Slingshot Publications
PRESS RELEASE
AGANST DR BEN GOLDACRE
Cultural Dwarfs and Junk Journalism is Martin Walker’s fourth book charting the development of the corporate science lobby that has grown rapidly since New Labour came to power in 1997. One of the most recent exponents of the Lobby is Dr Ben Goldacre who has regurgitated a bad ‘Science’ column in the Guardian newspaper since 2003.
Like other quackbusters Goldacre claims to write factually based and scientifically accurate articles about health, medicine and science either supporting scientists and doctors or criticising individuals involved in alternative or nutritional health care. Goldacre’s writing, however, actually reflects the ideology of powerful industrial, technological and political vested interests.
Goldacre who it is claimed is a Junior doctor working in a London NHS hospital is actually a clinical researcher working at the centre of New Labour’s Orwellian spin operation that puts a sympathetic gloss on anything shown to create adverse reactions from MMR to Wi-Fi, while at the same time undermining cost-effective and long tried alternative therapies such as acupuncture and homoeopathy. Goldacre is involved with public health researchers well known for trying to prove that those who claim to be adversely affected by pollutants in our modern high-technology society, suffer from ‘false illness beliefs’.
Cultural Dwarfs and Junk Journalism, investigates Goldacre’s role in industry lobby groups and puts another point of view in defense of some of the people whom he has attacked, belittled, satirized, castigated, vilified, maligned and opined against in his junk journalism.
* * *
Cultural Dwarfs and Junk Journalism: Ben Goldacre, quackbusters and corporate science, is available from the Slingshot Publications web site as a free download, from mid-day on Wednesday January 2nd.
To be effective as a campaigning document, it is important that this book is distributed far and wide as quickly as possible. Please forward this publication information together with the Slingshot Publications web site address. Another thing that will help with the book’s distribution is the writing of even very short reviews for different web sites, this helps get the book onto Google listings.
This book is free and can be downloaded from the Slingshot Publications site: www.slingshotpublications.com. Please distribute it as widely as possible and if you think that the work is worth it, consider making a small donation. Also on the Slingshot site, is Martin Walker’s last book, The Fate of a Good Man. The book tells the story of Jim Wright, the investigation into him, his prosecution and trial by the Big Pharma regulatory agency, the MHRA. A good read at £5.00
[I knew there was something suspect and selective about Ben Goldacre!]
Showing posts with label bad science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bad science. Show all posts
Tuesday, 1 January 2008
Monday, 4 June 2007
Bendetta : Very Bad Science
I've given up with Ben Goldacre - he has decided that microwaves are safe and that electrosensitive people are not affected by electromagnetic radiation.
More than that he appears to be embarking on a vendetta or crusade against the victims of electromagnetic radiation.
Instead of Championing a cause against many Wireless Goliaths he is siding with them.
I have just discovered that he was an invited guest speaker for a fringe meeting sponsored by the Mobile Phone Operators Association at last year's Labour Party Conference (with Labour's favourite grocer Lord Sainsbury) - the title "Science fact or science fiction: How should politicians respond to media scare stories?".
I asked him "Do you receive income or benefits from Companies or Organisations other than “The Guardian” who are linked with the Mobile Phone or Wireless Operators?" to which he replied "don’t be pathetic, of course i’m not."
So there you have it Ben Goldacre's bias is entirely his own.
On another question of whether he had ever met an electrosensitive person he appeared to ignore the question 3 to 4 times. He did say "i have engaged with rod read [of Electrosensitivity UK] at length" - but I didn't take this to be an answer to my question.
Ben Goldacre's latest post is as follows ( http://www.badscience.net/?p=425 ):-
More than that he appears to be embarking on a vendetta or crusade against the victims of electromagnetic radiation.
Instead of Championing a cause against many Wireless Goliaths he is siding with them.
I have just discovered that he was an invited guest speaker for a fringe meeting sponsored by the Mobile Phone Operators Association at last year's Labour Party Conference (with Labour's favourite grocer Lord Sainsbury) - the title "Science fact or science fiction: How should politicians respond to media scare stories?".
I asked him "Do you receive income or benefits from Companies or Organisations other than “The Guardian” who are linked with the Mobile Phone or Wireless Operators?" to which he replied "don’t be pathetic, of course i’m not."
So there you have it Ben Goldacre's bias is entirely his own.
On another question of whether he had ever met an electrosensitive person he appeared to ignore the question 3 to 4 times. He did say "i have engaged with rod read [of Electrosensitivity UK] at length" - but I didn't take this to be an answer to my question.
Ben Goldacre's latest post is as follows ( http://www.badscience.net/?p=425 ):-
"good to see that you admit you’ve simply not read the 37 [EHS] studies examining the central hypothesis of your lobby. i’m sorry you mock the notion of reading academic research and find it onerous.
i have engaged with rod read [of Electrosensitivity UK] at length, although it’s often not very easy. like many people including those from within your own lobby and the media i have found him to be abusive, incoherent and occasionally slightly threatening, i’m afraid. there are various examples of his correspondence on badscience.net , and i should add i have been consistently very polite with him. i can happily provide you with my full email correspondence with him if he wishes to dispute that.
www.badscience.net/?p=414#comment-12988
i would also strongly recommend that people read rod read’s own words on his own website here
www.electrosensitivity.org.uk/
www.electrosensitivity.org.uk/Travesty.htm
in light of the above i must say i now do rather struggle to suppress a smile when i see him portrayed in the media as a measured and sensible authority.
rod, alasdair, and others have recklessly accused me of some very bizarre and regrettable things, i’ve made a little collection of them for a much larger piece i’m writing on the subject."
I for one, can't wait for more one-sided vitriol from this self-appointed "Expert".
One of the "37" studies was by Rubin however, this study has been criticised for flaws, with comments on the same BMJ site . Rubin is also the reviewer of many of those 37 studies mentioned. I will track them down.
For further background on Bad Science and the Guardian see the Mast Sanity forum for a thread entitled "Guardian in 'bogus' attack on Panorama".
Also see Powerwatch's reply to Ben Goldacre.
Tuesday, 29 May 2007
Bad Science Goes Bananas!
Ben Goldsmith aka "Bad Science" appears to have completely lost the plot with the recent Panorama programme dedicated to Wi-fi. He made some scurrilous accusations about Powerwatch's Alasdair Philips without backing up his claims with anything more than his own "bad science". Maybe he should stick to medical issues - he is at least trained in them!
He claimed that:-
1. Powerwatch is not independent and campaigns to stop WiFi and promote the products of Alasdair Philips' linked EMFields products.
2. Alasdair Philips is not a suitable person to advise or take measurements.
3. The instruments used (especially the COM monitor) were unsuitable.
4. What we measured and how it was measured was bad science.
5. The content of the programme was badly biased against WiFi.
6. Where is the scientific evidence of possible harm?
7. Where is the scientific evidence for Electrical Sensitivity?
Read Alasdair's reply that dismisses all of Ben Goldacre's claims here.
We got a reply back from Ben Goldacre, as follows:-
[1.] Powerwatch is not independent and campaigns to stop WiFi and promote the products of Alasdair Philips' linked EMFields products.
true, would you have been impressed if they used an engineer from t-mobile?
[2.] Alasdair Philips is not a suitable person to advise or take measurements.
true, he's a great person to commentate, i like him, he's a sensible lobbyist (with one very worrying recent slip which i suspect he is addressing) but not to take measurements, clearly not.
[3.] The instruments used (especially the COM monitor) were unsuitable.
they absolutely were, he designed it, he designed what "red" was. even kenyon accepts this.
[4.] What we measured and how it was measured was bad science.
yup. right up next to the computer while it was downloading a large file is not a real world measure of day to day exposure, as i said.
[5.] The content of the programme was badly biased against WiFi.
of course it was. i don't believe anyone would doubt that for one moment
[6.] Where is the scientific evidence of possible harm?
i am very happy with the idea that concerns have been raised and that further research should be done, as i have made very clear
[7.] Where is the scientific evidence for Electrical Sensitivity?
the symptoms are very real and very distressing, they deserve research effort and practical support as they receive in sweden, but there is little evidence to show that these symptoms are caused by EM. most unforgivably of all , the program completely misrepresented the evidence that does exist. this is completely unacceptable. i don't think your case needs to rest on misleading people about the evidence, i think you can make a perfectly good case without doing that.
Ben Goldacre
We say:-
[1] , [2] You could argue the case either way for these points. When does an 'Independent' stop being an Independent and become otherwise, once they realise the dangers of such devices as Mobile Telephoen Masts and Wi-fi? There are 1 or 2 retired experts who do not have a related income, so maybe they should have been used, but their experience isn't as great. I would say ALL experts are polarised either For or Against, so an accusation of bias was always occur.
[3] The COM meter as I recall was only being used to illustrate signal strengths in Norwich from the city-wide Wi-Fi, it wasn't part of the "Scientific" part of the programme. The "red" is illustrative and corresponds well to the scale that Alasdair mentions. The COM meter as a whole scales well with the levels set by the Scientists in Salzburg a few years ago for safe(r) mobile phone usage indoors and out. It is a consumer device and doesn't fully measure 3G signals, but is professionally calibrated, and correctly illustrates signal strength.
From personal experience a COM meter is OK to measure with, but is not ideal as it does not recognise 3G fully. I would have liked to see the COM meter used with the Acousticom [sound] meter or, ideally, a more complex professional unit. Even so, the COM meter gives correct or lower readings for illustration purposes.
[4] The measurements taken were not stated as constant, but are realistic for the levels found when files are being downloaded from the internet or the school's server - which would certainly be some or a lot of the time - the transcript excerpt below illustrates what was ACTUALLY said:-
"PHILIPS: Absolutely, yes that was definitely higher than I expected. It's only there.. not there continuously but it's obviously there quite a lot of the lesson if you're downloading files from the internet.
KENYON: So we took the first measurement here in what's called the beam of greatest intensity from the mast. The advice from Sir William Stewart to the government was that this beam shouldn't fall on any part of a school's grounds, unless the school and the parents agreed. But the levels of radiation inside the classroom were far higher, three times the strength of the nearby mast - not continuously but during downloads. These are controversial findings that must be repeated and verified."
[5] The content of the programme was, rather, bringing to the public's attention information that is not forth-coming regarding the emissions from Wi-fi and its connections to Mobile Telephone Masts. The program was straight talking using facts, rather than just using ridicule. In doing so, it has helped in a small way to redress the balance of other programmes which heavily promote wireless like the BBC News, Click and other tie-ins to Product launches such as the recent launch of "The Cloud" in the City of London.
[6] The volume of Scientific evidence of possible harm is already large and is growing all the time - it just isn't artificially pigeon-holed as "wi-fi" / "this" or "that" - it's the same sorts and strengths of microwave emissions at the same frequencies which produce low-level elctromagnetic fields. Wi-fi ticks many of the same boxes for many of the Scientific research programs already carried out. You do not need to start entirely from scratch with each and every device as and when it comes out if it uses similar technology - Wi-fi's characteristics are the same as many other wireless technologies including Mobile Telephone Masts.
Why should we be subjected to a huge experiment in the mean time? A post-code lottery of wireless hot-spots and Mobile Phone Masts shouldn't be turning residents into lab rats.
[7] The whole of human history is littered with precedence of changing lifestyles causing new diseases to become more common.
In the Agricultural revolution a diet of wheat led to diseases such as Irritable Bowel Syndrome and other problems from eating foods for which our bodies had not evolved.
In the Industrial Revolution new pollutants led to the rise in diseases such as Rheumatoid Arthritis and other problems linked to industrial pollutions.
In the "Modern Age" of electricity from the 1920's onwards diseases such as Leukaemia and other similar cancers have become more widespread.
Now mobile/wireless/microwave communications are bringing their sets of problems for our bodies to cope with - more rare cancers are becoming increasingly common - the types predicted many years ago by Dr. Cherry before these technologies were widely deployed. Electrosensitive (EHS) people are an extreme reaction to this latest "leap into the unknown" that we are all taking with Wi-fi and similar technologies.
I am in contact with several EHS people who were not even aware that Wi-fi etc. had been installed by neighbours or employers until their lives were turned upside down by pains and suffering. Many sufferers can "sniff-out" wireless access points without COM meters. Their symptoms wear off when they are not in proximity to wireless devices or transmitters. This is not psychosomatic - this is very real. It is down to an environmental pollutant and that common pollutant in the case of EHS is EM.
Many so-called "double-blind" tests carried out to date on EHS sufferers have NOT taken the source of EM down to zero for the supposed "OFF" test. Would you hold a pilot light near to the skin of a burns victim? No, of course not. The cynic in me would say that such tests were designed to fail to cast "FUD" (fear, uncertainty, doubt) on EHS sufferers. By discrediting EHS sufferers - the extreme of microwave damage - you can keep the cash rolling in for the wireless industry.
I counter by asking you Ben -
6. Where is the scientific evidence of safety for Wi-fi etc.?
7. Where is the scientific evidence to explain away Electrical Sensitivity?
Ben - If you want to find out about EHS for real I can introduce you to real sufferers - real people are much less easy to explain away than statistics.
He claimed that:-
1. Powerwatch is not independent and campaigns to stop WiFi and promote the products of Alasdair Philips' linked EMFields products.
2. Alasdair Philips is not a suitable person to advise or take measurements.
3. The instruments used (especially the COM monitor) were unsuitable.
4. What we measured and how it was measured was bad science.
5. The content of the programme was badly biased against WiFi.
6. Where is the scientific evidence of possible harm?
7. Where is the scientific evidence for Electrical Sensitivity?
Read Alasdair's reply that dismisses all of Ben Goldacre's claims here.
We got a reply back from Ben Goldacre, as follows:-
[1.] Powerwatch is not independent and campaigns to stop WiFi and promote the products of Alasdair Philips' linked EMFields products.
true, would you have been impressed if they used an engineer from t-mobile?
[2.] Alasdair Philips is not a suitable person to advise or take measurements.
true, he's a great person to commentate, i like him, he's a sensible lobbyist (with one very worrying recent slip which i suspect he is addressing) but not to take measurements, clearly not.
[3.] The instruments used (especially the COM monitor) were unsuitable.
they absolutely were, he designed it, he designed what "red" was. even kenyon accepts this.
[4.] What we measured and how it was measured was bad science.
yup. right up next to the computer while it was downloading a large file is not a real world measure of day to day exposure, as i said.
[5.] The content of the programme was badly biased against WiFi.
of course it was. i don't believe anyone would doubt that for one moment
[6.] Where is the scientific evidence of possible harm?
i am very happy with the idea that concerns have been raised and that further research should be done, as i have made very clear
[7.] Where is the scientific evidence for Electrical Sensitivity?
the symptoms are very real and very distressing, they deserve research effort and practical support as they receive in sweden, but there is little evidence to show that these symptoms are caused by EM. most unforgivably of all , the program completely misrepresented the evidence that does exist. this is completely unacceptable. i don't think your case needs to rest on misleading people about the evidence, i think you can make a perfectly good case without doing that.
Ben Goldacre
We say:-
[1] , [2] You could argue the case either way for these points. When does an 'Independent' stop being an Independent and become otherwise, once they realise the dangers of such devices as Mobile Telephoen Masts and Wi-fi? There are 1 or 2 retired experts who do not have a related income, so maybe they should have been used, but their experience isn't as great. I would say ALL experts are polarised either For or Against, so an accusation of bias was always occur.
[3] The COM meter as I recall was only being used to illustrate signal strengths in Norwich from the city-wide Wi-Fi, it wasn't part of the "Scientific" part of the programme. The "red" is illustrative and corresponds well to the scale that Alasdair mentions. The COM meter as a whole scales well with the levels set by the Scientists in Salzburg a few years ago for safe(r) mobile phone usage indoors and out. It is a consumer device and doesn't fully measure 3G signals, but is professionally calibrated, and correctly illustrates signal strength.
From personal experience a COM meter is OK to measure with, but is not ideal as it does not recognise 3G fully. I would have liked to see the COM meter used with the Acousticom [sound] meter or, ideally, a more complex professional unit. Even so, the COM meter gives correct or lower readings for illustration purposes.
[4] The measurements taken were not stated as constant, but are realistic for the levels found when files are being downloaded from the internet or the school's server - which would certainly be some or a lot of the time - the transcript excerpt below illustrates what was ACTUALLY said:-
"PHILIPS: Absolutely, yes that was definitely higher than I expected. It's only there.. not there continuously but it's obviously there quite a lot of the lesson if you're downloading files from the internet.
KENYON: So we took the first measurement here in what's called the beam of greatest intensity from the mast. The advice from Sir William Stewart to the government was that this beam shouldn't fall on any part of a school's grounds, unless the school and the parents agreed. But the levels of radiation inside the classroom were far higher, three times the strength of the nearby mast - not continuously but during downloads. These are controversial findings that must be repeated and verified."
[5] The content of the programme was, rather, bringing to the public's attention information that is not forth-coming regarding the emissions from Wi-fi and its connections to Mobile Telephone Masts. The program was straight talking using facts, rather than just using ridicule. In doing so, it has helped in a small way to redress the balance of other programmes which heavily promote wireless like the BBC News, Click and other tie-ins to Product launches such as the recent launch of "The Cloud" in the City of London.
[6] The volume of Scientific evidence of possible harm is already large and is growing all the time - it just isn't artificially pigeon-holed as "wi-fi" / "this" or "that" - it's the same sorts and strengths of microwave emissions at the same frequencies which produce low-level elctromagnetic fields. Wi-fi ticks many of the same boxes for many of the Scientific research programs already carried out. You do not need to start entirely from scratch with each and every device as and when it comes out if it uses similar technology - Wi-fi's characteristics are the same as many other wireless technologies including Mobile Telephone Masts.
Why should we be subjected to a huge experiment in the mean time? A post-code lottery of wireless hot-spots and Mobile Phone Masts shouldn't be turning residents into lab rats.
[7] The whole of human history is littered with precedence of changing lifestyles causing new diseases to become more common.
In the Agricultural revolution a diet of wheat led to diseases such as Irritable Bowel Syndrome and other problems from eating foods for which our bodies had not evolved.
In the Industrial Revolution new pollutants led to the rise in diseases such as Rheumatoid Arthritis and other problems linked to industrial pollutions.
In the "Modern Age" of electricity from the 1920's onwards diseases such as Leukaemia and other similar cancers have become more widespread.
Now mobile/wireless/microwave communications are bringing their sets of problems for our bodies to cope with - more rare cancers are becoming increasingly common - the types predicted many years ago by Dr. Cherry before these technologies were widely deployed. Electrosensitive (EHS) people are an extreme reaction to this latest "leap into the unknown" that we are all taking with Wi-fi and similar technologies.
I am in contact with several EHS people who were not even aware that Wi-fi etc. had been installed by neighbours or employers until their lives were turned upside down by pains and suffering. Many sufferers can "sniff-out" wireless access points without COM meters. Their symptoms wear off when they are not in proximity to wireless devices or transmitters. This is not psychosomatic - this is very real. It is down to an environmental pollutant and that common pollutant in the case of EHS is EM.
Many so-called "double-blind" tests carried out to date on EHS sufferers have NOT taken the source of EM down to zero for the supposed "OFF" test. Would you hold a pilot light near to the skin of a burns victim? No, of course not. The cynic in me would say that such tests were designed to fail to cast "FUD" (fear, uncertainty, doubt) on EHS sufferers. By discrediting EHS sufferers - the extreme of microwave damage - you can keep the cash rolling in for the wireless industry.
I counter by asking you Ben -
6. Where is the scientific evidence of safety for Wi-fi etc.?
7. Where is the scientific evidence to explain away Electrical Sensitivity?
Ben - If you want to find out about EHS for real I can introduce you to real sufferers - real people are much less easy to explain away than statistics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)