@JaneyMac1121 Sorry. I understood that Goldacre was a colleague of Simon Wessely (a man not exactly famous for his anti-establishment stance, to say the least). Perhaps you would do me the favour of googling that and letting me know if I've got it wrong
Thomas Moore, a senior fellow in health policy at the George Washington University Medical Center, estimates that prescription drugs -- those reviewed and approved by the FDA -- contribute to 100,000 U.S. deaths each year. Figures don't seem to be available for the UK, but are possibly comparable. Shame Goldacre doesn't want to address this issue. This must be what he considers "Good" science.
Dear Adrian Chiles, "Balanced" and "Right" is not the same thing. Balanced often means allowing someone with no evidence for their personal belief to get their say too.
Ruta 6 selectively induces cell death in brain cancer cells but proliferation in normal peripheral blood lymphocytes: A novel treatment for human brain cancer. International Journal of Oncology, 2003;23(4):975-982
Chiles: "We're very proud of our science team, here, incidentally, on The One Show; they do all sorts of stories and they do actually make strenuous efforts to try to get things balanced — try to get things right."
Not even ten seconds in and you already failed. "Balance"? What, like Fox News? "We spout various opinions, you decide"?
You know what's good for determining whose views are right? It's science. Reality isn't balanced. Evidence tips the scales, and science is how you get evidence.
1:46 'There's no sillier example of bad science than food and nutrition'. Well pardon me, but how can two nouns be bad science? But of course, he said they were a silly example so he should try to be more specific and present a proper argument. Regarding his take on diet I would say, 'I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that' Bwahaha!
He is arguing using 'proof by selected instances' (Thouless, Straight and Crooked Thinking, p171) and inferring 'all' where 'some' is true (ibid. p170). For example, he markets a tee-shirt with a picture of a rubber duck labelled, 'Nutritionist', though that clearly applies to many orthodox medics. Nutritional deficiency is a major problem yet how many of us are tested for this? Too often drugs are used to replace a varied diet or supplementation when necessary.
Numerous time Walker states that Goldacre "claims" to be a junior doctor. Pfft.
Walker tries to imply that Goldacre has lied about his credentials simply b/c he hasn't said or written anything specific about where he works. Wouldn't an actual journalist use more than Google to determine the veracity of Goldacre's claim? Goldacre isn't anonymous.
It is free because Walker doesn't have anything similar to the Guardian backing him up. Walker NEVER states that Goldacre claims to be a junior doctor. He says 'it is claimed...', and that claim was made on the Healthwatch website.
You mean synecdoche, and I do not think that appropriate here where precise language is required; it is not that easy because he fails to take environmental factors into account that have changed since we could live like that. Look at the work of Weston Price that shows 50% of our food needs to be raw.
That's exactly how I spelt it... Anyway, I agree that it wasn't the best phrasing, but he immediately qualified what he said; his meaning was fairly clear.
What I was getting at was that 'food and nutrition' cannot be bad science, but certain methodologies in the study of food and nutrition might be. Therefore he should give a specific example. If what he describes with regard to diet was so 'easy', then why do people need to visit GPs so often? (I hesitate to use the word 'doctor' because they don't necessarily have a doctoral degree - like Ben here). What he omits is how you can tell the quality of the evidence. Who is paying the piper?
His eyebrows and his waving hands, especially in those fish-eye shots that The One Show thinks make things look dramatic.
Forget about the theatricals, I say, and let his ever-fresh shirt/tank-top combo speak for itself. Um, that is, I mean: pay close attention to double-blind empirical trials, kids.
Yeah think thats more down to him being on the one show. When he has been on newswipe or screenwipe its its a bit more easy on the eye, Still great to watch tho
Adrian Chiles is a fug-pugly pile of thickoid excrement and his cohost is an equally contemptible vacuous moron. Thankfully, Ben Goldacre is quality enough to make this clip have a positive net gooditude. Woohoo!
I know this is a bit of a weird thing to say, but when reading Ben Goldacre, I always imagined him to look and sound exactly like the comedian Chris Addison. Which is strange because he does, in a Willy Wonka sort of way.
C'mon guys, isn't it obvious? Goldacre is the bastard son of Leo Sayer, 'Rain Man' and Nicole Kidman (after she was traumitised by the sexually 'confused' Tom Cruise).
I am talking about the presenters on Sky news and even on BBC-news (though more informed). Someone mentions science to them and you almost see their brain shutter, a few more words of science its time to interrupt with some gibberish. So as you can see I fully agree with Ben Goldacre.
In what way? I regard Ben as one of the few people left who actually tried to put some perspective on the contant health fads and scare stories peddled by the papers (The Independent and the Daily Mail being the worst for irresponsible health journalism)
@JaneyMac1121 Sorry. I understood that Goldacre was a colleague of Simon Wessely (a man not exactly famous for his anti-establishment stance, to say the least). Perhaps you would do me the favour of googling that and letting me know if I've got it wrong
WhelkDoctor1 4 months ago
@WhelkDoctor1 Learn to google. His next book is about the evils of Big Pharma.
JaneyMac1121 5 months ago
Thomas Moore, a senior fellow in health policy at the George Washington University Medical Center, estimates that prescription drugs -- those reviewed and approved by the FDA -- contribute to 100,000 U.S. deaths each year. Figures don't seem to be available for the UK, but are possibly comparable. Shame Goldacre doesn't want to address this issue. This must be what he considers "Good" science.
WhelkDoctor1 7 months ago
Dear Adrian Chiles, "Balanced" and "Right" is not the same thing. Balanced often means allowing someone with no evidence for their personal belief to get their say too.
sicktrick33 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thumbs up if you like his book, Bad Science!
stevenuuu1212 11 months ago
Ben Goldacre is brilliant as usual...and the presenters are simpering morons, as usual.
KapStuf 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Homeopathy remedy Ruta 6 can treat brain tumors:
Ruta 6 selectively induces cell death in brain cancer cells but proliferation in normal peripheral blood lymphocytes: A novel treatment for human brain cancer. International Journal of Oncology, 2003;23(4):975-982
mohanaturo 1 year ago
he should be president of science
alexkidd3d 1 year ago 4
"just one newspaper"
Let me guess: The daily mail?
ZarlanTheGreen 1 year ago 8
In this he reminds me of charlie brooker.
smitty618 1 year ago
@smitty618 he was on newswipe so probly picked up a bit of his style there
bigfry74 1 year ago
Mmmmmmmmmmmmm, Christine. xxx
PessimistGas 2 years ago 2
Is Ben Goldacre a Time Lord? I like to think he is.
Damn6Deal6Done6 2 years ago 8
Chiles: "We're very proud of our science team, here, incidentally, on The One Show; they do all sorts of stories and they do actually make strenuous efforts to try to get things balanced — try to get things right."
Not even ten seconds in and you already failed. "Balance"? What, like Fox News? "We spout various opinions, you decide"?
You know what's good for determining whose views are right? It's science. Reality isn't balanced. Evidence tips the scales, and science is how you get evidence.
MishaVargas 2 years ago 8
Goldacre is a gift for people who prefer facts to nonsense.
kitchenaut 2 years ago 44
1:46 'There's no sillier example of bad science than food and nutrition'. Well pardon me, but how can two nouns be bad science? But of course, he said they were a silly example so he should try to be more specific and present a proper argument. Regarding his take on diet I would say, 'I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that' Bwahaha!
macrobius 2 years ago
He is arguing using 'proof by selected instances' (Thouless, Straight and Crooked Thinking, p171) and inferring 'all' where 'some' is true (ibid. p170). For example, he markets a tee-shirt with a picture of a rubber duck labelled, 'Nutritionist', though that clearly applies to many orthodox medics. Nutritional deficiency is a major problem yet how many of us are tested for this? Too often drugs are used to replace a varied diet or supplementation when necessary.
macrobius 2 years ago
Goldacre is a clever 'Quackbuster' creation from the tank-top to t he 'Talk nerdy to me' sticker on his laptop.
Read Martin Walker's free eBook 'Cultural Dwarfs' for more info slingshotpublicationsDOTcom/dwarfsDOThtml
replacing DOTs with real ones.
macrobius 2 years ago
Numerous time Walker states that Goldacre "claims" to be a junior doctor. Pfft.
Walker tries to imply that Goldacre has lied about his credentials simply b/c he hasn't said or written anything specific about where he works. Wouldn't an actual journalist use more than Google to determine the veracity of Goldacre's claim? Goldacre isn't anonymous.
I can see why it's free.
dunkeybunker 2 years ago
It is free because Walker doesn't have anything similar to the Guardian backing him up. Walker NEVER states that Goldacre claims to be a junior doctor. He says 'it is claimed...', and that claim was made on the Healthwatch website.
macrobius 2 years ago
Because he was using those two nouns as synedoche for something on which he elaborates in the next sentence...
thobern 2 years ago
You mean synecdoche, and I do not think that appropriate here where precise language is required; it is not that easy because he fails to take environmental factors into account that have changed since we could live like that. Look at the work of Weston Price that shows 50% of our food needs to be raw.
macrobius 2 years ago
That's exactly how I spelt it... Anyway, I agree that it wasn't the best phrasing, but he immediately qualified what he said; his meaning was fairly clear.
thobern 2 years ago
Oh, my mistake, I did miss a "c".
thobern 2 years ago
What I was getting at was that 'food and nutrition' cannot be bad science, but certain methodologies in the study of food and nutrition might be. Therefore he should give a specific example. If what he describes with regard to diet was so 'easy', then why do people need to visit GPs so often? (I hesitate to use the word 'doctor' because they don't necessarily have a doctoral degree - like Ben here). What he omits is how you can tell the quality of the evidence. Who is paying the piper?
macrobius 2 years ago
You're quote mining.
meekychuppet 2 years ago
the girl in the blue's rly hot.
dchokee 2 years ago
His eyebrows scare me. Still love him though.
elle5759 2 years ago
His eyebrows and his waving hands, especially in those fish-eye shots that The One Show thinks make things look dramatic.
Forget about the theatricals, I say, and let his ever-fresh shirt/tank-top combo speak for itself. Um, that is, I mean: pay close attention to double-blind empirical trials, kids.
adecentusername 2 years ago
This is great. I use it in my PhD class to get a discussion going and it works everytime.
muffinz3 2 years ago
Ben Goldacre is an absolute legend but I've got to say there's a lot of bursting through doors and cuts to different places -.-
dotters123 2 years ago 5
Yeah think thats more down to him being on the one show. When he has been on newswipe or screenwipe its its a bit more easy on the eye, Still great to watch tho
mutantenemy2008 2 years ago
Too much eyebrow action!
gossieuk 3 years ago
Adrian Chiles is a fug-pugly pile of thickoid excrement and his cohost is an equally contemptible vacuous moron. Thankfully, Ben Goldacre is quality enough to make this clip have a positive net gooditude. Woohoo!
mctagnutandfries 3 years ago
steady now
pvuf431 2 years ago
I know this is a bit of a weird thing to say, but when reading Ben Goldacre, I always imagined him to look and sound exactly like the comedian Chris Addison. Which is strange because he does, in a Willy Wonka sort of way.
lamplighteyes 3 years ago 2
I thought he looks like a Chris Addison / Steve Punt lovechild, with a big round smiley face and over active eye brows.... Which is cool..
Teveh 3 years ago 2
C'mon guys, isn't it obvious? Goldacre is the bastard son of Leo Sayer, 'Rain Man' and Nicole Kidman (after she was traumitised by the sexually 'confused' Tom Cruise).
twold4this 2 years ago
Ben is one of the few bright people left on this earth full of ignorants.
tx1523 3 years ago 9
I am tired of idiot tv puppets on the news trying to explain science (that they don't understand) to people they expect are stupider than themselves.
aZeroGodist 3 years ago 3
Ben isn't a tv puppet, he is a qualified doctor (and not a homeopathic one!)
daveevans1000 3 years ago 2
I am talking about the presenters on Sky news and even on BBC-news (though more informed). Someone mentions science to them and you almost see their brain shutter, a few more words of science its time to interrupt with some gibberish. So as you can see I fully agree with Ben Goldacre.
aZeroGodist 3 years ago 2
More Ben Goldacre, reason and science please!
AlwaysReadTheLabel 3 years ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What a fucking tosspot. Ben GoldAcre is the major contributor to bad science.
IHaveABeard123 3 years ago
In what way? I regard Ben as one of the few people left who actually tried to put some perspective on the contant health fads and scare stories peddled by the papers (The Independent and the Daily Mail being the worst for irresponsible health journalism)
daveevans1000 3 years ago 7
what the fuck are you on about you idiot
simonandtheghost 3 years ago
Ben Goldacre is made of win and curly hair. =D
tobascodagama 3 years ago 43
Also: eyebrows.
tobascodagama 3 years ago 8