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).

Yes, bit disappointing of the Guardian.

I don't think it is right that Ben got a journo award (and a wad of cash) for writing on the subject of a major medical controversy, and still failed to tell anyone that he doesn't adhere to basic journalistic standards.

Seems a bit unfair on the other journalists who do uphold standards.

Makes him seem a bit of a snakeoil salesman really.

I don't think we have discussed any potential 'hidden agenda' had we?

I thought we were talking about a basic level of journalistic independence.

There may well be no agenda. I certainly hope there isn't because then I would have to boycott the Guardian.

Thats not what a double standard is. Do you need a dictionary? I'll help you out:
"Double Standard: A rule or principle that is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups."

I didn't state that I had a rule or principle that all insults are bad and then insult one group or person. That would be a double standard. I proferred the opinion that one person was rude to me on a certain level, and then openly agreed that I had insulted someone for a different reason. Not a double standard at all.

First rule of critical thinking: understand your definitions.

Don't think so Juicy. But enjoy.

Beachcomber: I don't think we have discussed any potential 'hidden agenda' had we?
JuicyFruits stated more than once that Goldacre has an agenda that has not been revealed, that he refused to reveal, in her opinion. Is that not what a hidden agenda is?

Loving your work with the sarky sneery teacher stuff Android .

Very good value.

I'm the smirking pupil at the back.

Double standards don't rest on your own definitions of what's acceptable. Thats' the point of them. People with double standards always rationalise having them, as you're doing here.

Fact is being insulting is unacceptable full stop. So if you don't like having rudeness returned, don't be insulting in the first place. And don't get upset when someone is rude back to you after you've been rude to them, because that's just hypocritical.

For 'set of biases, interests and connections' I read 'colleagues, peers and member of the IoP'.

He pushes 'science' no more no less. That's why the quacks hate him.

Please explain "selective science"

No, you're not following. I'm not rationalising a double standard that I don't have, I'm showing you that I don't have one. You might have a standard that interprets my actions or words in a certain way...in your set of principles it might be a double standard, however in mine it was not. And the accusation was that I personally held an odd set of double standards. Not so. Standards and principles are not objective, they are personal and vary subjectively.

I can see how you're confused, once you bring the issue of perspective into it it gets more complicated, but you do need to grasp the basics.

No, Juicy. It's the quacks that do that.

He argues for evidence-based science, science that changes it mind when new evidence comes along.

He's not a member of the IOP, he was employed by them. Nobody is a member of the IOP, it's a research institution, not a professional body.

Psychiatrists' professional body is the Royal College of Psychiatrists and also the BMA.

Beachcomber: Loving your work with the sarky sneery teacher stuff Android .

Why thank you! I do try.

I can't help but wonder why Goldacre never corrected this rather ginormous piece of misinformation from his Association of British Science Writers award winning article Never Mind the Facts;

in 1998, he (Wakefield) published a paper showing that he had found traces of the measles virus in the guts of 12 children with autism.

He should have had his arse kicked back to Higher English for this total misreading of the report, alone.

I bet the other journos are pissed off - the man can't get his facts right, he sneers at others for not getting their's right, he flouts basic journalistic standards and he still manages to nab a serious award and a wad of pharma cash.

Maybe they were so busy laughing at the irony of the title of the article that they let him off?

Actually, if you look a little closer you'll see that his fellowship was through the National Institute for Health Research. They were the ones who paid his salary.

It's all a bit bonkers though. At any university, academics may have the same or opposing views. The university itself doesn't hold any views, only the academics in it. The IoP is part of Kings College, it's an academic institution. There is no CoI. Anyone who's worked in academia or research knows that and has been reflected in opinions in this thread.

It's the basics that seem to have got lost in your sophistry TPA.

You insulted us which at the time you apparently thought was a reasonable thing to do (or you wouldn't have done it), however when I made a crack back at you (true enough, mind you, I would laugh at the idea of being in a classroom where you were the teacher) you got upset. Hypocrisy, double standards call it what you will, you've suffered from it.

Please do elaborate beach, BG's award was also due to corruption? So not only is BG corrupt but the judges of the award as well