Ben Goldacre: checking if clinical trials reported what they said they would

[Isabelle]

What? What have I missed? I have been a huge fan of Ben Goldacre so far and enjoyed his superb book and TED talk about Bad Pharma. But his refusal to look into the PACE trial while tweeting about Chronic Fatigue (Syndrome?) extremists makes him and his cause appear in very bad light. The PACE trial is a scientific disaster, a scandal even of huge proportions, and is finally getting the pressure from the scientific community it truly deserves.

What is his connection to Simon Wessely? Why is he loyal to him? And didn't he say himself, the weakest of all evidence is authority? Can somebody explain and enlighten me?

http://www.download.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60588-8/fulltext

 

[Marco]

"Poisson distributions have always been my favourite"?

Pity he didn't notice the lack of them in the 'normal' ranges for outcome measures in the PACE trial which he described as 'a thing of beauty'.

 

[Isabelle]

Should have put a warning on that link. Fatuous twaddle can’t be unread. I like the bit at the bottom though. ‘This is the Kruger-Dunning effect—the state of being too stupid to know how stupid you are being.’ It seemed apt.

 

[barbc56]

@Barb56, keep posting! We can disagree and discuss. No point in all of us just repeating each other like parrots

Why? I said my piece. My conclusion is not because I like Ben Goldacre but I like him because of what he says about science.

In my opinion, some of the criticisms have merit, some are making assumtions about motives and reading more into quotes than necessary. Nitpicking

If we are talking about Goldacre, any and all criticism is okay. If we are talking about Myhill, criticism is heresy.

It needs to go both ways and I think for most members it does.

For me, Goldacre's positives that I wrote in my above post, outweigh the negatives. I feel just the opposite about Wessely. His negatives certainly outweigh any positives.

This is my perception and I will own it. I don't feel I need to add more, at least to this thread, than what I've already said.

Lest, anyone has doubts, I love this forum and don't plan to quit over differences of opinion.

Barb

 

[SOC]

...so over the years Goldacre almost certainly has had opinions suggested to him over and over and maybe even he's been pointed to articles he might want to share, and all this has influenced his perception of these things.

This may excuse your average doctor. It is a very bad position for a self-proclaimed hot-shot skeptic. Either he has an open mind and evaluates all science on it's merit, or he falls for dogma, appeals to authority, and ignores bad science to protect his own career. He can't have it both ways. If he wants all his little fanboys and -girls to accept his assessment of the quality of various studies, then he has to be what he says he is -- and honest skeptic, not a skeptic only when it suits his purpose.

 

[SOC]

Lest, anyone has doubts, I love this forum and don't plan to quit over differences of opinion.

There's no rule we all have to agree. This would be a pretty boring (and scary) place if we were all a bunch of mindless drones with the same ideas about everything.

 

[SOC]

I tend to think of him as very establishment. He challenged alternative medicine and pharma but seems to avoid challenging the academic community.

Maybe this is where groups of us diverge on Goldacre. Many of us appreciate that he insists that alternative medicine and pharmaceutical company research maintain proper scientific standards. For some people that's sufficient to consider him a hero.

It's not enough for me, though. I think he goes after easy targets, groups that most sound scientists understand are involved in questionable practices. There's not much risk to him, so it's not all that heroic, imo. I think he was under the illusion (delusion?) the ME is another soft target that the majority of scientists will agree with him about and that he could bash the ME community with immunity. Oops.

IMO, Goldacre doesn't have the character, strength, cojones, whatever you want to call it, to go after the difficult targets -- the ones he won't get all his cronies to pat him on the back for, the ones that might have the power to fight back. Going after the easy targets while pointedly ignoring the tough ones suggests to me that you're more after the kudos than purification of science.

Coyne, on the other hand, goes after bad science where he sees it, even if it means challenging other academics or established organizations. He's about the science. That I can get behind.

 

[A.B.]

Coyne also ignored CFS for years. It might take time for Goldacre to make up his mind.

 

[SOC]

Coyne also ignored CFS for years. It might take time for Goldacre to make up his mind.

Coyne did not bash us over and over and over, like Goldacre does. He just didn't know about us. Coyne did not refuse to look at PACE once its flaws were pointed out to him, while Goldacres has. It's just not the same situation.

Goldacre may come around. That would be great. However, he's not known for standing up to anything he considers authority, and he has dug himself a very deep anti-PWME hole with his hostile, violent, disturbed ME militant rhetoric. He's going to have a hard time explaining that behavior to his fan base if he changes direction. His attitude about BPS and ME goes contrary to the picture he tries to present of himself. I don't see any way he can change his position and save face.

We'll just have to wait and see how things develop. It should be an interesting story.

 

[user9876]

Maybe this is where groups of us diverge on Goldacre. Many of us appreciate that he insists that alternative medicine and pharmaceutical company research maintain proper scientific standards. For some people that's sufficient to consider him a hero.

It's not enough for me, though. I think he goes after easy targets, groups that most sound scientists understand are involved in questionable practices. There's not much risk to him, so it's not all that heroic, imo. I think he was under the illusion (delusion?) the ME is another soft target that the majority of scientists will agree with him about and that he could bash the ME community with immunity. Oops.

That's kind of what I was trying to say. I'm not a fan of alternative medicine. I do worry that his big pharma message is simplistic because he doesn't get how a large corporates work (but I've only worked in the IT industry which may have a different culture).

I'm not that he is looking for low risk options but maybe it just never occurs to him to look at the establishment he is part of.

 

[user9876]

Coyne did not bash us over and over and over, like Goldacre does. He just didn't know about us. Coyne did not refuse to look at PACE once its flaws were pointed out to him, while Goldacres has. It's just not the same situation.

People have tweeted ME issues to Coyne for a while and in the past I've got the impression he was interested but busy with other stuff. It seemed to be the long term follow up paper that pushed him from thinking something seemed wrong to look at it in detail.

 

[snowathlete]

This may excuse your average doctor. It is a very bad position for a self-proclaimed hot-shot skeptic. Either he has an open mind and evaluates all science on it's merit, or he falls for dogma, appeals to authority, and ignores bad science to protect his own career. He can't have it both ways. If he wants all his little fanboys and -girls to accept his assessment of the quality of various studies, then he has to be what he says he is -- and honest skeptic, not a skeptic only when it suits his purpose.

You're not wrong. At the same time, people are human and have human relationships that make people do surprising things. But you're right he cant have it both ways, ultimately.

 

[Esther12]

I think Coyne did uncritically repeat some stuff from Wessely about him being sent death threats over his interpretation of a CBT trial.

I agree with a lot of what User9876 has been saying about Goldacre. To some extent it's pointless to speculate about his motivations/biases/etc, but he does give the impression of being very naturally Establishment. Perhaps without really realising that there could be any problem with this. I don't think he's spent much time being shat upon by those at the top of society!

 

[SOC]

...but he does give the impression of being very naturally Establishment.

That is SO contrary to a true skeptical viewpoint. This is one reason I consider him and his crowd pseudo-skeptics. They like to play at being skeptics, but they miss many of the most basic principles of skepticism. Not automatically believing authority figures is one of the most fundamental factors in true skepticism. Authority figures are among the biggest purveyors of BS and propaganda. Every decent skeptic knows this. 'Question authority' is almost the skeptic motto.

I think Coyne did uncritically repeat some stuff from Wessely about him being sent death threats over his interpretation of a CBT trial.

Could be. I haven't seen it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. But even if it is, it hardly rises to the level of Goldacre and Bad Science's vitriol.

 

[Esther12]

I'm sure he doesn't see himself as being vitriolic. He's just absorbed the beliefs that are seen as 'sensible' within his social circle. His tweets are what they are... he promotes misleading propaganda against patients in a way which is entirely normal by the standards of UK science authority figures.

That is SO contrary to a true skeptical viewpoint. This is one reason I consider him and his crowd pseudo-skeptics.

Respect for (certain types of) authority is a part of it, but UK Establishment values aren't just about that - it's a bit hard to explain and it's a cultural things with no clear rules. I'm sure that we're all caught up in the norms and expectations of our times, but it really does seem to me that most British public and grammar schools quite actively indoctrinate their children with strange values and standards that then go almost entirely unchallenged within 'polite' British society. If Goldacre and most of the people he's spent time formulating ideas with are a result of that system, it's quite possible that he just assumes he's being 'sensible'.

[In UK: public school=fee paying and privately run by the public, as opposed to state schools run by the government. Grammar schools: schools used to be divided by a test children took at age 11, with grammar schools for the top 15%-ish, and less good schools for the rest. There are still some grammar schools left, but most state schools now have no test (known as comprehensive schools). PS: a growing number of state funded schools are affiliated with a particular religion, so it's becoming increasingly difficult for parents to find a decent, secular, non-selective school without paying private fees. It's not a surprise our country's a mess, is it?]

 

[Woolie]

Same with Goldacre. But once you've got a viewpoint on something it takes four times the information the opposite way before your viewpoint actually shifts. More if other people are still feeding you their opposing views. He's probably been told that getting involved in ME/CFS will be a nightmare for him and that he'll start getting death threats.

On his blog, he often quotes abusive emails he has received (One I recall said, "I hope you get cancer"). Seems to come with the territory. I can't believe he'd actually fear tackling MECFS for that reason. You've gotta remember how many crazies there are out there.

 

[Woolie]

Why? I said my piece

Sorry, @barbc56, thought your previous email suggested you were gong to take stuff down or something.

 

[SOC]

On his blog, he often quotes abusive emails he has received (One I recall said, "I hope you get cancer").

That hardly seems abusive, especially by anonymous internet standards. Impolite, perhaps, but not abusive. Maybe he can dish it out, but he can't take it?

 

[barbc56]

There's no rule we all have to agree. This would be a pretty boring (and scary) place if we were all a bunch of mindless drones with the same ideas about everything.

I absolutely, agree.

Somehow that came out differently than what I meant, which was simply that I like this forum and am not completely put off by differences in opinion. That's why I choose my signature. Not sure that explains what I meant any better but it's late, very late.

One suggestion. Should this thread be put in the for members only? Just throwing this out there.

Thanks.

Barb

 

[SOC]

One suggestion. Should this thread be put in the for members only? Just throwing this out there.

Why? Because Goldacre and crew might not like what we have to say? I'm not intimidated. It's not like I'm at all fond of what they say, but I don't see them trying to hide their throughts for fear of offending me.

Not that the Members Only forum would stop the BS (I mean Bad Science ) crowd from seeing what we say. No doubt some number of them have become members in order to hear what we say among ourselves.

Or were you thinking of some other reason for moving to Members Only?