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).

I don't care about MMR, but I can spot a biased self-aggrandiser when I see one.

Juicy, the rudeness of whoever said they would laugh at taking a course of mine. Which was both rude and odd since they don't know me or my course. I doubt they'd get in though.

It was incredibly rude TPA.

Isn't it interesting that TPA feels that he can insult us, but gets very upset when he gets the insults handed back?

That sort of double standard seems familiar somehow.....

Actually I think people are pissed of with Goldacre about mobile phones and electromagnetic hypersensitivity too.

www.badscience.net/2007/11/bbc-editorial-complaints-unit-debags-the-panorama-wifi-scare/

Another subject he and the IoP have in common.

I don't think it is very fair to make out that this is all about MMR. It isn't, it is about Goldacre and what it means to be an independent journalist.

Do I get extra marks for trying really hard to keep on topic?

I think I deserve them!

Theres a difference between insulting someones ability to argue their point on a thread and insulting their professional capacity which they know nothing about.

But then this entire thread seems to be insulting the professional capacity of people you know nothing about. It must be so tiring to imagine conspiracies everywhere, with everyone hiding everything and only a few lone keyboard warriors to save the day and expose the nasty truth!

Anyway, off to work, to teach some critical thinking to those with some potential for it. It's a difficult skill, so do keep trying won't you?

The Guardian are to blame here too of course. They should have been upfront about who he is and what his professional background and connections are.

Oh that's interesting, one sort of insult is OK but another isn't? I didn't realise there was a hierarchy of acceptability when it came to being insulting.

That's a very stupid set of double standards you've got going there TPA.

I think it's actually about BG debunking bad science and theories that some people hold close to their hearts actually.

Like homeopathy, like natural medicine, the funny thing is a lot of his crtics have some financial gain by smearing him. For example the homeopathy practitioners making money peddling their wares. They don't like what Ben writes.

And of course the anti-vaxxers hate him because, well, in believes in vaccination.

I thought the topic was whether it was reasonable to love BG because he wrote a book showing how idiotic Gillian McKeith is.

To which, OP, YABU, because any idiot can do that; YA less U if its for trying to reveal more generally 'bad science' so that people can spot it, whether its being perpetrated by big pharma, homeopaths, health officials or whoever.

Did I say he didn't? I haven't mentioned AW.

Why are you so desperately holding on to that idea SweetLily.

For myself I'm not an anti-vaxxer, I think homeopathy is utterly ridiculous, and Gillian McKeith talked nonsense when it came to science on her TV programme.

The criticisms against Goldacre still stand.

Not double standards, just standards.

I'm not being at all selective in applying my critical thinking. I do notice you didn't bother to answer my questions on this supposed "hidden agenda". What is it and how is it hidden?

Won't answer or can't answer?

I mean, it's just one of the possible axes to grind isn't it? I didn't say 'you have to be an anti-vaxxer to hate Ben Goldacre" did I?