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'm more than willing to consider that SAS is not a pharma/agribusiness lobby if anybody has any info which shows that view to be nonsense.

Did you read noble giraffe's post about libel reform?

I don't know anything about SAS btw - but can you prove a link between SAS and Ben, other than 'worked with Simon Wassell'?

Every one of JuicyFruit's posts have been deleted!

Ooh, I've got a link. I went to see the Uncaged Monkeys tour and Ben Goldacre gave a talk as well as Simon Singh. Simon Singh is on the Sense About Science Board of Trustees. They shared a stage

Simon Singh is, of course, heavily in favour of libel reform.

She was a previously banned poster.

Are we allowed to ask who? (Initials maybe?)
I saw she'd only appeared yesterday, but assumed she was a namechnger (and I thought I knew who she was, there aren't that many people fighting that particular corner on here)

Here's a letter from Ben Goldacre and Simon Singh on the Sense About Science website about the libel reform campaign.

It mentions Mumsnet helping out with the campaign. Is Mumsnet now a pawn of Big Pharma?

'Is Mumsnet now a pawn of Big Pharma?'

Well, noblegiraffe, you're a member of MN, you said above you've worked on clinical trials, and you've donated to SAS. I think that's pretty much QED, no?

And now we're all tainted by association. Damn your very eyes!

Ooh yes, I remember the Simon Singh case - a travesty. I would fully support those libel reforms.

Boulevard

Mumsnet is in the pocket of Big Pharma, Ben Goldacre, the Lizards and Prince Philip.

Juicy Fruit knew the truth ans so was banned.

I'm off to NetHuns...

Formerly known as blueberties,gooseberrybushes and a few other names before that

Lol ssk

I was going to ask what the problem is with Sense about Science. It's hardly surprising that BG shares their views, because they're quite keen on evidence-based research and teaching people how to interpret it, too.

Also not really surprising that many organisations disagree with Wakefield. Do any medical organisations agree with him? Does this mean that no doctor could ever write "impartially" about MMR?

I'm looking forward to reading BG's next book.

That gaiahealth website is, umm, interesting.

'We are a charitable trust that equips people to make sense of science and evidence on issues that matter to society'.

Bunch of troublemakers, obviously.

Boulevard you've all posted on a thread with me and therefore you can never do any research into anything ever without that conflict of interest hanging over you!

I'm more than willing to consider that SAS is not a pharma/agribusiness lobby if anybody has any info which shows that view to be nonsense

And I'll consider whether SAS is a pharma/agribusiness lobby if anyone has any info which shows this view to be correct - I've not seen any.

Didn't realise you could be banned for being stupid! Can't decide whether to regard this as an opportunity or a threat.

Ok, I've had a sniggerworthy look around the Gaia Therapy website and I found this fascinating article complaining about the libel laws. It says 'However, agribusiness's financial might is being used to squelch every sort of protest.'

Agribusiness is clearly not in favour of libel law reform. The author of this Gaia article (who also wrote the Sense About Science one) would certainly approve of Sense About Science's campaign.

But how would they reconcile it with their belief that Sense About Science is an agribusiness lobby?

I started reading the gaia health website, but I got a bit confused as to why they were criticising the author of a report into GM crops for explaining the genetic code in a pretty similar way to me when I cover it at GCSE. Perhaps I am in the pay of big pharma?

"Coming back to the Matthias Rath thing - the HIV/AIDS situation in Africa does appear to be complicated and not without contoversy. I don't know a lot about it..."

Yes quite, it seems apparent that you do not. There really is no controversy about the link between HIV and AIDs. You'll be doing a passable impression of wilful ignorance if you think otherwise.

I have had a soft spot for BG since reading Bad Science.

I don't think he ever claimed to be an MMR expert (it was a long time ago I read it so my recall might not be right), his chapter about the MMR/Wakefield case was about bad reporting of science by the press. The whole point of the book is that he wants people to think for themselves instead of just following blindly what he, or any other journalist/researcher, tells them to think.