Hard News: A Real Alternative
285 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 Newer→ Last
-
Where does this leave Pamela Stirling who maintained recently that she believed Linda Bryder rather than the Cartwright Report? I also wonder about Kim Hill who was soft on Bryder and mocked (apparently) those who sent in emails to criticise her interview.
-
Hilary, Cecelia - while OU is obviously, academically, defending a scientific stance (it's way more than an opinion), I am intrigued by the *lack* of response -thus far - from AUP - and, especially, "The Listener." And, while Kim Hill has few muffs/stupidities in her portfolio, the interview with Bryder remains one of 'em.
-
And, while Kim Hill has few muffs/stupidities in her portfolio, the interview with Bryder remains one of 'em.
I agree with that, Islander. I have long been a fan and was disappointed in her. Maybe it is too early for a response from The Listener and RNZ? I thought One News was unequivocal and even quite passionate tonight but then again I could have been imagining that!
-
People who want to read the academic rebuttal to Bryder's book should check out The Cartwright Papers, edited by Joanna Manning. I had the opportunity to proofread Barbara Brookes essay “The Making of a Controversy: History, Medicine and Politics” to try and find holes in it before it was published. If the rest of the book is as good it's quite damning.
-
The NZ Herald article on the new McCredie, Paul et al. paper contains noteworthy numerical detail not included in the Stuff and TVNZ items - that of the 287 women initially given treatment of curative intent, 3 died of cancer, whereas 8 of the 127 women (initially) in Green's 'monitoring only' group died of cancer.
So at face value the numbers imply a 6 times higher death rate and 7 extra deaths because of Green's experiment, i.e. 8 relative to the 1 death that would have been expected had deaths in the experimental monitoring group been proportional to those in the conventionally treated group. But the numbers being small and experimental irregularities being such, these mortality figures are perhaps not "statistically significant".
Charlotte Paul in one of her interviews last year clearly stated they had made something like a firm determination of the number of extra deaths attributable to the experiment, it was markedly less than the figures like 30 commonly attributed to it, but held back from specifying it on the basis that their paper was still in review and unpublished. I guess the non-specification of this figure is as a result of peer review - but instead the 10 times higher rate of invasive cancer is presumably definitive.
FWIW, I think Kim Hill did a good job of interviewing Linda Bryder, who seemed to be thorough and credible, and crucially in the follow-up the week after to test that credibility in interviewing Charlotte Paul, allowing a clear conclusion that Bryder got it very wrong. Along with the academic efforts, the net result seems to be that Bryder’s book and its analysis of what happened has pretty well sunk without trace.
-
If the rest of the book is as good it's quite damning.
Heard both Sandra Coney and Charlotte Paul discussing/reading their contributions and yes, you're quite right.
-
FWIW, I think Kim Hill did a good job of interviewing Linda Bryder, who seemed to be thorough and credible, and crucially in the follow-up the week after to test that credibility in interviewing Charlotte Paul, allowing a clear conclusion that Bryder got it very wrong.
You might be right. I can't remember exactly what got my goat now but it seemed to me that she was easy on Bryder and harder on Paul. The emails to RNZ - about the Bryder interview - would seem to confirm that many had this impression.
And what about The Listener? "The Cartwright Inquiry got it wrong" plastered on the front page. And recently a statement by Stirling that it was their "call" to favour Bryder's view of events.
I suppose I sensed an anti-feminist, anti-Sandra Coney backlash here and I didn't like it, it was wrong and it hasn't been atoned for yet.
-
You're not the ony one who is unamused. Last month's Herald story about whistleblower Ron Jones mentions the ongoing rearguard action from disgruntled old white men loyal to Green. Seeing dolts like Brider, Stirling et al faithfully sucking up to them is sickening.
Jones is exasperated.
"I've had a gutsful ... ," he told the Weekend Herald shortly before the publication of his latest letter in the New Zealand Medical Journal, which was accompanied by a response from Bryder.
He has issued a "put-up-or-shut-up" challenge to the Cartwright detractors, saying they should publish a peer-reviewed article in a medical-scientific journal, or be quiet.
-
Thank you for the link, Sacha. I don't know how I missed it.
-
Same - just saw it today thanks to Science Media Centre tweeting it
Post your response…
This topic is closed.