Ben Goldacre on Radio 4

A bit disappointing I thought - no chance for Dr G to come back after the homeo's replies and no effort by the presenter to challenge the more outrageous claims - such as the effects on children and animals. Still, all debate is good debate.


ETA: I didn't read the Bad Science site before posting - I see other people are way ahead of me. As usual.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe and I have a letter for the BMJ challenging the woo's nonsense. It should be submitted next week.
 
I somehow missed this one. As someone said, Spence's statements are breathtaking. It should be very easy to find out if there was ethics approval - just ask the LREC for the hospital. I'll get onto this right now. I can't see how there could not be. There is a principle that patients must not be exposed to risk for no good scientific reason, so for a drug trial the science is important because all drugs have risk. Applying convoluted logic, the ethics committee might have thought that as there was nothing in the treatment, in other words no treatment, then the science was not important. I will be interested to hear what the committee chairman says.

Of course this was not a longitudinal trial. That would need repeated measures over time, at defined time points. Spence either does not know this, or he does and has been found out. No prizes for guessing which.
 
And today I was in a waiting room and there was a copy of the "Daily Mail" and there was tucked away halfway through was quite a negative but well written pieces against[i/] homeopathy. I was pleasantly surprised. Perhaps the tide is beginning to turn and more people will start to challenge it on the fact it hasn't been shown to work?
 
Asolepius.

See here;

http://www.badscience.net/?p=195



To: David.Spence
Date: Dec 16, 2005 5:25 PM
Subject: one quick last question

one quick last question:
in what sense was this a “straight longitudinal clinical observation study” if the only outcome is a single snapshot piece of data from each patient on whether they felt they had improved? in what sense was it a longitudinal study?
b

Spence, David to ben

Dear Ben

I think both of us know what longitudinal observational studies are - it really does not require explanation!
Regards
David
 
Badly Shaved Monkey said:
Asolepius.

See here;

http://www.badscience.net/?p=195



To: David.Spence
Date: Dec 16, 2005 5:25 PM
Subject: one quick last question

one quick last question:
in what sense was this a “straight longitudinal clinical observation study” if the only outcome is a single snapshot piece of data from each patient on whether they felt they had improved? in what sense was it a longitudinal study?
b

Spence, David to ben

Dear Ben

I think both of us know what longitudinal observational studies are - it really does not require explanation!
Regards
David
Click to expand...
Exactly to what I was referring! I think this has turned out to be a remarkably accurate piece of foot-shooting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom