1. Patients launch a $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
New Exercise Study Brings Both Illumination and Questions
Simon McGrath looks at new objective evidence of abnormal response to exercise in ME/CFS patients, and the questions that researchers are still trying to answer ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Publication bias and how it misleads medicine

Discussion in 'Other Health News and Research' started by Dainty, Sep 30, 2012.

  1. In Vitro Infidelium

    In Vitro Infidelium Guest

    Messages:
    646
    Likes:
    280
    That's near heresy for some readers here- Singh being a founder member of the Science Media Centre. The problem is of course that no one author/researcher/commentator will be 'perfect' and unblemished - it's a question of taking what makes sense under reasoned examination. Goldacre and Singh are contributors to a wider discourse that is largely pro science and broadly sceptical, that both Goldacre and Singh have blind spots or areas of self interest, doesn't undermine the general thrust of a discourse that values science over unreason, or scepticism over mere belief.

    IVI
    PhoenixDown likes this.
  2. In Vitro Infidelium

    In Vitro Infidelium Guest

    Messages:
    646
    Likes:
    280
    Or maybe just has no interest in a condition that at most affects 0.4% of the UK population. M.E/CFS and CBT and GET and the implications of BPS model all have huge significance to 'us', but it's a big world with lots of other things going on. If Goldacre were to be pursuaded that M.E/CFS where an area worthy of his attention, why would anyone expect that psychiatry would be his focus, when there is so much quackery associated with the condition ?

    Applying the Bad Science model specifically to M.E/CFS woud sweep up numerous 'doctors' many of whom are near sacred to many patients - with such ready material why would someone like Goldacre feel obliged to disect the psychiatric approach ? Neither science nor scepticism require fairness - and in many ways both only require that bias be explicit, so what is it that should command Goldacre and others who share his perspective, to turn their attention on the deficiencies of psychiatry ? I ask that as a genuine - not merely a rhetorical question, because it is an issue that I think produces a chronic circularity in discussions about M.E/CFS.

    IVI
  3. natasa778

    natasa778 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,349
    Likes:
    1,098
    London UK
    reason 1. because he is a psych, and this issue should be closest to home. 'get your house in order first' etc

    reason 2. because psych approach to ME/CFS is the 'official one' - twisted psychiatric propaganda keeping mainstream 'treatment' in the dark ages - because the deficiencies of psychatric approach to ME are the most harmful to patients

    etc

    give me a break!
    Valentijn, Shell and Jarod like this.
  4. natasa778

    natasa778 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,349
    Likes:
    1,098
    London UK
    It does. Undermine.

    I don't think Goldacre values science (as a means of improving and advancing human condition). He values 'science' (as a means of control).
    Valentijn likes this.
  5. Jarod

    Jarod Senior Member

    Messages:
    724
    Likes:
    388
    planet earth
    I don't follow Goldacre, so I have no impression about him.

    However, some of our babylonian based managers can't be against everything 100% of the time. It's too obvious.

    They have to appear to be scientific most of the time. They can then steathly manipulate us once they got us taking the bait. When we are taking the bait, then they sway the concensus or whatever needs to get done.
  6. Jarod

    Jarod Senior Member

    Messages:
    724
    Likes:
    388
    planet earth
    I think the jury is still out on how much of the population is affected by the slime. First we have to know what is causing it, and what the various symptoms are.

    When the truth comes out, we might actually looking at 50 or 100 illnesses all given different names but with similar symptom sets? From Lyme, to CFS, to Mast cell syndrome, autism, fibro, to IBS, to depression, and on and on and on.....

    Maybe the root cause would suggest 20% or more of the worlds population is all suffering the same thing? Maybe some stealthy virus, bacteria, vaccine, which when introduced in a perfect storm, wreak havoc on genes and DNA??

    Trying to nail this down and put every issue in a nice neat box may not be the best approach and effectively acts as a roadblock? Of course everything can be doubted if one wants to apply philosophy to everything.

    The problem is, we might have a few scientists in the mix who have a different agenda. On top of that, so much deception and information. It's impossible to find solutions when everybody doesn't have the same agenda.

    Big pharma's agenda is not the same as my agenda, but they have all the gold and can influence the rules/media/politcians, or hire who they want to represent their views. Who can I afford to hire or lobby? :ill:
    natasa778 likes this.
  7. In Vitro Infidelium

    In Vitro Infidelium Guest

    Messages:
    646
    Likes:
    280
    Those are fine as moral positions expressed from a particular perspective – but why should that attract Goldacre or anyone in a comparable position ? An unshared moral position is not ‘commanding’, it doesn’t engage those who don’t share it. So why would Ben Goldacre, or anyone else who has an established audience, an effective skill set and the inclination toward sceptical analysis, actually take any notice of M.E/CFS and the problems associated with it ?

    Criticising people because they don’t take notice, when one can not offer any reason that might be meaningful to those people why they should (in preference to every other possibly interesting thing in the Universe), take notice of M.E/CFS, is just shouting at the sky.

    I think if you are going to argue that something undermines “a discourse that values science over unreason” , that argument rather requires some supporting ‘reasoning’. Perceiving ‘Science’ as ‘control’ would appear to demand a perspective itself not rooted in reason and if you are going to advance an ad hominem then at least offer some evidence.

    IVI
  8. In Vitro Infidelium

    In Vitro Infidelium Guest

    Messages:
    646
    Likes:
    280
    The question I raised was why Goldacre( or anyone else with a capacity to usefully examine the issues around M.E/CFS) should (from their own perspective) be interested in M.E/CFS. For the UK the accepted figure is that the patient population is around 240,000. On that basis why would anyone be especially interested in M.E/CFS ? The world is full of things to be interested in, and people follow interests based on their own predilictions, if size of an patient population doesn't demand attention, then some other basis is required if people we believe should take notice, are to be engaged.

    Goldacre has just written a book critical of the pharamceutical industry - it is a representation of a view contrary to that of the pharma lobbyists. Yet Goldacre is criticised here because he is not interested in M.E/CFS ( and perhaps subtextually because he is not tolerant of anti science medicine). Paid lobbyists are not the only route toward influence of research directions, people like Goldacre can achieve influence, but M.E/CFS affected people have to accept that engaging with such people has to be on 'their', not 'our', terms. Simply telling them they are bastards because they don't have our priorities is not going to get them on our side.

    IVI
  9. Kina

    Kina Moderation Team Lead

    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes:
    3,443
    Ontario, Canada
    It is apparent that this thread has become massively off-topic.

    It was started to discuss the issue of unpublished negative studies. It was not started as a vehicle to dump on Ben Goldacre.

    Therefore, please refrain from 'dumping' or posting unsubstantiated statements about this individual and concentrate on discussing the problem of not publishing negative studies as it is an important issue.

    We will be editing the thread to remove any instances of 'dumping' as this is a breach of our forum rules.

    Thank you.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page