Bad Science II: The Khan of Rath

And once that was in my head…

Bad Science III: The Search for Statistical Significance
Bad Science IV: The Voyage Homeopathy
Bad Science V: The Fish Oil Frontier
Bad Science VI: The Undiscovered Evidence

And then I thought of turning “Generations” into “Gillians” (as in McKeith) but decided that was pushing it.

Admittedly those wellnourished thoughts were less “fishoil, yay!” and more (decidely more) “what utter incompetence!!”.

This tale is going to last for a long time as how NOT to do a study.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7635988.stm

Cynicism personified?

I realise that it’s not as common for children to be on Warfren as adults however Evening Primrose Oil does interact with Warfren for example. Even doctors frequently struggle to spot interactions, resulting in Pharmacists spending much of their time pointing out interactions in drug regimes that patients are already on when they arrive in hospital.

Anyway, my question is did they design the experiment to ensure interactions were avoided? Was this picked up during ethics approval for the study?

Thanks,
Ossian

“Ill be back (to publish my results)”

“Do you you feel lucky? Is the p value less than 0.05 Punk”

Bad Science Episode I: The Pharma Menace
Bad Science Episode II: The Attack of the Rath
I could go on, so i shall

Bad Science Episode III: Revenge of the SoH
Bad Science Episode IV: A New Holfraud
Bad Science Episode V: The Evidence Stikes Back
Bad Science Episode VI: The Return of the TAPL

Sorry bout this, i got bored.

“One thousand young offenders from three prisons in England and Scotland are being recruited for a major trial to see if nutritional supplements can improve behaviour.

The study is being organised by neuroscientist Professor John Stein, of the University of Oxford, whose brother is the chef Rick Stein.

Professor Stein believes that food supplements – Omega 3 fish oils in particular – can improve reduce the anti-social behaviour of prisoners”

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7618888.stm

dunno if you’re touchy about this kind of thing dr ben, but the reporter on look north last night referred to you as mr goldacre.

If David Ford had an original plan, he never showed it to Councillors. In my FOI request to Durham (the saga can be found at various points on jaycueaitch.wordpress.com/) I asked for copies of sreports to senior officers and elected members.

They claimed that it would be too burdensome to comply with this request. When I appealed to the Information Commissioner’s Office, they claimed that no such reports were ever written. Obviously, they would not lie to or otherwise mislead the ICO so obviously elected members never saw any such reports.

The impression Durham appear to be trying to give is that the idea just growed in Ford and Portwood’s minds.

I wonder what the Durham electorate think about unelected officials deciding to experiment on their children?

WILL NOBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN?

That reminds me of something I heard on television last night (some programme about American girls vowing to remain virgins until marriage, I happened on it while channel surfing and watched for a few minutes, mostly in horror). The father of one of the girls in question said:

“It’s not about what I believe, it’s about what God has told us”.

I almost choked on the glass of water I was drinking at the time.

Back on subject, following this whole saga, I’ve been furious about what those responsible for children have been able to get away with, all for the benefit of commercial enterprise. That alone would be bad enough, but to claim it all as being done in the name of science and for the benefit of the children concerned is even more outrageous. Keep up the good work, Ben.

PS, finally got round to buying THE book and looking forward to several hours of enlightening reading over the weekend.

David Ford has on many occasions sounded, to me, rather like the creationists. He seems to think that if he and enough other people believe something to be the case, then that’s it sorted!

BBC Look North transmitted two different video clips of David Ford in their lunchtime and evening editions. If you want to see cynicism personified, check out the lunchtime clip!

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7635988.stm

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7635661.stm

If my kids were involved in this sham, I would be asking serious questions about Ford and Portwood’s jobs. There’s no plaice for this kind of behaviour.

I mentioned the planned Welcome Trust Omega 3 trial on young offenders to Ben a couple of weeks ago, and he is aware of it. I daresay he will cast his critical eye over any progress as it emerges – early days yet.

It does seem to be better planned (double blind, placebos, etc) than the Durham mess. The only thing that worried me was the degree of belief in a positive outcome by the organiser (John Stein, an academic at Oxford but also the brother of the famous TV chef, Rick!).

Of course every experimenter must have some reason for believing something positive would come from a study or you wouldn’t bother in the first place but I do worry that there is a danger that a rationally based belief in a positive outcome could become faith! And that’s when the integrity of a trial may come under pressure as at Durham.

So something to keep an eye on for the future though some years away yet.

There was a clip of (I think) Mr Ford, trying to explain how they’ve not been incompetent and how it was never meant to be a scientific trial. But overall, I was thinking the report was pretty well balanced and informative….until the very last comment of the reporter – “it’s now down to parents to decide who to believe”!!! Noooooo.

This is the whole point! This isn’t a debate, Durham have made a claim about the efficacy of fish oil, they’ve tested it (incompetently & maybe unethically) and haven’t come up with anything like the standard of proof required. To claim a positive outcome is therefore plain wrong.

Equally, the ‘scientists’ on the other side can’t say definitively that fish oil doesn’t offer a benefit – it’s just that nothing Durham have done supports their claim.

The Look North report had done pretty well in explaining part of the complex issue but then ruined it by reducing it to a nice black and white, Durham vs ‘scientists’ popularity poll.