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).

The lawsuit has been filed in the US because it is a Texan affair.

Texas is in the US.

[helpful]

And thank you to thunder and silverfrog for their nice comments .

Yep- the old "well, if you don't know, I'm not going to tell you" technique. Been thee before. Not rising tom it this time.

seeker, it is quite clear, if you read the thread, that many comments ahve been addressed to you personally (some of which are probably now deleted, as they were from Juicyfruits, so well done, you got away with those). most of those comments you have ignored.

carry on.

but it does you no favours, if you want to be taken seriously within a discussion.

Interesting thread beachcomber. I find the language quite emotive:
"This is going to be fun. Why? This case is NOT going to be a Kangaroo Court conducted on behalf of the Vaccine Construction like the so-called hearings in front of the British General Medical Council (BMC). This will be a REAL Court, with REAL rules, and a requirement for REAL evidence standards. Frankly, neither Brian Deer, Fiona Godlee, nor the British Medical Journal (BMJ) stand a chance in this forum. So far they controlled the battlefield. Now they stand in a minefield, and Andy Wakefield has the minefield actuator button in his hand."

So it's saying that everything up to now has been corrupt?

What's the BMC? Never heard of that one! Are they conflating the BMJ and the GMC as one and the same?

Out of interest, is Fiona Godlee ignorant, stupid or corrupt?

Right, so Ben Goldacre in his 2003 article "Never Mind the facts"

says

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

This is incorrect, because the 1998 paper doesn't mention traces of measles virus, that refers to a later Wakefield paper.

So we've extrapolated from that timing error that everything BG has to write on the subject is also incorrect? Yes?

That's right endoplasmic

BG is both corrupt and ignorant. How else could he think what he does?

But he's in good company with the editor of The Lancet, the editor of the British Medical Journal, Dr. Paul Offit (a paediatric immunologist), many members of the GMC (those who decided to strike Wakefield off at his hearing) and, of course, Brian Deer.

I think the Bolen website may not be unbiased. Just my opinion on a quick skim-read.

Don't think there were many comments addressed to me personally that i missed. JF have done- she did scattergun a bit. But I don't think she's someone you should pray in aid!

I've also been having at look at the BOlen website.

I thought this was an interesting snippet from the same author of the article beach linked to:
"I'll be blunt. Pediatricians, these days, are con-men - only here to push more-and-more dangerous, useless(?), vaccines on an unsuspecting public. They have absolutely no other function. They are, in fact, a whole section of US medicine that we could well do without. It didn't used to be that way - but it is now."

At least now we know a bit more about the sources of Beach's information.

Wow- thŵt Bolen guy's a real charmer, isn't he? Obviously a website of record!

Whatever you think of the Bolen website, the fact is he quotes from, and links to official writings from the actual lawsuit.

I suspect the B of BMC is a typo and since it comes in brackets just after the words 'General Medical Council' I imagine he means the General Medical Council.

[helpful]

Is Fiona Godlee corrupt Beach?

At least now we know a bit more about the sources of Beach's information

Um, my source is the official documents from the lawsuit.

They happen to be available on this website.

You see I knew the lawsuit had been filed but I wanted to read the actual documents myself. So, you know what I did? I used this search engine called 'Google' and put some relevant search words into it. And the page I linked to came up in the results.

And sure enough, there were links to official documents (these are called primary sources BTW).

I was pleased because I always try to read the primary sources when I can.

I think this 'Google' is dead good for finding primary sources.

Beach, helpful hint: Stop linking to shit websites. If you read the primary sources why not link to them instead?

Exactly NG. Why the assumption that we need someone (clearly extremely biased) to summarise them for us?

I prefer this summary of the lawsuit, if we're going to put out other people's summaries:
scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/01/legal_thuggery_antivaccine_edition_andre.php

I don't know what the deal is with Fiona Godlee.

I was very surprised that she published an article in the BMJ that made it clear that some journo had got his hands on children's confidential medical records. I was also surprised that she allowed the article to go ahead sharing actual details from the children's medical histories (some of which he got wrong - hence in part the lawsuit). And she wrote an editorial on it!

I mean you would expect the editor in chief of the BMJ to frown on such massive breaches of confidence. I imagine she knows that in the UK everyone has a right to having their medical records kept confidential and not used to write press articles without their permission.

I would expect her to want to know how the journo got hold of the records.

The parents of the children have clearly stated that they did not give permission for their children's confidential records to be used in this way. They are very angry.

So Fiona Godlee doesn't know her job then? Presumably either corrupt or stupid. I'm sure you have an opinion which one.

What about Richard Horton, corrupt or stupid?

Andrew Wakefield was author of his own downfall, he didn't need BG to bring him down. I don't agree with your posts at all Beach.

The GMC found him guilty of serious professional misconduct (30 counts), and yes, the invasive procedures used on the children were a big part in him being struck off. (Dr Murch was not struck off essentially because he stopped these procedures and did not think them necessary).

Perhaps the most poignant thing about this whole thread is that people have bleated on and on about BG not being independent, having undisclosed COI's etc (all of which is nonsense) and are sticking up Wakefield. The same Wakefield who was paid by solicitors of parents wanting to sue for vaccine damage, parents who want a link established between was a link between MMR and autism.

That's one big wowser of a COI and one that the Wakefield supporters won't ever acknowledge. He should have disclosed this to the Lancet prior to publishing, and the Lancet say that had they known this COI he wouldn't have even been published in the first place. His case series (or whatever we want to call it) should never really have seen the light of day.

(Good to see that you've moved on from your "PARP" post yesterday Beach)

But the GMC is all corrupt SLT they're in the pay of big pharma and HAD to strike Wakefield off.

Wakefield did disclose, SWT. there is a paper trail of evidence.

Oh please, not David Gorski AKA Orac. We've already had a link to Deer do I really have to read Gorski's witterings?

Goldacre is a modest humble excellent fact checker of a fellow compared to Gorski.

Oh come on Silverfrog, it's cited by the Lancet as the reason for withdrawing his paper, before the GMC struck him off.

Elaine, yes I've read that many times here!