Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to be a little in love with Ben Goldacre?

999 replies

entropyglitter · 09/01/2012 12:15

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).

OP posts:
Beachcomber · 14/01/2012 13:19

Everybody surely is sad and angry when children die because they were neglected? I don't have much to say on homoeopathy - I don't know anything about it. I just don't like the general ridiculing of CAM that seems to go on so much these days, but that doesn't mean I am for children dying of cancer Hmm.

Just like I don't think that mainstream drugs are a Bad Thing because drugs like Vioxx kill thousands.

NobleGiraffe you can think what you like about Wakefield et al. I have no interest in getting you to think anything else. I just object to made up rubbish like the apparently cavalier fashion in which Wakefield did biopsies, lumbar punctures etc on children.

Let's have a little bit of respect for these children and their families and the medics who treat them. Enough respect to at least try to get their stories right.

Even if you don't have any respect for Dr Wakefield and Professors Murch and Walker Smith, and can't be arsed to get their story right.

Also making ridiculous untrue and sensationalist statements like the apparently cavalier fashion in which Wakefield did biopsies, lumbar punctures etc on children. makes one look very uniformed and a bit gullible.

Beachcomber · 14/01/2012 13:23

And thank you. I am very familiar with the GMC findings.

Indeed if you were familiar with the facts of the GMC hearing you wouldn't make silly statements like the apparently cavalier fashion in which Wakefield did biopsies, lumbar punctures etc on children.

noblegiraffe · 14/01/2012 13:25

"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 have agreed that it was unacceptable that Goldacre made this error. I admit I am surprised that it is not corrected on his website as he normally does. He doesn't make the same error in later essays on the topic, from what I can see. As he is talking about the film Hear the Silence and appears to be confirming what it says on the matter when it mentions measles in the bowel, I wonder if the drama conflated the research and he repeated the error after a viewing. Has anyone seen it?

As for trusting him, he usually gives links/references to the research he is talking about so that you can see for yourself, on his website at least. He has spoken many times of his frustration that the Guardian won't allow him to link to external websites from his online Guardian articles. I don't think he particularly wants to be taken as an authority figure and would be pleased if you read the research before agreeing with him.

noblegiraffe · 14/01/2012 13:30

Beachcomber, apologies for the imprecise language. I am appalled by the apparently cavalier fashion in which Wakefield caused biopsies, lumbar punctures etc to be performed on children.

I don't think the lack of him actually doing them himself vindicates him in any way.

noblegiraffe · 14/01/2012 13:30

Oh, and neither did the GMC.

noblegiraffe · 14/01/2012 13:31

"I don't have much to say on homoeopathy - I don't know anything about it. "

You have used it on your children, have you not?

Or am I confusing you with another poster?

Beachcomber · 14/01/2012 13:43

Oh for goodness sake.

Yes I said on this thread that I had given my children homoeopathy for the itching of chicken pox.

So yes you could say that I Have Used Homoeopathy On My Children.

Do you want to know why? It is because I live in France and homoeopathy isn't ridiculed here the way it is in Britain.

Nearly everyone I know will use it in a 'can't do any harm' for a cough or a bruise or itchy spots, sort of way.

If your kid falls down at someone's house they will probably offer you some arnica granules.

If you go to the chemist with a prescription for a child with a throat infection the chances are they will ask if you want a homoeopathy remedy for the cough.

My local chemist has a large homoeopathy counter.

noblegiraffe · 14/01/2012 13:47

Do you think that it's wrong that it's ridiculed?

That these attacks on certain CAM are unwarranted?

Beachcomber · 14/01/2012 13:48

So there you go. Are you and seeker happy with the personal information that you have about me?

Are you going to use it to snigger at my opinions or suggest I'm a crazy or a conspiracy theorist (which is the same as being crazy after all)?

Or is it all a bit irrelevant really to holding this discussion?

noblegiraffe · 14/01/2012 13:50

Boots sells homeopathy stuff over here too, btw. Homeopathy is available on the NHS which has homeopathy hospitals.

That shouldn't protect it from a critical eye.

noblegiraffe · 14/01/2012 13:54

"Are you going to use it to snigger at my opinions"

What, like you did when you said that we think homeopathy is crap because Ben Goldacre and Sense About Science told us to?

If you're going to moan about Goldacre slating CAM and homeopathy, you should at least say why you think it should be protected from this. And you say that you have used homeopathy.

But then you say you don't know anything about it. So why would you have a problem with Ben Goldacre criticising it?

Beachcomber · 14/01/2012 13:55

Ah I see you are going for the option of;

snigger at my opinions or suggest I'm a crazy or a conspiracy theorist (which is the same as being crazy after all)?

Which is a bit of a cheek considering you make out you are Very Informed on stuff like Wakefield and then spout nonsense about the whole affair.

I don't think it is within the scope of an MN thread to do a useful analysis of homoeopathy, every CAM there is going, MMR, AIDS and the potential for conflict of interest in everything that ever went on in the world.

Not whilst people wish to point score, name call and spout nonsense it isn't anyway.

Beachcomber · 14/01/2012 14:00

It is tedious this not getting what people have actually said quite right thing and then DEMANDING that they justify it.

It is a common occurrence on internet forums and IMO a boring waste of time.

Any useful or interesting discussion or respectful exchange of idea flies out the window.

So I'll say cheerio to you NobleGiraffe.

SweetLilyTea · 14/01/2012 14:02

Oh beach. Well I guess that's your colours well and truly tied to the mast now isn't it? I can see why you'd wish to discredit Ben Goldacre and others like him.

noblegiraffe · 14/01/2012 14:04

" spout nonsense"

I corrected it. You see, I never actually thought Wakefield did the procedures himself, so it was my language that was at issue (writing a chatty post on a forum means I'm not so precise as I might otherwise be) rather than my actual opinion.

I agreed with you that Goldacre made an error.

People have looked into your Sense About Science stuff and agreed that there is some interesting stuff behind it.

Not sure why you feel that people are labelling you a crazy conspiracy theorist when it is clear that they have actually been listening to what you have to say.

EndoplasmicReticulum · 14/01/2012 14:24

Beachcomber - have you read the MMR chapter in Bad Science? It's titled "The Media's MMR Hoax" It isn't an attack on Wakefield.

I don't need people to tell me to snigger at homeopathy, either - I'm perfectly capable of doing that on my own.

But - I have revised my view on Sense About Science as a result of reading this thread, and will be more aware of their agenda (whatever that might be, haven't quite worked it out yet). So this thread had not been a total waste of time.

entropygirl · 14/01/2012 14:30

Hmm at not knowing much about homeopathy....there isnt much to know. The balance of clinical trial evidence overwhelmingly shows that it does nothing above placebo.

This is a prime example of what I was talking about earlier....we dont agree with BG on the failure of homeopathy to treat anything beyond placebo because we are biased or in the pocket of big pharma, we agree because the overwhelming balance of evidence says it does nothing beyond placebo.

I dont snigger at homeopaths (it is all to tragic for that) but if I did then it wouldn't have anything to do with BG.

entropygirl · 14/01/2012 14:34

I think beach has gone. I can answer that beach has not read the MMR chapter in 'bad science' as s/he posted she had not read the book and had no intention of doing so.

Beachcomber · 14/01/2012 14:34

Yes Sweetlily, very good.

I once used homoeopathy on the recommendation of my neighbour for itchy chicken pox spots. Nothing else was working so I thought it was worth a whirl.

I also have a local chemist with a homoeopathy counter.

I am therefore quite clearly involved in a smear campaign against Goldacre and his ilk using my cunning plan of chatting to other parents on Mumsnet Hmm.

(That is when I am not busy with my anti-MMR campaigning that seeker is convinced I get up to Hmm.)

I bet Ben is crapping himself at the likes of me and my activities - not. Hmm

I guess I'll say cheerio to you too Sweetlily. I feel a parp coming on.

entropygirl · 14/01/2012 14:35

argh no parping...erm what is parping?

Beachcomber · 14/01/2012 14:38

It's this.

You go;

[helpful]

entropygirl · 14/01/2012 14:38

oh okay...that didn't hurt too much....

Beachcomber · 14/01/2012 14:46

www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-hoax/. Just an extract I know, but Goldacre still cryptically misrepresents the 1998 Lancet paper.

noblegiraffe · 14/01/2012 14:53

Crikey, you have to be really keen on making Wakefield a victim if you are going to take issue with Goldacre in an article where he sets out his aim of defending Wakefield.

SweetLilyTea · 14/01/2012 15:01

Well Beach, if you will go ranting about Andrew Wakefield, the GMC and Ben Goldacre as you have today, you will get these sorts of responses.

You've written some pretty nasty stuff about BG, all of which has been rationally argued against. What on earth do you expect?