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).

My work fits loosely into the category of synthetic biology. We seem to have spent the last few years bricking it that syn bio will go the way of GM....it is the sort of story that scientists tell their kids if they want them to grow up understanding why public engagement is worthwhile.

I don't know about the values being Marxist really.

I think I agree with Monbiot that Living Marxism was a bit of a misnomer for the organisation (he talks about this in the Lobbywatch interview).

Thanks for clarifying Beach. It's just that this thread has contained a lot of smears again BG's name, which is not really fair. I don't ever mind threads going off on a tangent, but somehow when his name is in the thread title, it can seem like people are holding his name up as some sort of 'figurehead' of 'everything that's wrong' in big pharma and science in general. Which isn't fair - and the way that a lot of smear campaigns work.

Actually, a fair few of the smears disappeared with JF's posts. But not all of them.

testing my non-xmas name...

woot

Some stuff on the politics of Living Marxism.

With a thought provoking snippet about libel laws.

Wow- our very own Dr Frankenstein!

heh heh....A colleague of mine got called up for TV interview etc. when the craig venter synthia thing hit the papers...was all very exciting! (the TV thing that is, not synthia - thats just odd and slightly pointless IMO).

"I don't know about the values being Marxist really. "

I agree with the assessment of them being libertarians. If all these people share the same ideology, then it is instructive to look at the Institute of Ideas' Pledges for Progress in the 2010 elections.

Of particular note are:
"Repeal the UK's libel laws, in the interests of free speech, no ifs, no buts.

Build new nuclear power stations across the country in the interests of ensuring we have more than sufficient energy to power a new round of economic growth.

Reduce the onerous regulation of new scientific and technological developments such as GM technology and biomedicine in the interests of increasing R&D and encouraging innovation.

Direct state funding of health to biomedical research into cures, the latest drugs and equipment, rather than punitive campaigns to change individual behaviour, in the interests of public health and good cheer."

Now in a certain light that could look like they are lobbyists for Big Pharma, because they are interested in the work that Big Pharma does, but I don't think that they are necessarily shills. I think they have their own agenda which sometimes chimes with that of industry - the libel laws being a case where they obviously don't. I notice that their direct funding from pharma companies seems to have dropped over the years too.

So if these people founded Sense About Science it is probably safe to say that Sense About Sense probably has worked with these aims in mind too, and it certainly fits with stuff on their website. Although as I said previously, the organisation has grown, got new members on board so it is probably now watered down.

Beachcomber, going back to Goldacre and

"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 looked into this because I remembered Wakefield's measles virus in the gut thing, and it definitely isn't in the 1998 paper, which confused me.

However, Wakefield did do research which found traces of the measles virus in the gut of children with autism.

So Goldacre didn't misread the 1998 paper (which would have been odd) but he did get two papers confused, the 1998 one and the 2002 one, and then conflated the two in his article. I agree that this is not the sort of error Goldacre should be making.

You are probably right that they are not exactly a straightforward pharma lobby, as such, in the way, say, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America are.

They obviously have values of a 'libertarian' type which sit nicely alongside those of big corporations. Which is no doubt why pharma bothers to give them any cash.

Certainly their views and the information they give out, suit pharma, the GM foods corporations, the nuclear power companies, the petrochemical industries, etc.

It seems to be a set up that allows everybody to pursue their agenda.

The organisation may well be watered down due to the inclusion of mainstream people who don't share their agenda. But equally, this could be seen as a co-opting of the mainstream which legitimises the organisation and gives it a mainstream veneer of having the public interest at heart.

I think the whole set up is very very odd and I don't like that they have such a big influence of the British press and media in general.

I don't want journalists who inform the public about matters such as GM foods, and the activities of pharma, to be getting their information from this source. I equally don't want them influencing public opinion on issues like vaccine safety and CAM.

I was just reading the Big Pharma section of the Bad Science website. I think it is safe to say that Ben Goldacre is not a Big Pharma lobbyist.

Interestingly, I was reading this article about poor drugs research and noticed this bit

"To understand why this matters, finally, we need to go through one more study (written by people I work with, though I don?t know if that?s transparency or a boast)."

Ben Goldacre clarifying that a paper he linked to is written by people he works with. Isn't that the sort of thing that he was accused of not doing?

NobleGiraffe if what you say about Goldacre is correct, don't you think that is an unforgivable error for Ben Impartial There To Inform The Public On Tricky Science Stuff Goldacre to make??

Wakefield has published more than 100 papers - dozens of them concerned with ASD.

If Goldacre cannot even get it right which one of these papers had led to one of the biggest medical controversies of certainly my lifetime, why should I trust him to have a clue what he is on about? (I'm only talking about this issue, I'm not suggesting he gets in wrong all the time about everything.)

Goldacre has done Wakefield a huge injustice and the public a great disservice. The Wakefield controversy is very very complicated. There are lots of factors and details that it is important to understand and get right if one even wants to have a hope of understanding what went on.

I know people who think (due to Goldacre's writing) that Wakefield did invasive tests looking for measles in the guts of children, and that these tests were unethical and unjustified - and they think that is was the Lancet paper was about and condemn it on that basis. They think the Lancet paper was unethical research looking to prove an unfounded theory, they think that Wakefield just came up with this measles theory out of nowhere and grabbed some autistic kids and started doing experimental research on them. They think this because Goldacre can't get the order of the Royal Free work correct.

And isn't Goldacre the one who is always saying that it is important to be informed of facts and examine the science??

Sorry but the man is a joke.

Whether you think Wakefield is right aside, wouldn't you rather be presented with the facts of how things actually happened in order to come to your own conclusions?

The MMR controversy is immensely complicated. Autism is immensely complicated. I would rather that jokers like Goldacre stayed out of it and didn't write opinionated pieces on the subjects if they can't even remember which particular bit of science, in a complicated puzzle, they are ridiculing and encouraging the public to ridicule.

Goldacre does exactly what he accuses everyone else of doing - he writes in an opinionated fashion on issues he isn't nearly as well informed about as he would like to think.

This is irresponsible and dishonest journalism. Goldacre knows that he screwed up in this article (and others about MMR) because the parents of the Lancet 12 have told him.

Does he retract the article, correct his mistake and hand back the award he won for an article where he couldn't get his facts right?

Does he hell. (He 'declares' his award on his website in the interests of disclosure - good old Ben what an all round prince of a journalist he is eh?).

"I equally don't want them influencing public opinion on issues like vaccine safety and CAM."

Out of interest, would you rather public opinion be influenced by scare-mongers and snake-oil salesmen?

Or by people who can't formulate logical arguments, like the Gaia Therapy website woman talking about homeopathy?

I don't think Goldacre is a pharma lobbyist either.

I don't think he is as independent as he makes out to be, but I don't think he is a lobbyist.

I think he is an arrogant twit who is being used by pharma lobbies (and organisations such as Sense About Science) to influence public opinion on certain issues.

Him and about 90% of the British media it would seem.

(Did you see the way he went after Melanie Phillips when she published her 'hang on a minute this Wakefield thing seems a bit complicated and the facts a bit tricky to get right' articles? In the Daily Mail of all papers too! It's a sad day when Guardian journalists are writing misinformed nonsense on important issues, and it is the Daily Mail that is pointing out that this science lark is actually quite tricky.)

"I know people who think (due to Goldacre's writing) that Wakefield did invasive tests looking for measles in the guts of children, and that these tests were unethical and unjustified"

I think that people think Wakefield did invasive tests on children which were unethical and unjustified because this is one of the reasons the GMC struck him off.

Having read the findings of the GMC hearing, and having worked in clinical trials, I know the incredibly strict procedures we had to adhere to, the sheer amount of paperwork that had to be filled out, the ethical framework we had to follow (GCP) and I am appalled at the apparently cavalier fashion in which Wakefield did biopsies, lumbar punctures etc on children. That it wasn't clear which protocol he was working on when he did this to show ethical approval, that instead of a clear paper trail of evidence, there were emails and letters here and there. Utterly shameful.

That Wakefield didn't give a shit about ethical protocol is clear from the video where he laughs about taking blood samples from children at a party.

Whatever you think about Goldacre's error in his article, you can't just blame him for people's poor opinion of Wakefield.

Ah don't be cheap NobleGiraffe.

I linked to the article on that website (which I have never visited before) because I was in a hurry and was looking for something that went into the SAS network.

I knew you would all snigger at the site because you all snigger at homoeopathy (just like Ben and SAS tell you to).

But it would appear that what is presented there is pretty well on the money according to Montbiot, the profiles on Wikipedia and the actual websites on these organisations themselves. I mean are you disputing that Tracy Brown is director of SAS and Fitzpatrick of Spiked is a Trustee? And that the Fox sisters are involved in this bizarre network?

You snigger at whatshername from the homoeopathy site but not at Ben Cannot Get My Very Important Facts In An National Newspaper Article Right Goldacre?

Is nobody interested in BG's writings on anything but Wakefield? I don't think anyone except the most hardline conspiracy theorists still think Wakefield was not..misguided..at the least. BG is mostly concerned with the way the press dealt with the controversy - he is interesting and insightful on this regardless of the subject. But that really is only one chapter in the book - there's loads of other stuff in there!

"because you all snigger at homoeopathy (just like Ben and SAS tell you to)"

I was sniggering at the Gaia therapy woman because on the one hand she points to the many studies showing the benefits of homeopathy (snort) and on the other hand criticises people for pointing out that trials show homeopathy doesn't show any benefit because homeopathy 'does not claim to work on the same basis as pharmaceutical drugs, so that it?s absurd to try to force it into the same mold for testing.' Which is it then? You can't have your cake and eat it, Mrs Gaia.

And this in an article which refers to the neutrino faster than light experiment (which is widely expected to be down to an error) as a suggestion that science is wrong on this therefore hurrah for homeopathy.

And I'm pretty sure I thought homeopathy was shit before I ever came across Ben Goldacre.

Oh I'm not just blaming Goldacre - I'm blaming a whole bunch of people.

He has played a significant role in influencing public opinion though.

I am appalled at the apparently cavalier fashion in which Wakefield did biopsies, lumbar punctures etc on children.

So would I be appalled if that was what happened.

But It Wasn't.

Wakefield didn't perform any of these procedures - because he was not a clinician at the Royal Free. They were performed and prescribed by Professor Walker Smith (or by members of his clinical team) - the most eminent and experienced paediatric gastroenterologist in the UK, if not Europe.

Which is exactly the sort of thing I mean about it being important to dig a bit and get facts straight.

This ridiculous notion of Wakefield the lone mad unethical experimenter on children is so silly I can't believe people swallow it. They seem to forget that there was a whole team of clinicians, lab staff, ethical committees, GPs, researchers, admin staff, nursing staff, hospital funding staff and parents involved.

Do we have to go there though? I don't have the stomach for another 'evil Wakefield' sort of discussion. I might if I thought we would get above tabloid level, but it is clear that we won't from what you have just posted.

Oh here we go - you are a hardline conspiracy theorist unless you think Wakefield was a nut.

Seeker that is the second time you have personally attacked me for my opinions on this thread.

I'm still waiting for an apology from the first. (I notice that you completely ignored my post to you - one in which I asked you a direct question about whether you were insulting me or not. You didn't even have the balls or the courtesy to admit that you were.)

""because you all snigger at homoeopathy (just like Ben and SAS tell you to)"

I snigger at homeopathy because it's funny, not because anyone told me to!

Actually I don't just snigger. Sometimes I rant, and sometimes I cry. It all depends whether it's someone with money to burn and a vague feeling of unease who's cured, or some poor person who refuses "chemicals" to cure their cancer and dies before their time because for some reason the water forgot how to cure them

"Wakefield didn't perform any of these procedures "

You're right, of course. But he was a Responsible Consultant and therefore did not have to do them himself to be responsible for them. It was his responsibility to ensure that his project had proper ethical approval and followed the guidelines for ethical conduct. And while some of the other people mentioned are not absolved of responsibility, that does not mean that Wakefield is off the hook.

As the GMC panel said 'The Panel is satisfied that by signing the forms you ordered the investigations; it does not accept your explanation that your role was purely administrative. '

The GMC findings are here. It also gives a breakdown of why the Lancet paper was a dishonest representation of the research.

"or some poor person who refuses "chemicals" to cure their cancer and dies before their time"

Or a poor child who dies suffering and in pain because their parents stick to homeopathy over conventional medicine.

It's the cases where children suffer that make me the most angry.