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 · 11/01/2012 11:31

Entropygltter thanks for your detailed response.

Yet again, when I read anything about Goldacre's opinion on the Lancet paper I am led to wonder if he has actually read it. There was no reason to include controls of children who had not received MMR.

This criticism of the paper is a strawman and is either dishonest, or shows ignorance of the point of the paper. I find the latter hard to believe, so must conclude the former.

Your point d) - the paper drew no conclusions about MMR so again, I wonder why BG insists that it does.

The Lancet paper wasn't about MMR. It was about gastrointestinal disease in children with ASD. Much of what the paper touched on is now accepted science (particularly in the US where the issue is much less political). Treatments and protocols that the Lancet paper pointed to being useful for relieving suffering for this particular type of gastrointestinal disease are now endorsed by the FDA.

Unfortunately all this gets a bit lost when folks (like Goldacre) insist that the Lancet paper was about MMR in the main when it just wasn't.

lostinwales · 11/01/2012 11:34

Oh look whilst I was ranting to myself in the kitchen entropy (great name BTW) did exactly what I would do if I had any skills in debate whatsoever.

silverfrog · 11/01/2012 11:36

what a shame, lostinwales - you have never struck me as a poster who feels the need to be needlessly rude about other posters. oh well, you learn something new every day.

MuslinSuit · 11/01/2012 11:37

Marking place - I love it when otherwise intelligent posters use conspiracy theory language to back up their beliefs about the MMR jab causing autism! The poster who ran through the stages of understanding the issue has said it all really.

seeker · 11/01/2012 11:37

If you read the book you would discover that the main criticism in the Wakefield chapter ( which is only a small part of the book, incidentally) is of the way the story was covered in the papers.

Original poster
entropyglitter · 11/01/2012 11:38

I did know that BG was a member of IoP. It isnt a clique though, it's a large professional organisation. I would be indescribably astonished if every one in the IoP agreed with each other or even supported each other....it certainly isn't like that in the Institute of Physics (which I am a member of - and also called the IoP annoyingly).

I did not know what BG's father did for a living, but then I don't know what Wakefields father did for a living either....and as previously mentioned I have not found it to be at all important in any aspect of my professional life as a scientist. I would imagine he doesnt overtly disclose the information as he like me imagines that noone would care or judge his work differently according to his relations (which you famously don't get to choose).

OP posts:
Beachcomber · 11/01/2012 11:39

He isn't 'just in the same institution' as Rutter (Fombonne is also a member BTW).

He is a member of an institution which has a very clear opinion on ASD - an opinion that is scientifically very controversial.

That other members of this institution have written the most major and influential studies with regards to MMR just confounds matters.

seeker · 11/01/2012 11:41

Beachcomber, I really think you ought to read the book.

Beachcomber · 11/01/2012 11:43

The issue with BG's father is that he co-authored a study exonerating a vaccine which has been withdrawn in several countries.

Some of the Lancet 12 received this now withdrawn vaccine.

There may well be no problem with the vaccine - I am not even debating that.

I am saying that I have a problem with Goldacre influencing public opinion on a matter that he has personal and professional links to. Links which he fails to mention.

seeker · 11/01/2012 11:45

Read the book.

Beachcomber · 11/01/2012 11:46

Seeker I have read quite a few of Ben's articles and I must admit I do admire his ability to skew things just ever so slightly with a hint here and a not quite all the relevant facts there.

A very talented and clever man without a doubt.

Off to cook lunch.

seeker · 11/01/2012 11:48

"am saying that I have a problem with Goldacre influencing public opinion on a matter that he has personal and professional links to. Links which he fails to mention"

Did you ask about this whence did the web chat?

bakingaddict · 11/01/2012 11:49

I think people who believe that MMR causes autism will never back down, no matter what new research and data says.....it's not worth getting into an arguement

Andrew Wakefield was found by the GMC to be unethical and unscientific/unsound and for these reasons cannot practice medicine in the UK. I dont think this has happened to Ben Goldacre so this puts it into perspective for me.

Original poster
entropyglitter · 11/01/2012 11:50

beachcomer but that is what I just said?

In 'Bad Science':

He explicitly states that controls of this type are not expected within this type of paper.

He also states that the paper was never intended to be interpreted as a link between MMR.

He lays the blame for the business soundly at the feet of the journalists (several times).

You are calling him out on things that would be bad if he had said them, but he hasnt (at least not in the book).

I personally am more sceptical of Wakefields role in this than BG seems to be. Because I doubt in the extreme that the journos found the paper themselves.

OP posts:
thunderboltsandlightning · 11/01/2012 12:07

Um, the Institute of Psychiatry isn't a professional organisation that all psychiatrists are a member of, it's an academic school, part of Kings College, London, based within the Maudsley hospital where he worked.

www.kcl.ac.uk/iop/index.aspx

He would have had mentors and colleagues there.

You're confusing it with the Royal College of Psychiatrists entropy.

thunderboltsandlightning · 11/01/2012 12:08

I didn't know he was on a webchat seeker. Did you ask?

seeker · 11/01/2012 12:22

No, I didn't ask. Because I don't think that being a member of the same professional body as someone else means that you share their views.

And I also don't think it actually matters to your own professional life what your parents do for a living.

hackmum · 11/01/2012 12:23

Not sure I want to wade into the whole MMR thing, but I think it's worth pointing out that his next book, The Drug Pushers, is an attack on big pharma - a much harder target than alternative medicine. If he really wants to curry favour with the establishment, he's going the wrong way about it.

Original poster
entropyglitter · 11/01/2012 12:29

thunder ooops you are damn right I mixed them up. So that looks more like a kind of grouping by interest. I am a member of my academic department and my academic school but also a member of a 'research institute' that is a loose grouping of academics with interests in a certain area. I wouldn't recognize half the people in the research institute if I sat next to them on the bus.

Well anyway the point of these groups isnt to get everyone who thinks the same thing together its to stimulate discussion...which works best when people disagree....

Holding the same surface opinion as someone is not the same as thinking the same, or having arrived by the same route. Knowing someone who agrees with you isn't a conflict of interest.

OP posts:
Heleninahandcart · 11/01/2012 12:32

entropyglitter I don't have an H in my name either, which is ok as I'm not a scientist so do not have to pass the Proper Test. I will have one by marriage though.

Original poster
entropyglitter · 11/01/2012 12:35

oohhh an 'H' in law....naice!

OP posts:
Beachcomber · 11/01/2012 12:38

I wasn't on the webchat.

I agree with what thunder just said about the IoP - I have read that BG is a research fellow there but I don't know if this is true. I do know that he worked with Wessley (who is a also a controversial character) as a mentor in Maudsley.

The IoP argued for years that ASD was genetic. The argued this in the face of epidemiology which showed ASD incidence to be increasing. Members of the IoP published studies claiming that there was no increase. There are members of the IoP whose entire careers are based on ASD being accepted as being a genetic disorder.

Entropy, the trouble with Goldacre is that he will say one thing one day and something slightly different or something contradictory the next.

He implies that the lack of nonMMR controls is a flaw in the Lancet paper. The public have picked this up and run with it. This implication consequently implies that the paper was about MMR when it wasn't (and good old Ben points out that it wasn't ((whilst sort of implying that it was)))

SweetLilyTea · 11/01/2012 12:49

perfectstorm thanks for posting that link - I love it. Can't believe I've never seen it.

I suppose it was inevitable that this would turn into a MMR debate [yawn]

So Ben Goldacre or Andrew Wakefield?

It's Ben all the way for me.

SweetLilyTea · 11/01/2012 12:51

Good posts entropy - but I'm going to have to hide this now because the MMR debates on MN just make my blood boil. Shame your thread got derailed like that.

Beachcomber · 11/01/2012 13:10

Look I have stated that I have no wish for this to become an MMR debate. And I am (honestly) trying to not get into that side of things.

I have stated that as far as my opinion of Ben goes, it doesn't matter in the least what the realities are of MMR. What matters is that he presents himself as an impartial good guy who wants to help the public understand that 'there is nothing to see here folks'.

I find that dubious considering his personal and professional connections to the matter at hand (regardless of what that matter is).

That's all.

However if would appear that my presence and opinion of Ben are causing this thread to become about MMR. I don't really wish to discuss it either - I would much rather discuss Goldacre's undeclared conflicts of interest. I'll let you get back to chatting about his book because it seems that people would rather gloss over the (major) CoI issues. Which I find a bit odd but hey-ho.