Taking tweets from several years ago that are possibly out of context and say Ben Goldacre feels this or that way about me/cfs doesn't always mean the conclusions are accurate.
How much context is there in a tweet? It's not like we're clipping a single sentence out of an entire article. He wrote what he tweeted understanding that a brief tweet stands by itself. How many ways are there to interpret those tweets?
What I admire about Ben Goldacre and I have a lot of respect for him, is that he appears to not have preconceived ideas and proceeds from there. He keeps an open mind.
I don't see how the evidence supports that statement. Do any of the tweets listed above sound like he has no preconceived notions? It certainly doesn't sound like an open mind is behind them. It sounds like a guy swallowing (and passing on as scientific truth) blatant propaganda hook, line, and sinker without applying one iota of critical thinking.
He's a psychiatrist and works in the same department as Wessely but we don't know how much that impacts what he believes. That's guilt by association and that's a logical fallacy.
Whoa, talk about logical fallacies! Pot, kettle -- kettle, pot. I and others at PR have judged his statements on their own merit, not on either his profession or who he associates with. I've never seen anyone at PR say his statements are false because he's a psychiatrist or because he works with SW. We've said his statements
in and of themselves are biased and lack critical insight. People may have speculated why he has that bias, but that's different from dismissing his statements based on guilt by association. It's an incredible logical (?) leap to claim that because Goldacre's profession and associations have been mentioned they are the reason we disagree with him.
But on the whole, I love the Bad Science Forum
On the whole, I dislike Bad Science because there's a lot more ripping apart of ideas they don't agree with than valid scientific assessment. I often find myself in agreement with the Bad Science folk about the ideas they disagree with. That doesn't mean I think their approach is scientifically-based. There's a lot more ripping and bitching than calm scientific discussion... a lot more mutual "aren't we smarter than other people" self-congratulatory back-patting than honest effort to sort out the truth from the falsehoods. It's a smug little "aren't we clever" clique, imo.
I think it is disingenuous to say that any researcher who is not addressing the PACE trial is against us. We are living through this and because of that we, and I include myself, we sometimes think that everyone should focus on our issues. In a perfect world but the reality is that there are so many issues in this world.. Are we against research on illnesses here simply because they are not mentioned on the forum?
If they didn't say anything about ME or the PACE trial, we wouldn't be concerned, the problem is they DO talk about ME and PACE is a very biased manner, accepting a lot of garbage without applying any critical thought and refusing to look at sound science objectively.
That said, I think it's fair to question why, if they are going to discuss it at all, they are unwilling to delve into one of the greatest examples of bad science of current times -- research that unlike the average study has had a huge impact on public policy internationally. This is not a little study about whether vitamin C extends lifespan. This is a study with major impact. They should be concerned about it if they really mean to expose bad science that harms people and results in poor public policy... not that I really believe that's what they're actually about.
I've often wondered if others may have preconceived notions about him because he debunks a lot of alternative medicine.
Like I've ever been a supporter of alternative medicine?
Got a little preconceived notion yourself there, eh?
I don't like Bad Science because I'm a researcher by nature, training, and profession. I know scientific evaluation is not about bashing ideas you don't agree with, it's about teasing out the truth from the mass of information, and rationally evaluating the data with an open mind. It's not making snap judgements and then sitting around like a bunch of middle-schoolers pointing fingers, ridiculing other people, and slapping each other on the back for the 'cleverest' snide remark. They're entitled to do that. It could be considered a social activity of a sort, but it's not science. If they called themselves the Bash Anything We Don't Agree With Forum, I'd find it less annoying. At least they'd be honest about what they're doing. If they actually consistently did good scientific evaluation, I'd even like it. Instead, they act like nasty little schoolchildren and call it science, which just gives science a bad name.
