to buy all of my female relatives copies of "Bad Science" for Christmas?

[AvrilH]

I am sick and tired of them wittering on about the importance of "superfood", omega 3, manuka honey, homeopathy and whatever nonsense is being spouted by charlatans like Gillian McKeith.

So I am pondering Ben Goldacre's book (which I have not read myself) as an antidote. And out of curiosity as to how they take it... From reading his column I am assuming that they might at least learn what evidence means. The worst that can happen is that it will be like when they buy me books by self-styled experts and it will be passed on unread to a charity shop.

AIBU?

UQD I think your post of 18.50 shows you have wayyyyyy too much faith in the pharmaceuticals industry tbh

sorry what my last post should say is repercussions discovered once testing has been complete and the drug unleashed on the world. The drug then later being withdrawn

Errors in conventional treatment kill hundreds of thousands of people every years. Poorly tested drugs kill more, and far from monitoring, the manufacturers fight tooth and nail against the suggestion that the drug is at fault.

Issues with R and D start with the fact that so little of the pharmaceutical industry's income is spent on R and D, and so much on marketing and profits.

Would somebody mind telling me what his take on MMR is? Sorry-I don't know anything about this book but am now about to order it!

Well, there are plenty of unsafe alternative therapies that remain on the market and nobody can do much about it.

And nobody on this thread, or Goldacre, claims that pharmaceutical companies are the good guys. They are as guilty of bad science as anyone else. They cherry pick data to try and make a drug look more effective than it is, they "lose" unsuccessful trials or those showing a bad side effect down the back of filing cabinets (as happened with Vioxx) and so forth.

Bad science is bad science. Cold fusion was bad science for instance.

I actually spent 18 months doing a science diploma with the Open University because of Goldacre's influence: I wanted to have a reasonable grounding in the basic principles and I'd stopped studying science at GCSE.

Remember SARS?

Death rates were highest in the countries and regions with the best clinical support.

On MMR: Ben Goldacre's blog for a time told parents who believed their child had been damaged by MMR not to bother posting, as their views were not welcome.

That should give you a pretty good idea of his prejudice.

Nobody has actually used the phrase "good guys" but there is a degree of trust which is truly impressive considering the evidence.

It's very hard to do anything about an unsafe drug too. Extremely hard. Victims of Vioxx in the UK will receive no compensation.

Look at MMR.

Continued monitoring? My arse. At the first suggestion of a problem the shutters went up. No attempt to examine the twelve cases of Wakefield's study. No interest, no further research. The original research by pharmaceuticals into safety condemned as inadequate. One manufacturer went to far as sending personal threatening letters to the parents involved in the court case warning them individually that they could lose their homes if they pursued their claim.

MMRsceptic, Wakefield's findings were examined. Over and over again. None could be replicated.

As for the rest, well, you are hijacking the thread and I know from your name and your other posts that there is little point continuing.

It is your choice to vaccinate or not. You do not need to justify the choice you made.

Trellis, don't hijack my point.

This isn't about MMR, so I don't know why you've talked about Wakefield's findings being valid or not.

I am using it as an example of failure of testing before the market and failure of monitoring after the market.

There's quite a lot in the other posts actually, about Vioxx, about R and D spending, about SARS death rates.

Why is there little point? Did you run out of responses? Perhaps you only like to discuss things with people who agree with you?

That must make life ever so easy.

Does the book talk about how articles/books need to be read looking at which company paid for the PR and what their motives are, whether this is a product from the modern world or something alternative? This would be the most useful thing to remain aware of IMO. It goes into all our walks of life. It's just the same when you hear a DJ on the radio talk about the great new band they've discovered, I always ask myself, who is paying for the PR...

'Dangerous at best re Vax? or voice of reason amongst the conspiracy theorists and amauteur armchair microbiologists...you decide' inice tio see empathy for thsoe of us who watched a child regress

Good-oh

I don't give a flying fig what you beleive, but empathy is a kind thing when someone has been through such a thing

bad science is very good,recommended for twaddle believers everywhere

like homoeopathy hahaha memory of water. eh, aye that's right dumbass

twaddle believers

those who believe pharmaceutical companies act in good faith

now there's a fantasy

First post!!!!!!

Buy it, its fab and helped me decide to vaccinate my boys!!!!!

Anti science types open your mind and at least read it. Borrow it from the library.

Then post on Ben's website.

ps you've already said dumbass so i'll call you ..hmm.. a thicko sm?

yep twaddle believers who think holford et al are credible

MMR sceptic. Have you read it?

who is anti-science on here??

wow, never expected so many replies

"By hulahoopyfingers on Sat 19-Sep-09 17:38:46
TBH I would think you need a good science book if you think superfoods should be lumped in with homeopathy and crystal healing "

care to reccomend an example of what you imagine to be a good science book

Holford is hooey.

Of course no testing is perfect. How can it be? But I'd rather use a drug which had been through proven, stringent clinical trials than some random gubbins which had not.

And even if the random gubbins turned out to be medicinally harmless (sugar and water, as most of them are), then it's still hurting people, as it plays with their expectations and fleeces them financially.

why is holford hooey