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).

Anyway, back to BG.

Are there any examples of his lack of professionalism? Any more conflicts of interest? Or is it just thatbhe doesn't list his membership of professional bodies and the occupation of his father onnhis website?

"if you're so well informed how come you didn't know about the study"

I'm not sure many people would immediately bring to mind 'that study that some scientists did in 1992', especially when it was actually 2002.

"I read and linked to a paper that didn't support my point of view"

That you did. It certainly doesn't support your contention that it is incorrect to say the accumulation of evidence means its very unlikely that there's a link between MMR and autism. You claiming that in 2002 the evidence was weak due to a lack of a cohort study which was fixed in the paper that made the claim and gives strong evidence to support my claim is one point.

The fact that the study was a decade ago and there has also been research since then which further supports my claim is another.

Do you really think saying 'well the evidence didn't support an association but wasn't rigorous up to a decade ago when they did a thorough study on the whole cohort of Danish children' is a good argument?

Seeker the issue with Goldacre's father is not his occupation as such.

It is his having co-authored a paper downplaying the dangers of a vaccine. Dangers that were well known to the DoH and the manufactuers. Dangers that were known before the vaccine was given to UK children. Dangers that led to the manufacturer halting production entirely of the vaccine. Some of the Lancet 12 received this vaccine.

And Goldacre writes about this very vaccine, the Lancet case report and the controversy over it.

Perhaps it is just a coincidence?

Perhaps Goldacre being affiliated with an institution, whose members have produced some of the most important studies used to reassure the public that MMR is safe, is just a coincidence too?

Better to have these things out in the open though eh?

I've just found a website saying thwt he's a Holocaust denier!

""i've just found a website"

Why is that funny?

If you lol at something I say, I think I have a right to know why.

I wasn't talking about Rath- it was BG the bonkers site said was a Holocaust denier!

Is thee anything about Rath you would like to share with us?

Yes that is exactly what concerned me about AIDS in Africa.

I understand that there are not really the facilities to perform serological testing so a list of clinical diagnostic criteria is used instead.

I know I wouldn't be happy to be given an HIV/AIDS diagnosis and drug treatment without a blood test - I think it is fair enough for African people to feel the same.

Sorry, I still don't see the fact that Ben Goldacre's father co-authoring a paper downplaying dangers of a vaccine should cause any conflict of interest. Ben Goldacre is an individual in his own right - although it would be perfectly natural for him to share his father's scientific opinions/leanings, it would be equally natural for him to disagree with his father.

Father and son working in the same field and both working on a controversial issue is not a conflict of interest.

Working in the same field isn't a conflict of interest. Reporting on it whilst claiming to be an objective journalist might be however.

I don't think Ben and his old man do work in the same field to they?

So you are probably right, there isn't a conflict of interest there.

I was referring to Ben's role as a journalist however - a rather different issue.

Same thing with the IoP - the issue is not that Ben works/worked there. It is that he wrote on issues directly related to the place, in his capacity as an independent journalist, whilst failing to inform people that he was affiliated with the place. As far as I know this is a journalistic no-no.

Fine if it doesn't bother you, but I prefer influential journalists in national newspapers to either be independent or do me the courtesy of mentioning that they are not independent. Doesn't seem like a big ask.

Yes, and that's my point about the Guardian presenting him as an objective journalist, which is wrong. If they publish him, they should declare any conflicts of interest. The Guardian is supposed to pride itself on its ethical stance, high moral principles, etc, etc. I know they're rapidly running out of money to pay proper journalists, but still.

Look up the ARROW and DART clinical trials (funded by UK govt btw). It was found that outcomes were not significantly different where CD4 counts were used or clinical diagnoses in ARV treatment.
www.arrowtrial.org/
www.ctu.mrc.ac.uk/dart/

Do you know what this means? It means for the same resources more people with AIDS can receive ART and more lives can be saved. THIS IS A GOOD THING!!!!! Laboratories are thin on the ground in rural sub-Saharan Africa.

You've clearly never been to rural sub-Saharan Africa and actually spoken to people living with HIV/AIDS (or their parents)

I have.

I'm not sure that's a requirement for participation in this thread, however.

Well, then, you'd know how desperate people with HIV/AIDS are to get access to ART.

You'd also be aware of how few resources are available in rural SSA.

Where did they present him as an objective journalist? You are extremely naive if you suppose any such thing is possible. And why is it desirable? We all have biases. Why do you suppose someone would choose to write on an particular thing unless they already had an opinion one way or another.

And if you were going to list any possible conflict of interest, however tenuous, before publishing every column or article, you'd find that there was no room left in the paper for said columns or articles.

Its a moot point when said issues are freely available to a cursory google anyway.

Sorry, I'm completely failing to see the conflict of interest. If a pharmaceutical company was paying him money, then I could see that he might have a COI in a conversation about vaccines. But the fact that his dad happens to hold the same opinion as him? I'm just not seeing it.

No, its not really. If you are talking about scientific studies/research papers etc that are purporting to be accurate, objective and statistically significant, you have grounds for discussing conflicts of interests and what should and should not be declared...there are expected norms and rules here.
Rules that do not apply to a column in the Guardian. I'm sure you understand the difference.