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).

Paronoid I meant I was laughing at you, not with you BTW.

Would hate there to be any misunderstanding.

Right, this will be my last word on the subject because I have better things to do than argue with snarky people on t'internet.

Ben Goldacre argues for science, evidenced based scientific research. He has no medicine to peddle, he has no hidden agenda. He's not trying to sell an alternative cure for Aids while flaming that Matthias person. He is trying to stop people being conned by charlatans peddling multi-vitamins as life-saving drugs.

He is trying to stop people like Gillian McKeith spouting utter rubbish about green leaves/ photosynthesising chloroplasts in your gut - fake science.

He is trying to teach school children and adults to value evidence based, peer reviewed science rather than quackery involving 'water having a memory'.

And for that, he get constantly smeared.

Oh I'm not claiming the award system or the judges are corrupt.

Just not very observant it would appear.

Giving a science writing award for an article that had a huge big clanger of a total misreading/misrepresentation of a short case report in it, isn't very good in my book.

Specially when the thrust of the article was about other folks not getting their facts right.

It is sort of funny though.

120,000 views on that youtube clip - not one single dislike :)

Yet.

Aaah SweetLily when you put it that way you almost have me changing my mind from 'the man is a slippery piece of work' to 'what a prince!'.

"Oh Paranoid, yes you have a double standard. That you can't see it undermines your ability to teach critical thinking."

I can see where you think I have one, and where you have failed to understand the difference. It undermines your ability to learn. My ability to teach is just fine. And validated externally by experts. Thanks for your concern though.

"slippery piece of work" Hmmmmmm. From an anti MMR campaigner that's quite a statement!

"nobody really knows what epidemiology is"

Right, Ben.

and the context of that quote is? Its meaningless as it stands.

Nothing is very clear from this thread. And the fact that you think you can determine anything about someone you have never met, spoken to, or know anything about, let alone how and what they think, from a few text only comments on the internet that you haven't actually paid attention to anyway...well, I don't really know where to start with whats wrong with your assumptions.

Think I'll hide the thread now, the repetitive tedium and unwillingness to listen is starting to give me a headache.

"And the fact that you think you can determine anything about someone you have never met, spoken to, or know anything about, let alone how and what they think, from a few text only comments on the internet that you haven't actually paid attention to anyway"

I agree. Telling people they'd get D- in your class based on a few comments that you disagreed with on the internet, was completely ridiculous. :)

I've been on threads like this before.

It goes "Accusation" You can't make accusations without backing them up" "Accusation" "Where's your evidence?" " Well, if you can't see that I'm right then that proves you guilty as charged"

And all the time the main point of the thread is being lost in the cloud of words.
Ben Goldacre is dangerous to the anti rationalists. That's why he is being attacked personally. As I said, there's a website where he is accused of being a holocaust denier.

Seeker are you calling me an 'antiMMR campaigner'?

And implying that that makes me a slippery piece of work?

I already said on this thread (in polite response to your request) that I have an interest in vaccines because my child doesn't get on very well with them.

That doesn't make me an 'antiMMR campaigner' (whatever that might be).

It makes me a parent willing to explain why I have a personal interest in a subject - I even specified that that interest is about my child's health issues.

For you to take this information to score points and personally attack me, is pretty low down behaviour.

I'm not too sure whether to report you or leave your nasty post to stand.

I'm sorry if you don't like hearing criticisms of Ben Goldacre. I don't think the subject is worth getting nasty about though.

I don't deplore rudeness. This is your problem, you are starting from an incorrect assumption. I'm quite comfortable with rudeness in fact. If you check, I said "ignoring the rudeness, blah de blah".

Please don't tell me what I believe. You are yet again wrong.

It isn't complicated, you are right. So why are you finding it so difficult?

And you know what?

When I politely, and in good faith, answered your request that we explain ourselves to you, I did it whilst having a little bet with myself about whether you (or another poster) would lower their posting to nasty point scoring and personal attack, using my good natured and honest reply.

You didn't disappoint. I just won a fiver.

JF, do you think that there is a link between MMR and autism?

If so, why do you think that more than two decades of research has failed to find credible evidence for this link?

Nicely dodged, JF. It seems rather relevant to post your answer on this thread, especially given that you have spent plenty of time discussing the topic on here. You could just answer the first question if you don't want to write an essay.