Comments on: Dore pwned in medical journal: expensive and unproven ‘cure’ http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2007/09/dore-pwned-in-medical-journal-expensive-and-unproven-cure/ Autism news and opinion Sat, 11 Feb 2012 03:42:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: I wish I was special, so fucking special* - learning disability profit-mongering « gimpy’s blog http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2007/09/dore-pwned-in-medical-journal-expensive-and-unproven-cure/#comment-44872 I wish I was special, so fucking special* - learning disability profit-mongering « gimpy’s blog Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:56:00 +0000 http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=670#comment-44872 [...] http://www.dore.co.uk/  - £1700 according to Ben Goldacre, torn apart by Dorothy Bishop, and blogged by leftbrainrightbrain. [...] [...] http://www.dore.co.uk/ ; – £1700 according to Ben Goldacre, torn apart by Dorothy Bishop, and blogged by leftbrainrightbrain. [...]

]]> By: Jon http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2007/09/dore-pwned-in-medical-journal-expensive-and-unproven-cure/#comment-44742 Jon Sun, 30 Sep 2007 11:19:38 +0000 http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=670#comment-44742 as to why the journal decided to go after this case - as Shinga has said, there is a real public interest in this area. It's also possible that the <i>journal</i> did not specifically choose to focus on this - but were presented with a good article from Bishop, and were happy to publish it. Schwartz- I'm not sure where you're coming from here. If what you mean is that Bishop's paper showed that some garbage was published in Dyslexia then, while 'garbage' might be slightly strong ;) I can see what you're getting at. If you view the Bishop review itself as garbage, I'd be interested to know why. as to why the journal decided to go after this case – as Shinga has said, there is a real public interest in this area. It’s also possible that the journal did not specifically choose to focus on this – but were presented with a good article from Bishop, and were happy to publish it.

Schwartz- I’m not sure where you’re coming from here. If what you mean is that Bishop’s paper showed that some garbage was published in Dyslexia then, while ‘garbage’ might be slightly strong ;) I can see what you’re getting at. If you view the Bishop review itself as garbage, I’d be interested to know why.

]]> By: Shinga http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2007/09/dore-pwned-in-medical-journal-expensive-and-unproven-cure/#comment-44740 Shinga Sun, 30 Sep 2007 08:40:32 +0000 http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=670#comment-44740 <blockquote>I wonder why this particular journal suddenly decided to go after this case?</blockquote> Possibly because there seems to be <a href="http://doretalk.com/forums/t/94.aspx">legitimate concern about the efficacy of the programme</a>? Parents are having to fund it at present and need to know that they are investing in something that is known to be effective and 'does what it says on the tin'? If there were a move to have the UK educational system pay for it, then certainly, we need systematic reviews of the studies that have been done so far. What did you consider to be amiss with the Bishop review that reduces its value to "garbage" in your estimation?
I wonder why this particular journal suddenly decided to go after this case?

Possibly because there seems to be legitimate concern about the efficacy of the programme? Parents are having to fund it at present and need to know that they are investing in something that is known to be effective and ‘does what it says on the tin’? If there were a move to have the UK educational system pay for it, then certainly, we need systematic reviews of the studies that have been done so far.

What did you consider to be amiss with the Bishop review that reduces its value to “garbage” in your estimation?

]]> By: Schwartz http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2007/09/dore-pwned-in-medical-journal-expensive-and-unproven-cure/#comment-44737 Schwartz Sun, 30 Sep 2007 07:01:37 +0000 http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=670#comment-44737 More crap being published in peer-reviewed journals. It's no wonder many people have lost confidence in the system. It just re-enforces my position, that the fact a study was peer-reviewed is no guarantee of good science. The scary part is that this type of garbage is not restricted to alternative medicine. Drugs are very often applied to populations which were not part of the safety or efficacy study group. Gardacil comes to mind as a recent example. I wonder why this particular journal suddenly decided to go after this case? More crap being published in peer-reviewed journals. It’s no wonder many people have lost confidence in the system.

It just re-enforces my position, that the fact a study was peer-reviewed is no guarantee of good science. The scary part is that this type of garbage is not restricted to alternative medicine.

Drugs are very often applied to populations which were not part of the safety or efficacy study group. Gardacil comes to mind as a recent example.

I wonder why this particular journal suddenly decided to go after this case?

]]>