Free Speech In Danger

Just a small post in support of the very valuable site The Quackometer.

This is a great site debunking all the ridiculous snake oil, wu-wu claims of the increasing numbers of people/companies who are putting down good science for their own personal gains, spreading fear, uncertainty, doubt, illness and even death. There are many other sites giving more information about this situation, here's a few links:

One
Two

But, irrespective of the arguments involved, we should be most concerned at the failure of important companies to guard the net and ensure freedom of speech. Unfortunately, even Google have succumbed to this, which is very scary indeed (check the first item in the search results). As for the Quackometer's hosting company - Netcetera - they should be truly ashamed at their behaviour in this episode. I have written to them. Why not do the same?

Well, "Dr"/"Prof" Joseph Chikelue Obi, you can just fuck yourself. As a disgraced professional and fraudster, you should be ashamed of yourself. What you have done to your patients, what you're claiming to do for them, how you're trying to recruit more snake oil salesmen to your clan, AND what you have done in an attempt to shut down people who merely bring attention to your failings is truly despicable.

I think it is important that those of us who value free speech make efforts to bring attention to this outrage. So, please post a link to the Quackometer on your site to support this or write a comment of support.

Tags: The Quackometer, Netcetera Google

Pathetic Observer non-apology

I posted about this a couple of weeks ago.

Today, buried well inside the paper and after the editorials and most commentaries was a "clarification."

Really, this is just not good enough. Speaking with friends last night, they are strongly influenced by such reporting (which was of course copied and run by the other mainstream press groups). We have trusted our newspapers to give fair and balanced reports based on fact. This article and its subsequent coverage in the other press has set back public understanding of this subject by several years and unreasonably made the public question science even more, ironically when it is proper science that is the only way to truth in this, rather than the mumbo-jumbo "science" practised by Wakefield. Will The Observer make an apology over their sycophantic piece on him from the same edition after he is found guilty of professional misconduct by the BMA, as he surely will be? There are serious consequences of this public misunderstanding.

I will leave it to Ben Goldacre (Bad Science columnist at the Guardian) to give his verdict on the Observer "clarification", with suitable links to the whole sorry story. (Ben, I don't think they made a hash of apologising! They didn't apologise at all for the article and the mistakes - only a weak apology for not trying harder to contact one of the people they quoted! Surely, an apology for actually quoting somebody you didn't speak to wouldn't have been too difficult would it as a start?)

I am still considering abandoning my subscription to the Observer over this. Today's article makes that more likely not less. They had a chance to set the record straight, but all they've done is to compound their mistakes and demonstrate that they either don't get it, or don't want to get it.

UPDATE: I have indeed cancelled my subscription for the Observer. It doesn't save me very much - just about £10 per year, as I will now revert to just a Guardian subscription. I have also complained to the Readers' Editor. I feel better!

Tags: Autism, The Observer, MMR, Andrew Wakefield, Ben Goldacre

The British Press...(continued)

I've run a number of posts here about how badly our newspapers report on certain subjects. Yesterday, however, we reached a new low, with two sickening articles in the Observer about MMR and autism, including a cringing interview with the person who has done most to spread FUD, and consequently led to increased deaths and serious disabilities via higher (perhaps quasi-epidemic) measles and rubella infection rates. The main article was the front page headline.

I almost cancelled my Guardian/Observer subscription on the spot, but then how would I get my regular dose of ire?

I will not go into this subject in too much detail here, as there are far more qualified people, and better writers to boot covering this development.

I will instead first link to Ben Goldacre's Bad Science post which covers the developments pretty well, links to other stories, and has some interesting developments (including one of the two scientists the Observer quoted as "privately supporting an MMR link" apparently accused the Observer of fabricating comments, and therefore presumably leaving the Observer with just one of the seven academics thinking this way. Evidence shown on Ben's post seems to show this "academic" as somewhat unhinged and unprofessional at the very least.

Other links to follow include:
A reasoned article at Breath Spa for Kids
Or have a look at the journalist's qualifications for writing about this subject!

Also look out for articles at The Holford Watch
- an anti-dote site to one of the more ridiculous "media nutritionists" who pass themselves off (to the gullible press) as scientists.

MMR WAS a valid idea to be researched as involved in (some cases of) autism. But it has been researched ad nauseam and shown not to be involved AT ALL. The damage done because of the insistence on this link is severe around the world and especially in this country. What is so sad to see is how the supposedly-intelligent broadsheets run with this stuff.

Perhaps, those who believe in good science reporting should complain to the Press Complaints Commission?

Incidentally, if anyone dares to say the Observer is balanced because Goldacre writes a column for the (sister) Guardian, then please also show me when he's been on the front page, or where an editorial has taken up his piece to correct an earlier sare and FUD article?

Tags: Autism, The Observer, MMR, Wakefield, Bad Science

Bad Decision #1: Alzheimers Drugs

News from the BBC today about the Government's refusal (via it's cost/benefit arm - NICE) to sanction the use of certain drugs in combating Alzheimer's.

I have first-hand experience of this situation, and all I can say is the reaction from one person after finally getting the treatment "I've got my husband back". Sure, it wasn't for a long time, but the benefits were tangible. The costs, at £2.50 a day, are surely trivial compared with the other costs both obvious and hidden? Indeed, subsequent costs such as attendance allowances, were way in excess of this sum. Independence and relief was given for £2.50 a day. My regret is that we didn't search this treatment out much sooner when the benefits could have been greater. Again, I have serious concerns that policy is to avoid for as long as possible producing a rational diagnosis that places costs on the system that does the diagnosis. Getting appointments at so-called "memory clinics" is a far-too-torturous process and allows the disease to progress from mild to moderate before any treatment can be attained.

Contrast this with NHS Breast Enlargement Treatment, or NHS IVF and we have I'm afraid lost sight of our priorities.