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).

"Seeker: I think nobody answered it because it's irrelevant and another of your straw men. I'm not sure who you are thinking of who sets themselves up as impartial, debunking, objective etc except for Ben "

Straw man? Would you like me to explain what a straw man is, because that isn't one.

Do you not think that people impugning another person's integrity should state their own position?

And of course no one is objective that is not the argument I am making.

I am arguing that Goldacre is not independent.

JF, it doesn't invalidate their findings. You want a 3 year follow up to check that someone didn't develop autism later. That doesn't invalidate the finding that 3 years previously they didn't show any symptoms. Especially if 3 years previously is when you would usually expect to observe symptoms.
You can question their conclusion, but you can't just ignore all the data on that basis. Then you put that data with all the data from all the other studies and see what you've got.

In the meantime you've got people working furiously to show there's a link, lawyers at the ready.

Still no credible link.

JuicyFruits, nobody can be those things, thats the point. I can debunk Gillian McKeith very easily even though I am entirely biased and unobjective. I could even do it in a national newspaper. Thats because she is quite clearly wrong and I can show that easily, no matter what interests, conflicts or otherwise I might have.

You seem to have a very odd concept of what it takes to write about subjects. I'm guessing you are neither an academic or a journalist?

Here's the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics. I know they are in the US, but the journalistic profession takes pretty much the same line everywhere.

The relevant section:

"Act Independently
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

Journalists should:

?Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
? Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
? Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
? Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
? Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
? Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
? Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news."

www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Juiucyfruits, can you stop being patronising- it really doesn't help your cause. It is entirely possible to have a sensible debate without descending to the school yard. Unless you are trying to make people lose their tempers?

Ha, ha, here's another one:

"Be Accountable
Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

Journalists should:

? Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
? Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
? Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
? Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
? Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others."

So basically what we know about Ben - he's not a scientist given that he has no research record to speak of.

His approach to journalism does not appear to match up to basic journalistic ethics.

YABU to be a little in love with him OP.

Still no evidence of a CofI. I will change my opinion if anyone provides this, I'm no real Ben Goldacre groupie, I just like what he writes and think he's cute.

Being a member of an Institute, (even if it is "perfectly possible" they have received pharma research funding) and writing media articles id not a CofI, no matter what spin you choose to put on it.

I have to laugh at the made-up rules about 'setting yourself up as a debunker' as well.

Well he didn't buy a doctorate on the internet nor contribute to the deaths of thousands of Aids sufferers, so I'd say his standards are somewhat higher than those of the people he writes about.

If you're looking for perfection in anyone before they can critiques others, you'll be waiting a long time. Some of you would be hard pressed to clear a D- in my class.

JF, I'm on my phone so it is difficult to access the study and make sure my language is precise. It still doesn't invalidate the lack of diagnosis 3 years previously.

Potential conflict of interest: I worked in clinical trials for 4 years. But I quit partly because working for big pharma (I worked for all the big players at some point on hundreds of trials) pricked my moral conscience. I'm not a fan.

Can anyone give an example of Ben breaking the Journalistic code of conduct? That's a pretty serious allegation.

I think most of us would laugh at the idea of taking a class from you TPA.

Journalism is a profession, its job is to report the facts to the public without bias or appearance of bias. Ben has at the very least failed on the latter.

And once again debunking McKeith is hardly something to get excited about. Easy peasy target.

SweetLily, Beachcomber has already outlined some of his conflicts of interest e.g. he was paid a salary by an institution that had interests in issues he was reporting on, which he didn't declare.

Really? Ignoring the rudeness of such a statement, my postgrad students seem quite happy. Journalism isnt Dr Goldacres main profession though.

You do all seem to be getting very het up trying to discredit someone who isnt particular threatening. What is that all about?

First of all you have to identify an agenda other than exposing bad science. Then you have to prove it. Then you can complain that he hasnt admitted this hidden agenda.

You havent done the first two. What is his "hidden agenda"?

Gosh are we getting marked now as well as being admonished for not having 'reviewed all the literature'? .

Standards shore are patronising and ridiculous high on AIBU these days!

If I give the teacher an apple do you think I'll avoid having to write lines?

I must not express an opinion on a parenting forum about anything serious unless I am qualified in the field, have direct field experience, use all the right jargon and have reviewed all the literature on everything X 100 for me otherwise!!

Well journalism seems to be the main source of his published work outputs, whereas despite being an academic, he has published nothing in that field for 15 years.

As for rudeness, your D- crack was a sad little attempt indeed.

You seem very het up trying to defend him. Why?

It's par for the course TPA and it's only because BG touches on the MMR issue. The same hatchet job has been done on Richard Horton, Fiona Godlee, Brian Deer, the whole GMC practically. There's a common theme running through.