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).

Ach if this is going to turn into MMR bingo there's not much point to this discussion.

I'm trying to have a grown up conversation about impartiality. The issue could be anything, it doesn't actualy matter that it is MMR.

Goldacre looks about 12 years old to me - that is reason enough to not be in love with him. So I maintain that the OP is U

Well both his dad's job and his membership of the IOP are mentioned in the first couple of paras of his Wikipedia entry. So he's not exactly secretive about them, is he?

Not surprised he smokes DH is a Dr and I've been immersed in the medic world for far to long ... Loads of them smoke, drink far too much and don't do any enough exercise.... Do what I say not what I do seems to be a common mantra
I love that BG does this as people often don't question the world around them enough because it's easier just to be spoon fed... Easier but not always best.

it is tedious when instead of trying to engage with the discussion, posters just go for derailing when they cannot answer points made.

Beach was asked why she had an issue with BG. she has answered that fully and clearly, and only the most obtuse would fail to see why she might have an issue with his claims of impartiality.

but no, cannot possibly enter into that conversation -it might mean that BG is not the god that everyone else on the thread thinks he is. couldn't possibly have those views challenged at all, could we? nope. just keep on reading the mass populist stuff, rather than actually thinking for yourselves.

You're making vaguely directed little digs with no apparent point, that have very little to do with your argument. I think. I'm not sure, as it's not clear what your argument is. You stop that first. Or make them directly, with some foundation (if you can).

Wikipedia entries aren't generally edited by the people they are about. So it's probably not Ben who is making these connections known.

"You're making vaguely directed little digs with no apparent point, that have very little to do with your argument. "

Are you talking to yourself Bruxeur? Those digs about tinfoil hats were indeed nasty and I agree that you should stop.

Enjoy the crazy. Rationality out.

still not addressing any points made, bruxeur.

although why I am surprised, I don't know. you never do. jsut make snide little digs.
oh well, carry on. I have a life to attend to.

Everybody has heard of Goldacre right?

Everybody know his opinion on MMR right?

How many people knew about the Rutter connection?

How many people knew about BG's father's influence with regards to exonerating a health product that has been withdrawn in several countries? (The very same product that BG writes with such influence about.)

And if you did know those things, I'm betting you didn't find them out from anything Goldacre has written as a preface to one of his many opinion presented as fact articles.

That's all I'm saying.

Beachcomer thank you for the information.

I think it would be fair to say that noone is ever completely unbiased or has no competing interest. That makes no difference what so ever to the validity of their claims. That can be determined dispassionately by the application of scientific method.

It makes no difference if it was in Wakefields interests to find a positive link or that it is in BG's interests to find that there isn't. We simply go and look at the evidence. I work with a lot of scientists and we get in a lot of arguments but I never once given the least thought to who their parents may or may not have been, or what their motives might be. I just say show me the evidence, tell me how you did the experiment.

If I find a flaw in their method then there is a reason to doubt their findings. If I find out their mother works in big pharma, that tells me nothing.

I totally agree that there is no reason to do a control experiment in the lancet paper and BG says the same thing in 'bad science' that it is case series and as such is not a controlled trial. What he states is that a case series, by design, cannot tell you anything about the link between MMR and autism. For that you need a whole different study type (either cohort or case controlled).

So I think that a) BG does state that the paper does not represent a case controlled study. (this is true)

b) BG states that no control group of non-MMR receiving children with autism was included. (This is true - there are other controls of different forms but the statement made by BG is accurate).

c) BG also states that the paper was never meant to be a case controlled study, it was meant to be a case series. (So I dont think you can accuse him of lambasting if for not being something it was never intended to be).

d) BG states that the his main issue with the whole affair is that a case series was used to draw conclusions about a link between MMR and autism when a case series could NEVER be sufficient to do this. He blames the media far more than wakefield for this misuse of his data.

Bruxeur if I were not a really polite sort of person, I would tell people who imply on internet forums, that I am crazy, rather than engage with actual points, to fuck off.

So it's good that I am polite isn't it .

ps. sorry it took me so long to post...I wasnt ignoring you points I was checking the primary sources (the paper and the book).

Waits to be deleted for being passively aggressively rude in my response to rather tedious posts.

So he is discredited because he is a member of the same professional institution as Michael Rutter?

Do we know what relationship he has with his father? And is his occupation relevant to his son's writing?

it took me so long that MN logged me out....man! It takes time to read papers!

Please ignore the ahem 'noise' and lets continue discussing the issue.....

No, he is being questioned seeker, because he forgets to declare possible conflicts of interest. Hardly desirable in someone who is a crusading journalist.

His father seems to be somewhat connected to his son's career at least given that he's an epidemiologist and now his son is saying he's an academic working in epidemiology, and it would also be hard to believe that he hasn't influenced his son's writing, given that they both appear to share the same point of view.

Absolutely. Rudeness is inexcusable.

Beachcomber- please could you respond to entropy's post if you,ve got time? I would be really interested.

But they aren't proper conflicts of interest, are they? Membership of the same professional body, and having anfather in the same field?

Did anyone ask him aboutbthis when he did the web chat? Or has anyone emailed him to ask about it?

They are possible conflicts of interest which need an explanation that Goldacre hasn't given so far. He didn't even publicise them.

But of course he's a member of the IoP! He's a psychiatrist!

Bruxer I think we would get on very well in RL , I'm going to have to hide this thread now as each time I try to formulate a reply to the conspiracy theorists I can feel my blood pressure going up. Good luck!

I knew a post doc who's father was a founder of a small field in physics.....the son was a chemist and was pretty desperate to steer clear of his fathers shadow. It didn't work and in the end he actually ended up disproving one aspect of his fathers research!

In general us scientists like things to move on and for old baggage to be thrown out once more data is available.....I would love it if one day my DD overturned my research (will have to wait a while...she is only 7 mo) because it would mean that she was smarter than me and in the end we all win when science improves our understanding of the universe.