The man who has spent the past few years dismembering medical quacks in his weekly column in The Guardian, Ben Goldacre, has made it into paperback. While the "Bad Science" title of his new book might provoke some to complain that it should really be "Bad Medicine," there's no doubt that Dr Goldacre, a fellow member of the ABSW, has done a service to medical journalism, even though the fake remedies, and some journalists' willingness to puff them, shows little sign of going away.
Saturday's Guardian has an extract from the book, The media’s MMR hoax. In this, Goldacre excoriates the newspapers that did much to fuel the hysteria around MMR. His line is that it isn't just, or even primarily, Dr Andrew Wakefield who deserves the blame for this descent into scientific lunacy, but the media.
Given the tradition that dog does not eat dog – that journalists do not pick holes in each others stories – we have to rely on Goldacre for this sort of thing. Journalists happily pick holes in stories over a pint, but they won't do it in print.
One area where Goldacre's account may be slightly divorced from reality is his observation that "While stories on GM food, or cloning, stood a good chance of being written by specialist science reporters, with stories on MMR their knowledge was deliberately sidelined, and 80% of the coverage was by generalist reporters." Plenty of the coverage of GM came from hacks with little understanding of the science.
This really just confirms his thesis that science goes out of the window when medical, or even science, stories get into the hands of columnists, pundits and others not versed in how science works.
Another quibble is the reference to "didactic statements from authority figures on either side of the debate". Didactic is the wrong word. Dogmatic maybe.
Still, anyone who takes potshots at The Daily Mail has to be on the right side. It will be interesting to see how many of the publications in Goldacre's sights find room to review his book.
Job ads
Want to advertise your jobs on this page and on the ABSW's members only mailing list? Details here...
Sunday, 31 August 2008
Ben Goldacre between soft covers
Posted by
MK
at
3:42 PM
Labels: bad science, Ben Goldacre, journalism, media science
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I am re-posting my JABS Forum blog 'Ben Goldacre & the study no one is talking about':-
http://www.jabs.org.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2943
'Ben returned to the subject of MMR and autism just a fortnight ago. Nothing risky, with the column dropped from CiF just in case. But what a mess he would be in if he had to defend the new Hornig study. Ben loves big studies, but this study had just 5 cases of the Wakefield pheno-type. How could you possibly extrapolate about other cases from such a tiny base?
'And there was another nasty shock in the study:
'"Our results differ with reports noting MV RNA in ileal biopsies of 75% of ASD vs. 6% of control children [10], [41]. Discrepancies are unlikely to represent differences in experimental technique because similar primer and probe sequences, cycling conditions and instruments were employed in this and earlier reports; furthermore, one of the three laboratories participating in this study performed the assays described in earlier reports. Other factors to consider include differences in patient age, sex, origin (Europe vs. North America), GI disease, recency of MMR vaccine administration at time of biopsy, and methods for confirming neuropsychiatric status in cases and controls." [1]
'So it is clearly stating that results of Uhlmann [2] are valid, while acknowledging gut pathology for some autistic children is a real subject for due investigation. The study also validated two positive results across three laboratories and is cagey about their clinical history. For the last four years we have been living with the wicked pretence that the Royal Free patients did not have gut pathology. Even the National Autistic Society had a warning about this:
'"The National Autistic Society is keenly aware of the concerns of parents surrounding suggested links between autism and the MMR vaccine. The charity is concerned that the GMC hearing, and surrounding media coverage, will create further confusion and make it even more difficult for parents to access appropriate medical advice for their children.
'"It is particularly important that this case is not allowed to increase the lack of sympathy that some parents of children with autism have encountered from health professionals, particularly on suspected gut and bowel problems. Parents have reported to the NAS that in some cases their concerns have been dismissed as hysteria following previous publicity around the MMR vaccine. It is crucial that health professionals listen to parents' concerns and respect their views as the experts on their individual children.
'"There is an urgent need for further, authoritative research into the causes of autism, to improve our understanding of the condition, to respond to parents' concerns and to enable us to ensure that there are appropriate services and support in place to meet people's needs." [3]
'Today we live with a horrific situation in this country. The MMR litigation was apparently collapsed on incorrect information that results in the Uhlmann study were false, which is flatly contradicted by the new study [4]. Three doctors stand falsely accused of inventing symptoms at the GMC, while children remain untreated for serious illness (irrespective of cause).
'And Ben, like the rest of the journalistic and medical establishment, is apparently lost for words.'
[1] http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0003140#s3
[2] http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=11950955
[3] http://www.nas.org.uk/nas/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=459&a=13952
[4] http://www.jabs.org.uk/pages/yazbak-expert.asp
SEE F EDWARD YAZBAK: 'CDC-SPONSORED MMR STUDY SUPPORTS WAKEFIELD'S FINDINGS':-
http://www.jabs.org.uk/pages/yazbak%20on%20cdc%20study.pdf
John Stone
PS
While I am quite sure that media reporting of science is inadequate and likely remain so, I am not sure that submission to a league of industry sponsored quack-busting journalists and PR people is the right answer either.
John Stone
The statement "Goldacre excoriates the newspapers that did much to fuel the hysteria around MMR. His line is that it isn't just, or even primarily, Dr Andrew Wakefield who deserves the blame for this descent into scientific lunacy, but the media"
maintains the myth that emerged after Wakefield was erroneously accused by vaccinators, and a particular misguided journalist, of making false claims about vaccination and autism - that MMR does not cause some autism when clearly the evidence still remains that it does.
Granted there have been numerous studies, eventually shot down through sensible scientific analysis, that tried to negate the links between MMR and autism but due to their scientific inadequacy mean that the debate is still very much open on MMR causing autism.
PPS
Not to forget that in the critical year of 2004 the ABSW's main sponsor was MMR defendant company GlaxoSmithKline:
http://www.sciencewritersawards.co.uk/science/past/2003/gallery/cat1-L.htm
It's that photograph again!
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/335/7618/480
John Stone
Post a Comment