections to them and thus only wikipedia knows that he's a psychiatrist.

He has links to the shadowy Sense About Science organisation which among other things lobbied to have science stories in the media written by people with qualifications in science rather than humanities.

It is a pity that the enemies of the 'science lobby' play into their hands so often with poorly evidenced arguments, isn't it?

JF, I thought you were trying to steer things AWAY from the MMR so as not to distract us from BG's lack of integrity in having a Dad and working in research institute with people who might have the same ideas as him. Oh,and also for daring to be an unscientific phd-less psychiatrist and yet claim to be a scientist.

I vote: 'We're all going to hell in a hand cart.'

Really? I thought she made a lot of sense. Oh well.

I'm confused, JF.

The Denmark study you linked to says 'Studies designed to evaluate the suggested link between MMR vaccination and autism do not support an association, but the evidence is weak and based on case-series, cross-sectional, and ecologic studies. No studies have had sufficient statistical power to detect an association, and none had a population-based cohort design.'

But carries on....so we did one. Their study was intended to solve the problem of previously weak evidence.

And their conclusion was This study provides strong evidence against the hypothesis that MMR vaccination causes autism.

You said previously
" I think I pointed out earlier that a great deal of the evidence supposedly indicating that there is no link is acknowledged by the scientific community to be flawed and not fit for that purpose."
And "It's not my view. In fact it's the view of the scientists who carried out a study in 1992, claiming it as the most definitive."

So you are happy to quote their view that the previous evidence was inadequate while completely ignoring the fact that they addressed that and came up with strong evidence showing no link between MMR and autism.

And their study was included in the Cochrane review of the data, thus strengthening its conclusions!

Ok it's a bit late for me so I'll keep this brief.

I said that I don't know much about HIV/AIDS in Africa, and I don't know a lot about Rath either. These are all big subjects that it would take more time than I have on my hands to be really informed about.

When I said that I have read stuff about AIDS in Africa which concerns me, that does not mean that I share Rath's views or have anything like a well informed view on the matter. It just means that I have read things about WHO guidelines for giving an African person an AIDS diagnosis that didn't sit right with me. It seemed to me, from the little I did read (and this was a while ago so not very fresh in my memory) that there was scope for considering the possibility that a diagnosis could be given for AIDS when the real issue was, perhaps, more biologically plausibly, linked to malnutrition.

Like I say, I haven't examined much literature on this, and I don't really know what to think, but I'm not closed to the notion that there may be room for some controversy on the issue.

It is a big subject - one I don't really have a position on but one I am open minded on. Maybe one day when I have the time and the inclination I'll look into it further but today I don't have a lot to say about it other than I don't feel entirely comfortable with it.

How vague is that?

As to the 'cherry picking' accusation - I was asked to provide links to stuff I had read about a possible real term increase in ASD rates, and I did so. I think it is a bit off to have ago at me because I didn't also link to stuff which says the contrary! Bit confused on that one if I'm honest. Thought this was a parenting forum discussion - not a really important, scientific, world changing, thing of any significant importance.

I'm just chewing the fat and saying what I think.

I just find it very weird that you make a definite and seemingly factual statement. You clearly had made the effort to find the scientific evidence to back it up but you also had clearly just picked whatever happened to agree with that statement. I don't get why you would do that if you're genuinely interested in the truth rather than just supporting a position. It doesn't make sense to me. Why would you do things like that?

Just wanted to add for Elaine. I haven't only read the papers I have linked to here on this thread.

I've read a whole bunch of stuff - as I imagine everybody else has. It would be a bit self-centred and tedious however to link to the several dozen (at least) studies I have read about ASD. The vast majority of them are irrelevant to this thread.

Elaine, I think it is called having an internet discussion. I say what I think (due to the nature of the internet this is quite obviously out of any real context of all the material I may or may not have read on the matter at hand).

What I say is challenged (fair enough).

I have a game go at backing up what I say (with stuff from the CDC no less!).

I could link to many many studies which explain why I hold the views I do. You could link to many counter studies (plenty of which I am actually familiar with as I have had this conversation before, and are of genuine interest to me as I have personal reasons for wishing to be informed on the issue).

This is called having a discussion about a controversial issue.

All very par for the course really - nothing sinister going on .

And this is only Mumsnet - not a scientific conference!