Public Address | System (Home)

Posted at 12:05PM on 3 Feb 10. Permalink.

Start ...

Posted at 12:06PM on 3 Feb 10. Permalink.

My local bookshop has this issue of Investigage on the shelf next to High Times.

Presumably because they both have a big marijuana leaf on the cover.

Posted at 12:17PM on 3 Feb 10. Permalink.

It's not the leaf, it's that both publications preach to the converted.

Posted at 12:34PM on 3 Feb 10. Permalink.

I've been continually disappointed by a local Paper+ that continually puts "Investigate" under "Science" but requires me search for "New Scientist" under "Paranormal ...."

Posted at 12:39PM on 3 Feb 10. Permalink.

The website left brain/right brain has been giving good coverage of the Wakefield case over the last few weeks. Unfortunately, there are going to be huge numbers of parents who just won't accept it and Wakefield's empire in Texas, and questionable 'treatments' for autistic children, will continue to grow.

Posted at 12:45PM on 3 Feb 10. Permalink.

I predict you will regret soiling your hands with Wishart again, Russell. How long until the threatening phone calls and the private dicks hanging around your pad waiting to make pronouncements about your life, your partner and your children?

But that does not mean you shouldn't have done it. You're just a brave man.

Posted at 12:55PM on 3 Feb 10. Permalink.

I predict you will regret soiling your hands with Wishart again, Russell. How long until the threatening phone calls and the private dicks hanging around your pad waiting to make pronouncements about your life, your partner and your children?

I doubt it'll go that far, but yes, I am well aware of what a nasty little bully Wishart can be. I expect there'll be a torrent of petulant abuse on his blog, and possibly his customary threats of legal action.

On the other hand, I don't think he should be allowed to get away with the kind of defamatory comment that's packed into that article.

Posted at 1:02PM on 3 Feb 10. Permalink.

Am I not the only one to detect a whiff of Elders of Zion in Wishart's comments about Soros?

Posted at 1:03PM on 3 Feb 10. Permalink.

Frankly I just find it all a bit depressing... because dream of a Representative Democracy, where we elect someone to consider the evidence then take decisions on our behalf.

But with this type of behaviour, they have to consider the opinion of the great unwashed who aren't simply ignorant, but have been actively misinformed.

Posted at 1:18PM on 3 Feb 10. Permalink.

Just one of the outrageous things Wakefield did was take blood samples from children attending his son's 5th birthday party. Even though he had no prior ethical approval (as if anyone would give it), it was apparently OK with his supporters as each child was paid 5 pounds

Posted at 1:23PM on 3 Feb 10. Permalink.

I doubt it'll go that far

I certainly hope it doesn't. And you're a big boy, you can handle it. Soros has deep pockets :-)

Posted at 1:24PM on 3 Feb 10. Permalink.

Actually, New Scientist is a bit of a rag these days, and has been for a while, at least as far as a lot of their particle physics and cosmology coverage is concerned.

But lumping it into paranormal does seem harsh.

Posted at 1:28PM on 3 Feb 10. Permalink.

Just one of the outrageous things Wakefield did was take blood samples from children attending his son's 5th birthday party. Even though he had no prior ethical approval (as if anyone would give it), it was apparently OK with his supporters as each child was paid 5 pounds

Astonishing, eh. Apparently experimenting on children without parental consent or ethical approval is OK, but vaccination is the work of the devil.

Posted at 1:29PM on 3 Feb 10. Permalink.

Ben Goldacre, who devoted the last chapter of his book, Bad Science to the Wakefield debacle, concludes a new blog post on a gloomy note:

Damn - much as I love Ben's work, I'm tempted to invoice him for a new desk, considering the sustained abuse its taken from my head after reading his blog and columns.

I know this is opening a twenty gallon drum of worms, but wouldn't it be nice if, just once, the media standards bodies (both statutory and self-regulating) took junk science-driven scare mongering as seriously as bare tits and naughty words? There's a difference between "debating the science" and seriously dangerous shit like saying 'anti-depressants don't work' that has a real impact on real people.

One side-effect is that it might free up people like Russell and Ben Goldacre to spend their time on more productive, and less depressing, activity than fisking the arse off b.s. that should never have seen print in the first place. And never would if the media actually valued statistical and scientific literacy, basic numeracy and a firm distinction between fact and fiction.

Posted at 1:29PM on 3 Feb 10. Permalink.

DeepRed, oh yeah.

Stabbing me in the eyes as I read it is Wisharts exclusive Americanisation and use of -ize instead of -ise. I know the Oxford Dic falls on that side too, but I've always preffered Cambridge.

[edit - my mistake he uses both -ise and -ize for the same word "decriminlisation/decriminalization p30]

Posted at 1:44PM on 3 Feb 10. Permalink.

An interesting cover for that edition of Investigate.

I haven't read the mag, but how exactly does Cameron Slater risk the clink? Did our name suppression laws change?

Or is Wishart making stuff up again?

Posted at 1:46PM on 3 Feb 10. Permalink.

Damn you, Russell; I need to be working on this paper about the relationship between Rumours and conspiracy theories, not reading Wishart...

Posted at 1:48PM on 3 Feb 10. Permalink.

HORansome, surely that crap about Soros counts as research for you? Or are you in his pocket too? Who's paying for this paper of yours?

Posted at 1:52PM on 3 Feb 10. Permalink.

Legalising narcotics worldwide worldwide would allow business financiers like Soros to control large chunks of the drug trade "legitimately". They could own the opium poppy field, pay poor peasants to harvest, control distribution and supply of drugs to market …

Wow!

Much better for the Highway61, Hells Angels, Black Power, Headhunters and other sundry gangs to control it, without paying tax.

Just ask Millie.

Posted at 1:53PM on 3 Feb 10. Permalink.

I need to be working on this paper about the relationship between Rumours and conspiracy theories

I always suspected there was something iffy about that Fleetwood Mac album.

Posted at 1:55PM on 3 Feb 10. Permalink.

If anyone cares to read more I recommend Paul A Offit's Autism's false prophets: bad science, risky medicine, and the search for a cure Columbia University Press, 2008. He starts 'I get a lot of hate mail...'

And re Wakefield, he didn't even front up in the court for the decision, but sent his supporters along while he and his wife waited in a hotel nearby.

Posted at 2:04PM on 3 Feb 10. Permalink.

I always suspected there was something iffy about that Fleetwood Mac album

If you play it backwards it promotes vaccinations, harm-minimisation drugs policy, and critical thought.
But will the mainstream media report this attempt to influence our impressionable youth against community values? No!

Posted at 2:05PM on 3 Feb 10. Permalink.

fisking the arse off b.s. that should never have seen print in the first place

Oh, like WMDs in Iraq or all manner of adverts about household "germs".

Posted at 2:07PM on 3 Feb 10. Permalink.

I know this is opening a twenty gallon drum of worms, but wouldn't it be nice if, just once, the media standards bodies (both statutory and self-regulating) took junk science-driven scare mongering as seriously as bare tits and naughty words? There's a difference between "debating the science" and seriously dangerous shit like saying 'anti-depressants don't work' that has a real impact on real people.

The concerning thing is that journalists just don't know the difference between quality science and snakeoil - and they don't even need to have a heavy education in the sciences to have alarm bells ringing. It can be as simple as knowing what the peer-review process is and therefore giving more credence to an article that has gone through peer-review. Another clue is considering whether the spokesman/scientist stands to profit from the statement (sure in the case of pharmaceuticals they do, but there's heavy regulation and complete dislosure in patent applications), whether there's a history behind the discovery before the press-release and lots of other cues that point to verifiable statements.

Posted at 2:19PM on 3 Feb 10. Permalink.

I tell high school students who want to work in science that English will be very important to their ability to do good science. It would be nice if The Media took a similar approach to maths for journalists.

Simply put, n=12 for a human disease is nothing more than anecdote. It shouldn't get published anywhere and Lancet deserve the smacking they (belatedly) got. There is a really really good reason why clinical trials for new drugs require the use of such large numbers of participants - it's because drawing a conclusion from a small number can lead to deaths.

And yet journalists are happy to draw conclusions from small numbers and they clearly don't care about the deaths to which their actions lead.

I totally understand how hard it is to get the facts right especially if it is outside your field of expertise. And I understand that journalists will almost always be outside their field of expertise. It doesn't make me less grumpy about it.

Posted at 2:26PM on 3 Feb 10. Permalink.

Much better for the Highway61, Hells Angels, Black Power, Headhunters and other sundry gangs to control it, without paying tax.

And that's just the retailers. It's also better that opium growth is in the hands of Afghanistani warlords and their serfs and the distribution stays with the Triads. Then George Soros can't make millions from harm reduction, which horrifyingly doesn't always entail abstinence.

Posted at 2:27PM on 3 Feb 10. Permalink.

I know the Oxford Dic falls on that side too, but I've always preferred Cambridge.

I believe Cambridge also uses the -ize suffix as its standard - i.e. look in a Cambridge Dictionary and you'll find modernise spelled m-o-d-e-r-n-i-z-e with "(UK usually modernise)" written after it.

Posted at 2:28PM on 3 Feb 10. Permalink.

Oh, the article is ripe with emotive flourishes to push the 'drugs are bad, m'kay' message, but the best bit is Wishart trying to assert both that the Dutch Ambassador is a cannabis user and that it doesn't lead to reduced aggression ("The same line was run 10 years ago by an angry Joris Vos, Dutch ambassador to the US..." p. 32).

Throughout the piece he assumes that positive correlation means causation because he wants cannabis to be linked to aggressive behaviour. Given that he really only cites reports that show that drug use and crime (in general, mind, not necessarily crimes of aggreesion) are correlated to some third factor (which, as predicted, is socio-economic) he has to pull out the big guns, to whit, anecdotal evidence. For example, because the police associate crime with drugs, then it must be the case that drugs cause crime. Even though this goes against the studies, because the police say it, it must be true.

(There's also some wonderful contradictions in the piece; Wishart praises the Reagan-era 'Just say no' campaign, but similar recent (read: Labour-initiated) attempts in Aotearoa/Te Wai Pounamu are taken to be ineffectual due to their liberal nature.)

He loves to cite newspaper summaries of reports, quite often from newspapers which have a history of perverting the reports to get a good story. For example, the doyen of the crazy-right, Melanie Phillips (she who 'broke' the Birther conspiracy theory in the UK) makes an appearance as if she is some kind of relevant authority.

The best bit of the article, though, is the almost completely non-sequiter of 'So how, then, does this tie in with billionaire George Soros?' Now, at the time this wasn't a question on my lip but, thanks to Wishart's exemplary prose style and knack for a plot twist, I found myself needing to know.

And what an answer it turned out to be. Soro's stated aim of minimising harm when it comes to drug use is really a cover for his want to control the drug supply itself. Nowhere is there evidence for this claim; Wishart just asserts that a financier like Soros wants to control the drug supply.

That, my friends, is the tip of the 'Secret Bankers ruling the world' conspiracy theory. It's a classic for a reason, although the reason has been lost to history.

Posted at 2:28PM on 3 Feb 10. Permalink.

I totally understand how hard it is to get the facts right especially if it is outside your field of expertise. And I understand that journalists will almost always be outside their field of expertise. It doesn't make me less grumpy about it.

It's not all on journalists. Readers also have some responsibilities, so far as engaging their brains is concerned.

Posted at 2:29PM on 3 Feb 10. Permalink.

Ben: As I once said to a Truther, I'd love it if some of the secret masters starting paying me for all of this. I could really do with an iPhone.

Or even just takeways once a week.