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
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
24 January 2008
04 December 2007
Incredible Video
There's not a lot I can add to this, but if you haven't seen this video on chimps outperforming humans at memory tasks, do go. It simply is amazing, especially the speed of it.
Then read the article afterwards.
(Yes, I know I should have embedded the YouTube video here, but I didn't have time to set that up yet).
Tags: New Scientist, Chimps
Then read the article afterwards.
(Yes, I know I should have embedded the YouTube video here, but I didn't have time to set that up yet).
Tags: New Scientist, Chimps
22 July 2007
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
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
09 July 2007
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
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
04 March 2007
A wonderful sight
It's often the case that we miss good astronomical events in the UK due to weather. But not last night!
This was the first time I can remember seeing a complete lunar eclipse, and indeed it was a lovely sight - by naked eye, with binoculars, or through a telescope.
The moon looked particularly eerie - like a slightly red ping pong ball hovering in the sky, and it was amazing to see how the rest of the stars shone like they never get to do on a normal full moon!
Tags: Moon, Lunar, Eclipse
This was the first time I can remember seeing a complete lunar eclipse, and indeed it was a lovely sight - by naked eye, with binoculars, or through a telescope.
The moon looked particularly eerie - like a slightly red ping pong ball hovering in the sky, and it was amazing to see how the rest of the stars shone like they never get to do on a normal full moon!
Tags: Moon, Lunar, Eclipse
23 February 2007
UK Government Science Investment
I was disappointed to read about the UK Government taking money from the science and medical research budgets to "soften the blow" of Rover's collapse.
That Rover was a dead duck was known for many, many years (decades even), and while I have sympathy with the workers there, I don't think they deserved anything different than any other worker laid off from a failed company.
But looking at it another way, the stupidity and short-sightedness of the government's moves seems clear: Does anyone for one minute think that Rover's demise came about by investing too MUCH in science and engineering research?
Once again, we have taken from the future to pay for past mistakes. Particularly nasty is the fact that medical research is reduced when clearly this has nothing to do with engineering.
As an aside, the article implies that the government has put a significant extra investment into research so it is merely taking back a little of that largesse. But I know that much of the money (like for the NHS) has gone on administration. For instance whereas a grant of £170k a few years ago would have been spent on the research, the grant is now topped up with "overhead" of, say £130k to pay for admin at the university. No more science is done than at the £170k level, but the cost is now £300k!
Tags: UK, Science, Medical, Research, Budget, Rover
That Rover was a dead duck was known for many, many years (decades even), and while I have sympathy with the workers there, I don't think they deserved anything different than any other worker laid off from a failed company.
But looking at it another way, the stupidity and short-sightedness of the government's moves seems clear: Does anyone for one minute think that Rover's demise came about by investing too MUCH in science and engineering research?
Once again, we have taken from the future to pay for past mistakes. Particularly nasty is the fact that medical research is reduced when clearly this has nothing to do with engineering.
As an aside, the article implies that the government has put a significant extra investment into research so it is merely taking back a little of that largesse. But I know that much of the money (like for the NHS) has gone on administration. For instance whereas a grant of £170k a few years ago would have been spent on the research, the grant is now topped up with "overhead" of, say £130k to pay for admin at the university. No more science is done than at the £170k level, but the cost is now £300k!
Tags: UK, Science, Medical, Research, Budget, Rover
07 January 2007
French Follies
I wrote back in April 2006 about the foolishness of Chirac trying to take on Google with a French (and German) competitor funded by the state, known as Quaero.
I read in a recent Ars Technica post that this project has already run into severe difficulties and that France and Germany have gone their separate ways on it.
I'd hardly take credit for an insightful post as I'm not sure any reasonable business person thought any differently than me. But, really, what was he thinking and why do the French let him get away with this?
(As an aside, my partner points out that in her subject area the whole world uses the term "DNA", except that is, the French, to whom it is "ADN". Can anyone tell me how such practices really help defend the French culture, increase it's influence abroad, and enhance it's competitiveness in the global economy?)
Tags: Jacques Chirac, Quaero, Google
I read in a recent Ars Technica post that this project has already run into severe difficulties and that France and Germany have gone their separate ways on it.
I'd hardly take credit for an insightful post as I'm not sure any reasonable business person thought any differently than me. But, really, what was he thinking and why do the French let him get away with this?
(As an aside, my partner points out that in her subject area the whole world uses the term "DNA", except that is, the French, to whom it is "ADN". Can anyone tell me how such practices really help defend the French culture, increase it's influence abroad, and enhance it's competitiveness in the global economy?)
Tags: Jacques Chirac, Quaero, Google
23 October 2006
The Media and Science...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
