Guest alex Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 NicVos strikes back. Do you think you'll ever grasp the difference between fiction and reality? Rhetorical question btw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 NicVos strikes back. Do you think you'll ever grasp the difference between fiction and reality? Rhetorical question btw You moody cow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Ben Goldacre The Guardian Monday September 1 2008 When you’ve been working with bullshit for as long as I have, you start to spot recurring themes: quacks and the pharmaceutical industry use the exact same tricks to sell their pills, everybody loves a “science bit” – even if it’s wrong – and when people introduce pseudoscience into any explanation, it’s usually because there’s something else they’re trying desperately not to talk about. But my favourite is this: alternative therapists, the media, and the drug industry all conspire to sell us reductionist, bio-medical explanations for problems that might more sensibly and constructively be thought of as social, political, or personal. And this medicalisation of everyday life isn’t done to us; in fact, we eat it up. In 2007 the British Medical Journal published a large, well-conducted, randomised controlled trial, performed at lots of different locations, run by publicly funded scientists, that delivered a strikingly positive result: it showed that one treatment could significantly improve children’s antisocial behaviour. The treatment was entirely safe, and the study was even accompanied by a very compelling cost-effectiveness analysis. Did this story get reported as front-page news in the Daily Mail, natural home of miracle cures (and sinister hidden scares)? Was it followed up on the health pages, with an accompanying photo feature, describing one child’s miraculous recovery, and an interview with an attractive happy mother with whom we could all identify? No. This story was unanimously ignored by the entire British news media, despite their preoccupation with antisocial behaviour, school performance and miracle cures, for one very simple reason: the research was not about a pill. It was about a cheap, practical parenting programme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 18081 Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Ben GoldacreThe Guardian Monday September 1 2008 When you’ve been working with bullshit for as long as I have, you start to spot recurring themes: quacks and the pharmaceutical industry use the exact same tricks to sell their pills, everybody loves a “science bit” – even if it’s wrong – and when people introduce pseudoscience into any explanation, it’s usually because there’s something else they’re trying desperately not to talk about. But my favourite is this: alternative therapists, the media, and the drug industry all conspire to sell us reductionist, bio-medical explanations for problems that might more sensibly and constructively be thought of as social, political, or personal. And this medicalisation of everyday life isn’t done to us; in fact, we eat it up. In 2007 the British Medical Journal published a large, well-conducted, randomised controlled trial, performed at lots of different locations, run by publicly funded scientists, that delivered a strikingly positive result: it showed that one treatment could significantly improve children’s antisocial behaviour. The treatment was entirely safe, and the study was even accompanied by a very compelling cost-effectiveness analysis. Did this story get reported as front-page news in the Daily Mail, natural home of miracle cures (and sinister hidden scares)? Was it followed up on the health pages, with an accompanying photo feature, describing one child’s miraculous recovery, and an interview with an attractive happy mother with whom we could all identify? No. This story was unanimously ignored by the entire British news media, despite their preoccupation with antisocial behaviour, school performance and miracle cures, for one very simple reason: the research was not about a pill. It was about a cheap, practical parenting programme. Relevance? As it happens, Ben Goldacre must be the antithesis of just about everything you stand for Parky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sniffer 0 Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Did the story get front page coverage in the Guardian? Or the Times? Or the Telegraph? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Ben GoldacreThe Guardian Monday September 1 2008 When you’ve been working with bullshit for as long as I have, you start to spot recurring themes: quacks and the pharmaceutical industry use the exact same tricks to sell their pills, everybody loves a “science bit” – even if it’s wrong – and when people introduce pseudoscience into any explanation, it’s usually because there’s something else they’re trying desperately not to talk about. But my favourite is this: alternative therapists, the media, and the drug industry all conspire to sell us reductionist, bio-medical explanations for problems that might more sensibly and constructively be thought of as social, political, or personal. And this medicalisation of everyday life isn’t done to us; in fact, we eat it up. In 2007 the British Medical Journal published a large, well-conducted, randomised controlled trial, performed at lots of different locations, run by publicly funded scientists, that delivered a strikingly positive result: it showed that one treatment could significantly improve children’s antisocial behaviour. The treatment was entirely safe, and the study was even accompanied by a very compelling cost-effectiveness analysis. Did this story get reported as front-page news in the Daily Mail, natural home of miracle cures (and sinister hidden scares)? Was it followed up on the health pages, with an accompanying photo feature, describing one child’s miraculous recovery, and an interview with an attractive happy mother with whom we could all identify? No. This story was unanimously ignored by the entire British news media, despite their preoccupation with antisocial behaviour, school performance and miracle cures, for one very simple reason: the research was not about a pill. It was about a cheap, practical parenting programme. Relevance? As it happens, Ben Goldacre must be the antithesis of just about everything you stand for Parky. Never heard of him tbh. Just trying to broaden the debate as the thread title is clearly a ridiculous and will never happen. If any Govt in the UK is deemed to kill the NHS they will be out of power for two decades or more. Unthinkable in political circles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Read the first chapter of his book yesterday. Very good. Looking forward to getting round to the rest of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Read the first chapter of his book yesterday. Very good. Looking forward to getting round to the rest of it. Have a nose around here. http://www.badscience.net/2008/09/the-medi...-everyday-life/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 18081 Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 (edited) Ben GoldacreThe Guardian Monday September 1 2008 When you’ve been working with bullshit for as long as I have, you start to spot recurring themes: quacks and the pharmaceutical industry use the exact same tricks to sell their pills, everybody loves a “science bit” – even if it’s wrong – and when people introduce pseudoscience into any explanation, it’s usually because there’s something else they’re trying desperately not to talk about. But my favourite is this: alternative therapists, the media, and the drug industry all conspire to sell us reductionist, bio-medical explanations for problems that might more sensibly and constructively be thought of as social, political, or personal. And this medicalisation of everyday life isn’t done to us; in fact, we eat it up. In 2007 the British Medical Journal published a large, well-conducted, randomised controlled trial, performed at lots of different locations, run by publicly funded scientists, that delivered a strikingly positive result: it showed that one treatment could significantly improve children’s antisocial behaviour. The treatment was entirely safe, and the study was even accompanied by a very compelling cost-effectiveness analysis. Did this story get reported as front-page news in the Daily Mail, natural home of miracle cures (and sinister hidden scares)? Was it followed up on the health pages, with an accompanying photo feature, describing one child’s miraculous recovery, and an interview with an attractive happy mother with whom we could all identify? No. This story was unanimously ignored by the entire British news media, despite their preoccupation with antisocial behaviour, school performance and miracle cures, for one very simple reason: the research was not about a pill. It was about a cheap, practical parenting programme. Relevance? As it happens, Ben Goldacre must be the antithesis of just about everything you stand for Parky. Never heard of him tbh. Just trying to broaden the debate as the thread title is clearly a ridiculous and will never happen. If any Govt in the UK is deemed to kill the NHS they will be out of power for two decades or more. Unthinkable in political circles. He's a critical thinker and conspiracy debunker amongst other things, quite well known in my field. He has a well known blog called Bad Science and has recently written a book by the same name, to some critical acclaim. I'd seriously recommend you read it, it may make you view the world a bit more critically and change your view on crop circles. I don't think anyone, including Chez, has advocated the complete destruction of the NHS or envisions this will happen any time soon. But some of us can see things can't go on as they are indefinitely, and that sooner rather than later there will have to be changes to healthcare funding and provision. It's simply inevitable. Edit: just reread and can see you do know of him, which makes your viewpoints even more bizarre tbh. Edited July 21, 2009 by Renton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Read the first chapter of his book yesterday. Very good. Looking forward to getting round to the rest of it. Have a nose around here. http://www.badscience.net/2008/09/the-medi...-everyday-life/ Yes....that book. Always happy to have a new blog to read. Ta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 (edited) Ben GoldacreThe Guardian Monday September 1 2008 When you’ve been working with bullshit for as long as I have, you start to spot recurring themes: quacks and the pharmaceutical industry use the exact same tricks to sell their pills, everybody loves a “science bit” – even if it’s wrong – and when people introduce pseudoscience into any explanation, it’s usually because there’s something else they’re trying desperately not to talk about. But my favourite is this: alternative therapists, the media, and the drug industry all conspire to sell us reductionist, bio-medical explanations for problems that might more sensibly and constructively be thought of as social, political, or personal. And this medicalisation of everyday life isn’t done to us; in fact, we eat it up. In 2007 the British Medical Journal published a large, well-conducted, randomised controlled trial, performed at lots of different locations, run by publicly funded scientists, that delivered a strikingly positive result: it showed that one treatment could significantly improve children’s antisocial behaviour. The treatment was entirely safe, and the study was even accompanied by a very compelling cost-effectiveness analysis. Did this story get reported as front-page news in the Daily Mail, natural home of miracle cures (and sinister hidden scares)? Was it followed up on the health pages, with an accompanying photo feature, describing one child’s miraculous recovery, and an interview with an attractive happy mother with whom we could all identify? No. This story was unanimously ignored by the entire British news media, despite their preoccupation with antisocial behaviour, school performance and miracle cures, for one very simple reason: the research was not about a pill. It was about a cheap, practical parenting programme. Relevance? As it happens, Ben Goldacre must be the antithesis of just about everything you stand for Parky. Never heard of him tbh. Just trying to broaden the debate as the thread title is clearly a ridiculous and will never happen. If any Govt in the UK is deemed to kill the NHS they will be out of power for two decades or more. Unthinkable in political circles. He's a critical thinker and conspiracy debunker amongst other things, quite well known in my field. He has a well known blog called Bad Science and has recently written a book by the same name, to some critical acclaim. I'd seriously recommend you read it, it may make you view the world a bit more critically and change your view on crop circles. I don't think anyone, including Chez, has advocated the complete destruction of the NHS or envisions this will happen any time soon. But some of us can see things can't go on as they are indefinitely, and that sooner rather than later there will have to be changes to healthcare funding and provision. It's simply inevitable. Strangely (you know how life works) I was pointed to the site this very day by a friend. Will order the book. Our ratio of dependancy will be the best in Europe apparently and the doomsayers reg the NHS and supporting an aging population might be on the wrong track (young working immigrants coming into the UK is a factor apparently). However there needs to be a review on how we want the NHS to work in the future I agree with you and Chez on this. Keep and open mind on the crop circles fella....Well till 2012 at least. edit @ Renton Only found the site today. Edited July 21, 2009 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 21, 2009 Author Share Posted July 21, 2009 I love Ben Goldacre but i wouldnt rate him as a scientist, he knows how to communicate evidence based medicine to the masses though. If you are really into the subject, read Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery, its insight is almost as profound as religion and will leave you running round thinking you've discovered a secret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 I love Ben Goldacre but i wouldnt rate him as a scientist, he knows how to communicate evidence based medicine to the masses though. If you are really into the subject, read Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery, its insight is almost as profound as religion and will leave you running round thinking you've discovered a secret. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 18081 Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 I love Ben Goldacre but i wouldnt rate him as a scientist, he knows how to communicate evidence based medicine to the masses though. If you are really into the subject, read Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery, its insight is almost as profound as religion and will leave you running round thinking you've discovered a secret. Aye, Goldacre is basically a showman and popularist, which isn't a bad thing I suppose. I think I may give Popper's book a try. I've come into EBM from the other direction and never really studied or bothered with scientific phiosophy before. Thinking back, it's odd more of this stuff isn't taught as part of the science curriculum or at least to people doing degree level science, because ultimately it's crucial to understanding the world, the rest is just detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 21, 2009 Author Share Posted July 21, 2009 Rents, one of the insight is something like this (approximately); 'a clinical trial is a social representation of the biological process of evolution; assumption, experiment, falsification, adaptation' Dog assumes he can piss on the carpet, dog experiments by pissing on carpet, end of nose becomes sore from slap and original assumption proves to be false, dog adapts by pissing outside, nose does not get slapped, continues to piss outside. Thats an n of 1 trial but you get the point. Like any form of biological adaptation, it is the acquisition of knowledge. Its how Popper defines that knowledge that is quite profound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Rents, one of the insight is something like this (approximately); 'a clinical trial is a social representation of the biological process of evolution; assumption, experiment, falsification, adaptation' Dog assumes he can piss on the carpet, dog experiments by pissing on carpet, end of nose becomes sore from slap and original assumption proves to be false, dog adapts by pissing outside, nose does not get slapped, continues to piss outside. Thats an n of 1 trial but you get the point. Like any form of biological adaptation, it is the acquisition of knowledge. Its how Popper defines that knowledge that is quite profound. I was hoping it would be a bit more complex than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 21, 2009 Author Share Posted July 21, 2009 I used the dog being slapped on the nose example as i knew you'd be able to relate to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 21, 2009 Author Share Posted July 21, 2009 I completely forgot to post this. Its a must read for anyone (around 3 posters) interested in this thread. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine...mp;ref=magazine Its caused quite a debate, further editorials in USA today (yesterday) on the back of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 I completely forgot to post this. Its a must read for anyone (around 3 posters) interested in this thread. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine...mp;ref=magazine Its caused quite a debate, further editorials in USA today (yesterday) on the back of it. I always take the clear blue water on these things ie people should have access to the medicine they need regardless of cost (I'm talking about life or death scenarios obviously not pearl work at the dentist or summat). I also find these types of articles always dig up extreme scenarios where you have to use doublethink just as you don't feel like a bad person. Drugs companies are charging too much for instance to the American system, in some cases the same drug costs x10 times as much as in Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 18081 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 I completely forgot to post this. Its a must read for anyone (around 3 posters) interested in this thread. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine...mp;ref=magazine Its caused quite a debate, further editorials in USA today (yesterday) on the back of it. I always take the clear blue water on these things ie people should have access to the medicine they need regardless of cost (I'm talking about life or death scenarios obviously not pearl work at the dentist or summat). I also find these types of articles always dig up extreme scenarios where you have to use doublethink just as you don't feel like a bad person. Drugs companies are charging too much for instance to the American system, in some cases the same drug costs x10 times as much as in Europe. Did you actually read the article Parky? Because it's ironic you suggest the article used extreme scenarios (which it didn't at all) at the same time as qualifying your thoughts by comparing life saving treatment with minor cosmetic treatment. And regarding your last comment, part of the thrust of the article was arguing that the reasons drug prices are so high in the States is precisely because they are not rationed like in other health services. So can I take it you agree this is a bad thing and support the UK approach where drugs will be increasingly rationed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 (edited) I thought the article relied on anecdotal views too...though I did realise having read past the first page it does recognise this as a major flaw in the whole debate itself. Surely the point of the article is that the high price paid for treatment in the US is itself a ration. This is the opposite of the idea that a high price is what must be paid to avoid rationing. And wasn't the original thrust of this thread that treatments in the UK are to be less forcibly rationed, and made available to those that can afford them? Both countries would hopefully converge somewhere between the two current systems. Edited July 22, 2009 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Ben GoldacreThe Guardian Monday September 1 2008 When you’ve been working with bullshit for as long as I have, you start to spot recurring themes: quacks and the pharmaceutical industry use the exact same tricks to sell their pills, everybody loves a “science bit” – even if it’s wrong – and when people introduce pseudoscience into any explanation, it’s usually because there’s something else they’re trying desperately not to talk about. But my favourite is this: alternative therapists, the media, and the drug industry all conspire to sell us reductionist, bio-medical explanations for problems that might more sensibly and constructively be thought of as social, political, or personal. And this medicalisation of everyday life isn’t done to us; in fact, we eat it up. In 2007 the British Medical Journal published a large, well-conducted, randomised controlled trial, performed at lots of different locations, run by publicly funded scientists, that delivered a strikingly positive result: it showed that one treatment could significantly improve children’s antisocial behaviour. The treatment was entirely safe, and the study was even accompanied by a very compelling cost-effectiveness analysis. Did this story get reported as front-page news in the Daily Mail, natural home of miracle cures (and sinister hidden scares)? Was it followed up on the health pages, with an accompanying photo feature, describing one child’s miraculous recovery, and an interview with an attractive happy mother with whom we could all identify? No. This story was unanimously ignored by the entire British news media, despite their preoccupation with antisocial behaviour, school performance and miracle cures, for one very simple reason: the research was not about a pill. It was about a cheap, practical parenting programme. Not much profit in it. Profit is God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 18081 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 I thought the article relied on anecdotal views too...though I did realise having read past the first page it does recognise this as a major flaw in the whole debate itself. Surely the point of the article is that the high price paid for treatment in the US is itself a ration. This is the opposite of the idea that a high price is what must be paid to avoid rationing. And wasn't the original thrust of this thread that treatments in the UK are to be less forcibly rationed, and made available to those that can afford them? Both countries would hopefully converge somewhere between the two current systems. It argued from the specific to the general, as many medical articles do as it happens (i.e. what evidence is there to support the best management of patient X). I'm getting confused as to who is arguing with what now tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 (edited) I thought the article relied on anecdotal views too...though I did realise having read past the first page it does recognise this as a major flaw in the whole debate itself. Surely the point of the article is that the high price paid for treatment in the US is itself a ration. This is the opposite of the idea that a high price is what must be paid to avoid rationing. And wasn't the original thrust of this thread that treatments in the UK are to be less forcibly rationed, and made available to those that can afford them? Both countries would hopefully converge somewhere between the two current systems. It argued from the specific to the general, as many medical articles do as it happens (i.e. what evidence is there to support the best management of patient X). I'm getting confused as to who is arguing with what now tbh. No doubt. Just saying i initially thought the same as Parky until this paragraph at the end of page 2. "When the media feature someone like Bruce Hardy or Jack Rosser, we readily relate to individuals who are harmed by a government agency’s decision to limit the cost of health care. But we tend not to hear about — and thus don’t identify with — the particular individuals who die in emergency rooms because they have no health insurance. This “identifiable victim” effect, well documented by psychologists, creates a dangerous bias in our thinking. Doyle’s figures suggest that if those Wisconsin accident victims without health insurance had received equivalent care to those with it, the additional health care would have cost about $220,000 for each life saved. Those who died were on average around 30 years old and could have been expected to live for at least another 40 years; this means that had they survived their accidents, the cost per extra year of life would have been no more than $5,500 — a small fraction of the $49,000 that NICE recommends the British National Health Service should be ready to pay to give a patient an extra year of life. If the U.S. system spent less on expensive treatments for those who, with or without the drugs, have at most a few months to live, it would be better able to save the lives of more people who, if they get the treatment they need, might live for several decades." Which in a nutshell is spot on afaic. Edited July 22, 2009 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 How long are the licenses on fancy drugs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now