Ben Goldacre's new target

boardswalker

Ben Goldacre has long been admired on this forum for his attacks on pseudoscience and quackery.
His most recent blog post is interesting. He takes on medical ghostwriting.
Read it here - http://www.badscience.net/2010/09/ghostwriters/

Two quotes from the post :-
"You might imagine there are rules against this. There are not: there are traditions, good faith, and leaky regulations."
and
"Worst of all is the complicity of the academics, and in very large numbers. There is no possible way they could persuade themselves that what they were doing was correct. “Research shows high clinician reliance on journal articles for credible product information,” said DesignWrite, in their initial pitch. They’re right, and that’s for a reason: when you read an academic paper, you trust it was written by the person whose name is on it."

lynnsback

I really would urge people to keep their minds open about Ben Goldacre. He is not as squeaky clean as he likes to appear. In my opinion, his broad stokes dismissal of nutrition (and many nutritional tenets have been proven by thorough clinical research available in medical journals worldwide), and alternative medicine in any form shows HE is not an open minded scientist, like he claims to be. He is everything bad about medicine in a nutshell. A good scientist or doctor is always open to new information and explores it thoroughly. He simply dismisses anything in any way integrative.

http://thyroid.about.com/b/2010/04/16/ben-goldacre-bad-science.htm

Not saying medical ghost writing is a good idea, but just giving the other side of the story; as it seems people seem to question everything BUT Ben Goldacre.

mikhail

lynnsback wrote: »

I really would urge people to keep their minds open about Ben Goldacre. He is not as squeaky clean as he likes to appear.

That's an interesting phrasing. You're implying he's somehow dirty. That's surely libellous.

In my opinion, his broad stokes dismissal of nutrition (and many nutritional tenets have been proven by thorough clinical research available in medical journals worldwide),

Actually, he's broadly dismissive of nutritionists and unsupported claims. I've never heard him say a word against dieticians. Y'know, the people who are actually qualified scientists in the field.

and alternative medicine in any form

He actually speaks of Edzard Ernst, a Professor of Alternative Medicine, in the highest regard. Ernst has shown with systematic reviews that there are some benefits to some alternative medicines. It's just that they're kind of dwarfed by the amount of stuff that doesn't work.

shows HE is not an open minded scientist, like he claims to be. He is everything bad about medicine in a nutshell. A good scientist or doctor is always open to new information and explores it thoroughly. He simply dismisses anything in any way integrative.

I don't see that backed up by anything you've said. Goldacre argues for rigorous medical testing, monitored for bias and manipulation. That testing is presumably his basis for checking whether or not things work. It's not "open-minded" for a doctor to use untested treatments. It's reckless.

http://thyroid.about.com/b/2010/04/16/ben-goldacre-bad-science.htm

So, one guy who posts comments on his forum wrote a letter complaining to the GMC about specific claims made by a doctor, which were then investigated by the GMC. The article goes on to make the totally baseless claim that this guy is a Goldacre alias before rambling in the same unsupported fashion you have about how he's "closed-minded".

Not saying medical ghost writing is a good idea, but just giving the other side of the story; as it seems people seem to question everything BUT Ben Goldacre.

You've given nothing but rhetoric.

And for the record, given the claims made in the article you link, I'd better clarify that I'm not Ben Goldacre.

lynnsback

Hello mikhail

I too find your tone interesting. Rude is the word I would use actually. I have to say I often feel like kicking myself when I post in his forum, because unless a post is 100% in agreement with the current dogma/party line, one opens oneself up to rudeness and aggression. I just don’t get why people here can't have disagreements without being so rude. Such rudeness has never been tolerated on any forum I have ever moderated on and I have been modding forums since 2000.

I post on forums regarding science, nutrition and health and often disagree with others. There are many theories around such forums, but I do not attack others if their opinions differ from mine. Why can’t people here do that?

As to your post, I seriously doubt Ben Goldacre cares about my opinion of him. Perhaps I should have written "I think", but I thought this was a forum; not a court room or newsroom.

Conventional medicine has not always right; and has made many mistakes with drugs such as Phen-Phen, DES drugs and discouraging the practice of breastfeeding etc.

I still don't get why there is an issue with nutritionists. Yes, it is not a protected term (sadly), but I find nutritionists have a more holistic, less dogmatic view, whereas many dieticians just recite the same old dogmatic/party line. Plus, their training seems to be much more rigid in terms of what they learn. There does not seem to be as much emphasis on the healing power of food, food sensitivities, or any of that; only generic programmes for specific diagnoses.

Edzard Ernst has some interesting work yes, but one thing he does not seem to focus on is the placebo effect. Who cares if homeopathy works via this effect? I think everyone knows by now that there are massive issues against homeopathy, but it is safer than some drugs, and if it works, what's the problem?

For interesting studies on the placebo effect check out:

Moseley, J.B. 2002. A controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. NEJM 347 (2): 81-88

Diamond, E.G. 1960 Comparison of internal mammary ligation and sham operation for angina pectoris. Am J Card 5: 483-86; Cobb, L. 1959. An evaluation of internal mammary artery ligation by a double blind technique. NEJM 260 (22)115-18.

Doctors do have to use treatments that are not perfectly tested on a daily basis. After all, many pharma drug trials are conducted by the companies themselves and aren't exactly unbiased. Plus, many are very short term.

I don't think you are getting what I am saying though; a doctor does not have to start using the latest and greatest cure for cancer he reads about. What he does need to do however, is keep his mind open and read BOTH sides before making up his mind.

I know you are no fan of homeopathy (personally I think it only works via the placebo effect, so not like I am a major fan either) but this article explains more clearly my thoughts on Ben Goldacre:

http://homeopathy4health.wordpress.com/2008/01/02/goldacres-conflicts-of-interest-exposed/

This essay is also worth reading, but as I said, the length might be off putting: http://quackbengoldacre.wordpress.com/some_notes_on_skepticism/

I hope you never have to learn the hard way what happens if you keep your mind closed, dismiss anything alternative as quackery and follow whatever dogma most of medicine follows. That way of thinking ended badly for me. I honestly don’t think I will change your mind or even open it a bit though, as people’s opinions on these matters only tend to change when there is some personal involvement.

lynnsback

lynnsback wrote: »

I know you are no fan of homeopathy (personally I think it only works via the placebo effect, so not like I am a major fan either) but this article explains more clearly my thoughts on Ben Goldacre:

http://homeopathy4health.wordpress.com/2008/01/02/goldacres-conflicts-of-interest-exposed/

That article is hilarious.
Anyone who'd like a good laugh should give it a read.

bleg

lynnsback wrote: »

Hello mikhail

I too find your tone interesting. Rude is the word I would use actually. I have to say I often feel like kicking myself when I post in his forum, because unless a post is 100% in agreement with the current dogma/party line, one opens oneself up to rudeness and aggression. I just don’t get why people here can't have disagreements without being so rude. Such rudeness has never been tolerated on any forum I have ever moderated on and I have been modding forums since 2000.

I post on forums regarding science, nitration and health and often disagree with others. There are many theories around such forums, but I do not attack others if their opinions differ from mine. Why can’t people here do that?

I don't see any part in his post where he personally attacks you. He might rubbish your points but that is called playing the ball and not the man. You on the other hand have gone a level lower and played the man by calling him rude.

Conventional medicine has not always right; and has made many mistakes with drugs such as Phen-Phen, DES drugs and discouraging the practice of breastfeeding etc

It's right far far far far far far far far more often than it is wrong and it is right infinitesimally more often than "alternative" medicine.

I still don't get why there is an issue with nutritionists. Yes, it is not a protected term (sadly), but I find nutritionists have a more holistic, less dogmatic view, whereas many dieticians just recite the same old dogmatic/party line. Plus, their training seems to be much more rigid in terms of what they learn. There does not seem to be as much emphasis on the healing power of food, food sensitivities, or any of that; only generic programmes for specific diagnoses.

Generic scientifically proven programmes that is.

Edzard Ernst has some interesting work yes, but one thing he des not seem to focus on is the placebo effect. Who cares if homeopathy works via this effect? I think everyone knows by now that there are massive issues against homeopathy, but it is safer than some drugs, and if it works, what's the problem?

Providing and charging for a treatment that I know is complete and utter horse manure is unethical and immoral. The reason treatments are chosen is down to the risk/benefit ratio of a given treatment.

For interesting studies on the placebo effect check out:

I don't think you are getting what I am saying though; a doctor does not have to start using the latest and greatest cure for cancer he reads about. What he does need to do however, is keep his mind open and read BOTH sides before making up his mind.

What two sides are there? The scientifically proven side and the made up side?

I hope you never have to learn the hard way what happens if you keep your mind closed, dismiss anything alternative as quackery and follow whatever dogma most of medicine follows. That way of thinking ended badly for me. I honestly don’t think I will change your mind or even open it a bit though, as people’s opinions on these matters only tend to change when there is some personal involvement.

We can only base our medical practices on cold hard emotionless science. The only place where emotion comes in is dealing with patients in a caring fashion. However to let this emotion cloud one's judgement is not in the best interest of the patient and treatment should always be based on fact rather than feeling.

mikhail

lynnsback wrote: »

Hello mikhail

I too find your tone interesting. Rude is the word I would use actually. I have to say I often feel like kicking myself when I post in his forum, because unless a post is 100% in agreement with the current dogma/party line, one opens oneself up to rudeness and aggression. I just don’t get why people here can't have disagreements without being so rude. Such rudeness has never been tolerated on any forum I have ever moderated on and I have been modding forums since 2000.

A little patronising at one or two points, perhaps. I apologise if I offended you. However, I did respond factually on a point by point basis.

And for what it's worth, I've moderated various forums since about 2004; standards of politeness do vary. If you wish, report my post; the moderators here will no doubt inform me if they feel I've crossed a line.

I post on forums regarding science, nitration and health and often disagree with others. There are many theories around such forums, but I do not attack others if their opinions differ from mine. Why can’t people here do that?

I think that's a sweeping generalisation, but I'm not a Health Sciences regular - I doubt I've posted here more than half a dozen times - so I can't comment.

As to your post, I seriously doubt Ben Goldacre cares about my opinion of him. Perhaps I should have written "I think", but I thought this was a forum; not a court room or newsroom.

I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that "I think" does not excuse libel. I feel that you implied that Goldacre is somehow dirty. You've offered some links relating to that claim later in your post; I'll respond to them when I reach them.

Conventional medicine has not always right; and has made many mistakes with drugs such as Phen-Phen, DES drugs and discouraging the practice of breastfeeding etc.

Correct. This is why science is self-critical and self-correcting. This process is interfered with by vested interests, most notably money, which provides motive for e.g. pharmaceutical companies to hide negative results. Goldacre is a vocal opponent of this sort of interference. The article linked to in the first post of this thread is an example of him doing just that.

I still don't get why there is an issue with nutritionists. Yes, it is not a protected term (sadly), but I find nutritionists have a more holistic, less dogmatic view, whereas many dieticians just recite the same old dogmatic/party line. Plus, their training seems to be much more rigid in terms of what they learn. There does not seem to be as much emphasis on the healing power of food, food sensitivities, or any of that; only generic programmes for specific diagnoses.

The problem people have is with whether or not what they say is correct. They make money from telling and selling people things which are not known to work. Dieticians are trained with knowledge gleaned from careful testing. Here's an example of Gillian McKeith making money from a false claim of medical efficacy:

Three months ago she was censured by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) for illegally selling a rather tragic range of herbal sex pills called Fast Formula Horny Goat Weed Complex, advertised as shown by a “controlled study” to promote sexual satisfaction, and sold with explicit medicinal claims. She was ordered to remove the products from sale immediately. She complied – the alternative would have been prosecution – but in response, McKeith’s website announced that the sex pills had been withdrawn because of “the new EU licensing laws regarding herbal products”. She engaged in Europhobic banter with the Scottish Herald newspaper: “EU bureaucrats are clearly concerned that people in the UK are having too much good sex,” she explained.

Goldacre goes on to indicate that what she claimed is false. I encourage you to read the full article that's extracted from, here, which details false claims about medicines and credentials and a degree of litigiousness I find disgusting in anyone who claims to be a scientist. Goldacre outlines exactly why he dislikes nutritionists in general:

Let me be very clear. Anyone who tells you to eat your greens is all right by me. If that was the end of it, I’d be McKeith’s biggest fan, because I’m all in favour of “evidence-based interventions to improve the nation’s health”, as they used to say to us in medical school.

But let’s look at the evidence. Diet has been studied very extensively, and there are some things that we know with a fair degree of certainty: there is convincing evidence that diets rich in fresh fruit and vegetables, with natural sources of dietary fibre, avoiding obesity, moderate alcohol, and physical exercise, are protective against things such as cancer and heart disease.

But nutritionists don’t stop there, because they can’t: they have to manufacture complication, to justify the existence of their profession. And what an extraordinary new profession it is. They’ve appeared out of nowhere, with a strong new-age bent, but dressing themselves up in the cloak of scientific authority. Because there is, of course, a genuine body of research about nutrition and health, to which these new “nutritionists” are spectacularly unreliable witnesses. You don’t get sober professors from the Medical Research Council’s Human Nutrition Research Unit on telly talking about the evidence on food and health; you get the media nutritionists. It’s like the difference between astrology and astronomy.

These new nutritionists have a major commercial problem with evidence. There’s nothing very professional or proprietary about “eat your greens”, so they have had to push things further: but unfortunately for the nutritionists, the technical, confusing, overcomplicated, tinkering interventions that they promote are very frequently not supported by convincing evidence.

And that’s not for lack of looking. This is not about the medical hegemony neglecting to address the holistic needs of the people. In many cases, the research has been done, and we know that the more specific claims of nutritionists are actively wrong.

So, now I'll return to quoting lynnsback.

Edzard Ernst has some interesting work yes, but one thing he des not seem to focus on is the placebo effect. Who cares if homeopathy works via this effect?

I don't know Ernst's work well enough to answer that, but this is an article from The Lancet, one of the top medical journals in Britain, where Goldacre talks about the benefits and risks of using homeopathy as a placebo treatment. He's fascinated by the subject - here's a short video of him talking animatedly about the placebo effect:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1Q3jZw4FGs

http://homeopathy4health.wordpress.com/2008/01/02/goldacres-conflicts-of-interest-exposed/

I'm sorry, but some speculation that his job has little patient contact and is in a purportedly controversial field is kind of flaky as evidence that he has a conflict of interest.

This essay is also worth reading, but as I said, the length might be off putting: http://quackbengoldacre.wordpress.com/some_notes_on_skepticism/

That essay does not mention Goldacre specifically except in the title. It labels him as someone who cannot be swayed by evidence contrary to his beliefs but provides nothing to justify that.

mikhail

mikhail wrote: »

That essay does not mention Goldacre specifically except in the title. It labels him as someone who cannot be swayed by evidence contrary to his beliefs but provides nothing to justify that.

That article's a copy paste job from an old site railing against James Randi et al. and their horribleness of asking for evidence.

It was written by a guy who thinks he can astral project or something equally as stupid.

lynnsback

King Mob wrote: »

That article is hilarious.
Anyone who'd like a good laugh should give it a read.

Personally, I wouldn't laugh at something someone had gone to the trouble of writing. I might disagree with it, but laugh... no. Which bits were funny to you?

bleg wrote: »

I don't see any part in his post where he personally attacks you. He might rubbish your points but that is called playing the ball and not the man. You on the other hand have gone a level lower and played the man by calling him rude.

He has just acknowledged that he was patronising etc. He has apologised and I wholeheartedly accept his apology. I welcome his latest post as I find the articles he linked very interesting.

bleg wrote: »

It's right far far far far far far far far more often than it is wrong and it is right infinitesimally more often than "alternative" medicine.

We'll agree to disagree on that point.

bleg wrote: »

Providing and charging for a treatment that I know is complete and utter horse manure is unethical and immoral. The reason treatments are chosen is down to the risk/benefit ratio of a given treatment.

Have you actually read the two studies I posted? If you actually had, you would get what I am saying about the placebo effect.

bleg wrote: »

What two sides are there? The scientifically proven side and the made up side?

There are two sides to every theory; from dietary theories to disease treatments. All topics in the field tend to have clinicians/researchers with different viewpoints and beliefs. For example, some doctors such as Dr. David Brownstein and Dr. Jorgas Flechas are really pro iodine for the thyroid. Others state that it fuels the fire of autoimmune thyroid attacks and that it is very bad for thyroid patients. I have seen antibody counts triple or quadruple on iodine therapy; yet I have also seen patients start to feel amazing and have their antibody count decrease. This is a perfect example of two sides to everything.

bleg wrote: »

We can only base our medical practices on cold hard emotionless science. The only place where emotion comes in is dealing with patients in a caring fashion. However to let this emotion cloud one's judgement is not in the best interest of the patient and treatment should always be based on fact rather than feeling.

I think Hippocrates Shadow is a book you would enjoy reading. It deals with these very issues; the lines between emotions and science; between facts and theories. Also, science is not inflalible. Nothing in life is.

lynnsback

mikhail wrote: »

A little patronising at one or two points, perhaps. I apologise if I offended you. However, I did respond factually on a point by point basis.

And for what it's worth, I've moderated various forums since about 2004; standards of politeness do vary. If you wish, report my post; the moderators here will no doubt inform me if they feel I've crossed a line.

Hiya Mikhail

Thanks for the apology. This post here is more my type of thing as it is arguing in a fair way. I won’t be reporting you to any mods for various reasons.

mikhail wrote: »

Correct. This is why science is self-critical and self-correcting. This process is interfered with by vested interests, most notably money, which provides motive for e.g. pharmaceutical companies to hide negative results. Goldacre is a vocal opponent of this sort of interference. The article linked to in the first post of this thread is an example of him doing just that.

I am just not a fan of the man because while some of his work may be against corruption; he does ridicule other theories and practitioners such as nutritionists yes. People who use the word quack over and over and over also really irritate me. I don’t like acupuncture, but I don’t label acupuncturists as quacks for example. Also, he is closed minded about the dangers of MMR vaccinations and works with Simon Wessley; a man whose theories that M. E. is basically a psychiatric illness are now thankfully being discredited.

mikhail wrote: »

The problem people have is with whether or not what they say is correct. They make money from telling and selling people things which are not known to work. Dieticians are trained with knowledge gleaned from careful testing.

Doctors charge a consultation fee also, and drug companies make money too. So what is the difference here really? Why is it okay for me to pay €50 to my GP, but not €50 to a nutritionist?

mikhail wrote: »

Goldacre goes on to indicate that what she claimed is false. I encourage you to read the full article that's extracted from, here, which details false claims about medicines and credentials and a degree of litigiousness I find disgusting in anyone who claims to be a scientist. Goldacre outlines exactly why he dislikes nutritionists in general.

I am no fan of Gillian McKeith, but there are other good nutritionists out there. I am afraid I am a fan of Patrick Holford, despite his lack of credentials. I care more about someone’s writings and their grounding in people getting better than I do about their qualifications. I have seen a lot of well qualified morons in my time; from the MANY doctors who missed my hormonal deficiencies for a decade; to the accountant who collated my tax wrong; to the plumber who came to my house and forgot to plumb the sink back in before he left. All of the above people are qualified in their field, but they still messed up. The above article however does describe everything I dislike about the woman and her pseudo science.

BTW that story about not being listened to because one is not a doctor/nutritionist/whatever is pretty much a common attitude everywhere. Hardly Gillian only that adopts this superior attitude. Flaxseeds go rancid very easily and are a poor form of fat in the diet anyway.

mikhail wrote: »

I don't know Ernst's work well enough to answer that, but this is an article from The Lancet, one of the top medical journals in Britain, where Goldacre talks about the benefits and risks of using homeopathy as a placebo treatment. He's fascinated by the subject - here's a short video of him talking animatedly about the placebo effect.

OMG that video – it actually stressed me out to listen to him because he talked so fast. Seriously! He reminds me of someone I used to know. Enough said there.

He is speaking of the two studies I posted above; one was the knee surgery and the other the heart surgery. Hippocrates Shadow goes into the nocebo effect in great detail also.

As to his article, putting homeopathy down because it discourages traditional medicine is unfair. Not every homeopath does that.

lynnsback

lynnsback wrote: »

Doctors charge a consultation fee also, and drug companies make money too. So what is the difference here really? Why is it okay for me to pay €50 to my GP, but not €50 to a nutritionist?

Because GPs need training and licences, nutritionists don't.
GP's are answerable to various bodies to maintain standards and help protect against malpractice. Are nutritionists?

If you'd prefer to go to an untrained unlicensed and unregulated quack because they're cheaper....:rolleyes:

Dave!

lynnsback wrote: »

Also, he is closed minded about the dangers of MMR vaccinations

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!!!!

Alarm bells going off

lynnsback

King Mob wrote: »

Because GPs need training and licences, nutritionists don't.
GP's are answerable to various bodies to maintain standards and help protect against malpractice. Are nutritionists?

If you'd prefer to go to an untrained unlicensed and unregulated quack because they're cheaper....:rolleyes:

Cheaper? Who said they were cheaper? My post stated that they cost around the same: "Why is it okay for me to pay €50 to my GP, but not €50 to a nutritionist"?

I don't call anyone a quack. I care about health. From the herbalist who restarted my menstrual cycle after nine months of amenorrhea, to the doctor who diagnosed my Schmidt Syndrome/Hypopituitarism (we are still investigating which it is); all I care about is health. My current doctor, along with my two years of intensive study have brought me back to where I am now; back to good health. In the end isn't health all that matters? Who cares if an infertile couple get pregnant via the placebo effect of homeopathy, why care if acupuncture cures back pain etc. Isn't quality of life the most important factor if the treatment does no harm?

lynnsback

Dave! wrote: »

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!!!!

Alarm bells going off

What because I disagree with the MMR vaccination, you can mock me or something?

Dave!

lynnsback wrote: »

What because I disagree with the MMR vaccination, you can mock me or something?

Well if you can account for all of the studies that show no correlation between the MMR vaccine and any serious maladies, and then provide studies that show a positive correlation, then I'll take your opinion seriously on the matter.

lynnsback

lynnsback wrote: »

Cheaper? Who said they were cheaper? My post stated that they cost around the same: "Why is it okay for me to pay €50 to my GP, but not €50 to a nutritionist"?

Because one has extensive training from certified courses, licenses from governing bodies and regulation to protect the consumer.
Guess which one.

lynnsback wrote: »

I don't call anyone a quack.

Good for you.
Unfortunately in the real world there are plenty of people out there who are willing and are currently taking advantage of people with bogus treatments.
What better word for these people then "quacks?"

What exactly do you call Gillian McKeith?
Or arch-quacks like Gary Null.

lynnsback wrote: »

I care about health. From the herbalist who restarted my menstrual cycle after nine months of amenorrhea, to the doctor who diagnosed my Schmidt Syndrome/Hypopituitarism (we are still investigating which it is); all I care about is health. My current doctor, along with my two years of intensive study have brought me back to where I am now; back to good health.

Again good for you.
But anecdotes and appeals to emotion are kinda not useful in proper discussions.

lynnsback wrote: »

In the end isn't health all that matters?

Well some people actually care about truth and science and advancing knowledge... But courses for horse I guess.

lynnsback wrote: »

Who cares if an infertile couple get pregnant via the placebo effect of homeopathy, why care if acupuncture cures back pain etc. Isn't quality of life the most important factor if the treatment does no harm?

Well the thing is, the placebo effect can't get you pregnant for one.
For two there are better more effective methods for dealing with back pain than the placebo effect.
And again there's plenty of people out there that well say the placebo effect (or whatever nonsense they're pedalling) can do stuff it simply can't.
Homoeopaths in Britain getting snared for saying sugar pills are an effective replacement for malaria vaccines.

And then for stuff like acupuncture there are very real risks that aren't often discussed.

But hey, if you're ok with your physicians lying and making up wacky nonsense to treat you, go nuts.

lynnsback

King Mob wrote: »

Because one has extensive training from certified courses, licenses from governing bodies and regulation to protect the consumer.
Guess which one.

Many alt practitioners also have certification from bodies.

King Mob wrote: »

Good for you.
Unfortunately in the real world there are plenty of people out there who are willing and are currently taking advantage of people with bogus treatments.
What better word for these people then "quacks?"

What exactly do you call Gillian McKeith?
Or arch-quacks like Gary Null.

I would call them people whose methods I don't agree with.

King Mob wrote: »

Again good for you.
But anecdotes and appeals to emotion are kinda not useful in proper discussions.

Well some people actually care about truth and science and advancing knowledge... But courses for horse I guess.

Aren’t health outcomes and the patient feeling better the most important thing?

King Mob wrote: »

Well the thing is, the placebo effect can't get you pregnant for one.
For two there are better more effective methods for dealing with back pain than the placebo effect.
And again there's plenty of people out there that well say the placebo effect (or whatever nonsense they're pedalling) can do stuff it simply can't.
Homoeopaths in Britain getting snared for saying sugar pills are an effective replacement for malaria vaccines.

And then for stuff like acupuncture there are very real risks that aren't often discussed.

But hey, if you're ok with your physicians lying and making up wacky nonsense to treat you, go nuts.

The placebo effect is extremely powerful. Read the two studies please. Otherwise we are going round in circles here. No alt practitioners really emphasise the placebo effect; it is frowned upon. I am referring to allopathic medicine demonstrating the power of the placebo effect; NOT alternative medicine doing so.

I don't like acupuncture as I already stated.

My physician doesn't lie to me. Where did you get that from?

lynnsback

Dave! wrote: »

Well if you can account for all of the studies that show no correlation between the MMR vaccine and any serious maladies, and then provide studies that show a positive correlation, then I'll take your opinion seriously on the matter.

None of these studies are long term though......

Dave!

lynnsback wrote: »

None of these studies are long term though......

Well what's your contention in relation to this? MMR vaccine administered to babies results in Alzheimer's Disease when the baby becomes a geriatric?

Most people with suspicions about MMR are hinting at an autism link. Shall I start posting studies that address this alleged link, or do you want to just search pubmed yourself? Autism becomes apparent at a very young age, so there is no need for long-term studies.

Or are you suggesting some other specific illness that MMR causes? Or is it just general suspicion?

lynnsback

lynnsback wrote: »

Many alt practitioners also have certification from bodies.

And so do I.
I've a degree in Accupuncture, Reiki and Astrology.

It's a great school really: http://thunderwoodcollege.com/

But do you honestly think they have the same level of certification?
How about oversight? You seem to have avoided that point.

lynnsback wrote: »

I would call them people whose methods I don't agree with.

And I also don't agree with the way they operate their businesses, or what they claim or the fact they pretend to be oppressed to avoid proper scrutiny.
So quack describes them and people like them pretty damn well.

lynnsback wrote: »

Aren’t health outcomes and the patient feeling better the most important thing?

Not at the cost of the truth.
And the thing is, if we just left it at what made them feel better we'd have stopped at nonsense like leeching or homoeopathy and would have never actually developed stuff that works as actual cures and preventions.

lynnsback wrote: »

The placebo effect is extremely powerful. Read the two studies please. Otherwise we are going round in circles here.

I have. The placebo effect is very powerful, but it's not magic.
Many many other drugs are much more effective than sugarpills would ever be.
And again the placebo effect can't get you pregnant. It can't work as a vaccine. And so on and so on.

lynnsback wrote: »

No alt practitioners really emphasise the placebo effect; it is frowned upon.

Of course they don't cause most believe their nonsense.

lynnsback wrote: »

I am referring to allopathic medicine demonstrating the power of the placebo effect; NOT alternative medicine doing so.

The word you're looking for is real. Not allopathic, real medicine.

lynnsback wrote: »

I don't like acupuncture as I already stated.

Why exactly? I though you had an open mind...

lynnsback wrote: »

My physician doesn't lie to me. Where did you get that from?

For the placebo to properly work the doctor must convince you that the placebo is an active treatment even though it is not. The more convincing, the better the placebo works.
And what do we call it when some one says something that they know isn't true?

mikhail

lynnsback wrote: »

I am just not a fan of the man because while some of his work may be against corruption; he does ridicule other theories and practitioners such as nutritionists yes. People who use the word quack over and over and over also really irritate me. I don’t like acupuncture, but I don’t label acupuncturists as quacks for example. Also, he is closed minded about the dangers of MMR vaccinations and works with Simon Wessley; a man whose theories that M. E. is basically a psychiatric illness are now thankfully being discredited.

I can certainly understand someone disliking his style - Goldacre can be abrasive and is prone to using profanity (even childish stuff like the word "recockulous", though I'm not sure how he spells it).

Goldacre has written about the studies on MMR which find no link to autism. He's written about the original Wakefield study (plagued by vested interests, poor design and outright falsification of results), and is angry about the media coverage it received and how the media plays down its own role in the scare. He's written about the risks of vaccination rates falling too low. But the key point here is that he's read the studies and concludes that the evidence is overwhelmingly against the notion that MMR is dangerous. I can't see how that makes him closed-minded, unless closed-minded is taken to mean "doesn't agree with me". Were the Cochrine report to produce an MMR metastudy indicating that it's dangerous and he refuses to believe it, that would be an indication of closed-mindedness. There's nothing like that here.

I know nothing of Wessley, but as I said before, I don't find the fact that Goldacre may work in a field which you say is controversial to be very important. His work and his writing are distinct, and this smacks of an ad hominem attack.

Doctors charge a consultation fee also, and drug companies make money too. So what is the difference here really? Why is it okay for me to pay €50 to my GP, but not €50 to a nutritionist?

I said, "[Nutritionists] make money from telling and selling people things which are not known to work." I don't think that's in general a fair characterisation of doctors. This is about evidence.

...I am afraid I am a fan of Patrick Holford, despite his lack of credentials.

You probably know that Goldacre is no fan of Holford's. I'll say no more. It's easy to find the relevant articles on his site if you like.

OMG that video – it actually stressed me out to listen to him because he talked so fast. Seriously! He reminds me of someone I used to know. Enough said there.

He doesn't usually speak quite so quickly, but I guess he only had a few minutes to say what he wanted to, and probably wanted to inject a certain energy into the talk given the circumstances.

As to his article, putting homeopathy down because it discourages traditional medicine is unfair. Not every homeopath does that.

Here's an example of the risk he's talking about: a BBC survey of 10 homeopaths found that all of them told their undercover reporter that she didn't need non-homeopathic anti-malaria medication. This sort of dangerous attitude seems inevitable if you give homeopathy a measure of respectability and mislead the public into believing it's anything other than a placebo.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/5178122.stm

tallaght01

lynnsback wrote: »

None of these studies are long term though......

I'm not interested in these skeptiks Vs CT-ers arguments. But just to point out that the above is untrue. there are long term MMR studies published, but they are conveniently brushed aside by those who don't want to hear.

Plus autism is almost always diagnosed in the first couple of years, so there wouldn't be a need for a long term study to rule out that.

Anyway, I'll let you all get back to your "look at me I'm a skeptic" Vs "Look at me I'm sooo alternative" threads that are becoming worryingly regular on here.

El_Dangeroso

tallaght01 wrote: »

Anyway, I'll let you all get back to your "look at me I'm a skeptic" Vs "Look at me I'm sooo alternative" threads that are becoming worryingly regular on here.

I think the problem with these threads is that someone always gets labelled as a ''Look at me I'm sooo alternative" type the minute they question anything. It's such a shame because this could be a great forum. At the moment it's just these threads, bitching about the health service and locked medical advice threads.

Never underestimate the ability to convince someone to change their mind, there is a golden opportunity to educate people and learn from one another and that's never going to happen with the aggressive (and yes as an outside spectator it comes across as very aggressive, it doesn't have to have blatant ad hominem attacks to seem that way) tone that are currently the hallmark of these debates. The basic lack of mutual respect is disheartening and really does stop me from posting here as much as I would like to. The science of healthcare is my career and passion but the closed minded-ness around here is depressing tbh.

Dave!

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I think the problem with these threads is that someone always gets labelled as a ''Look at me I'm sooo alternative" type the minute they question anything. It's such a shame because this could be a great forum. At the moment it's just these threads, bitching about the health service and locked medical advice threads.

Never underestimate the ability to convince someone to change their mind, there is a golden opportunity to educate people and learn from one another and that's never going to happen with the aggressive (and yes as an outside spectator it comes across as very aggressive, it doesn't have to have blatant ad hominem attacks to seem that way) tone that are currently the hallmark of these debates. The basic lack of mutual respect is disheartening and really does stop me from posting here as much as I would like to. The science of healthcare is my career and passion but the closed minded-ness around here is depressing tbh.

Well it gets a bit tiresome after a while when the same canards are brought up regarding vaccinations and the likes.

Personally I'm quite interested in and open to the idea of using placebo treatments in certain circumstances, perhaps to support 'real' treatments, as long as good studies show that they can have an actual effect.

I posted in a thread on the topic before... Feel free to bump it:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055737030

Note that I'm not a physician or healthcare worker, just interested in the subject

JuliusCaesar

lynnsback wrote: »

but this article explains more clearly my thoughts on Ben Goldacre:

http://homeopathy4health.wordpress.com/2008/01/02/goldacres-conflicts-of-interest-exposed/

King Mob wrote: »

That article is hilarious.
Anyone who'd like a good laugh should give it a read.

Thanks, King Mob. Must pass this on to my psychiatrist colleagues:

Liaison psychiatry is a form of psychiatry in which the psychiatrist informs unsuspecting ordinary citizens who report to hospitals with organic illnesses that they are actually mentally ill.

Who knew?

oceanclub

lynnsback wrote: »

He is everything bad about medicine in a nutshell.

That's hilarious coming from someone criticising him for "broad strokes". He's worse than Harold Shipman or even Gillian McKeith then?

Oh, and your sole basis for these remarks is a woman who criticises Goldacre for "supplementing his income handsomely with the profits from his outside writing projects", who herself has basically made a living from a never-ending series of books that link seemingly every medical problem from sexual disfunction to hair loss to your thyroid:

The Menopause Thyroid Solution: Overcome Menopause by Solving Your Hidden Thyroid Problems
Thyroid Hormone Breakthrough: Overcoming Sexual and Hormonal Problems at Every Age
Living Well With Hypothyroidism: What Your Doctor Doesn't Tell You...That You Need to Know
The Thyroid Diet: Manage Your Metabolism for Lasting Weight Loss
Living Well With Graves' Disease and Hyperthyroidism
Living Well With Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Fibromyalgia
Living Well With Autoimmune Disease
Thyroid Guide to Hair Loss.

http://thyroid.about.com/bio/Mary-Shomon-350.htm

Perhaps she might have an agenda, hmm?

EDIT: Oh dear Lord, it gets even better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Shomon

Shomon is a 1983 graduate of Georgetown University in Washington, DC, where she earned a Bachelor's degree in International Finance from the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. She worked in advertising and marketing for a number of advertising agencies and grassroots outreach companies, developing advertising and outreach campaigns for commercial and non-profit clients

So, you know, come back when you someone actually qualified in medicine disagreeing with him, not a marketeer. Seemingly a doctor writing about medical issues is "supplementing his income handsomely with the profits from his outside writing projects", while a advertising/marketer writing about thyroid problems isn't.

P.

JuliusCaesar

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Thanks, King Mob. Must pass this on to my psychiatrist colleagues: Who knew?

Didn't you know? Psychiatry is the most evil of modern medicines.