tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post243940302949944655..comments2023-10-17T15:56:22.827+01:00Comments on Velvet Glove, Iron Fist: The BBC stands by its junk journalismChristopher Snowdonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15963753745009712865noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-43482835350767654562011-08-09T11:08:53.033+01:002011-08-09T11:08:53.033+01:00I wonder whether cancer is such a politically priv...I wonder whether cancer is such a politically privileged disease that discussion of it is exempt from fuddy-duddy customs such as trying to get your facts right.deariemenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-29985593692519811252011-07-28T19:59:11.401+01:002011-07-28T19:59:11.401+01:00Well done Chris. I lost my lovely mum to breast ca...Well done Chris. I lost my lovely mum to breast cancer. It was such a tough time for her and the family when she was diagnosed. She, like a lot of women, worried about her weight and always thought she was a little fat when she clearly wasn't. I hate to think what reading that article would have done to her, how bad it may have made her feel to think it was own her fault. Serious illness is of course terribly traumatic for everyone involved and can leave the victims very vulnerable. It's sickening that these reporters are willfully disseminating lies that mislead and add to the agony the victims are already experiencing. I don't know if they are just dumb or if they consider the trauma they cause others to be a price worth paying to achieve their puritanical objectives.Bradnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-39417386248120164132011-07-28T17:31:59.031+01:002011-07-28T17:31:59.031+01:00Chris, great work (and Ivan, great comment).
Sinc...Chris, great work (and Ivan, great comment).<br /><br />Since this overlaps several topics I have worked on over the years and write about, I wish I could offer some additional insight. But I have nothing -- you nailed it. I will pay the highest complement: This example is so perfect that I wish I had discovered and written about it myself.<br /><br />Perhaps the only thing I might offer as insight is a little "causal pathways" thinking. If drink causes hormones and hormones cause cancer, but we already knew the that hormones cause cancer and drink causes cancer (a bit) then the new discovery is not that drink causes cancer but that the drink and the hormones are causing the same cases (they are steps on the same pathway). The study cannot possibly change our assessment about the independent risk of anything, but merely tell us about what sits on what pathway. (The same always applies to family history too -- it is always just a proxy for the real cause.) I know that you almost said this, so clearly get it, but this might help point it.<br /><br />Good luck badgering them more!Carl V Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01919902852457771666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-12889786085794844032011-07-28T17:29:35.270+01:002011-07-28T17:29:35.270+01:00Great, Chris. Good work. I think you should carry ...Great, Chris. Good work. I think you should carry on - and in a short while you will have enough material to fill a book about the BBC news and its (negative) association with the truth.<br /><br />It would be a best seller, you know ;)Klaus Khttp://dengulenegl.dk/blog/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-27799018101542166002011-07-28T12:33:11.911+01:002011-07-28T12:33:11.911+01:00@james
I think that the answer is yes. The BBC i...@james <br /><br />I think that the answer is yes. The BBC is one of the most influential news providers on earth and is supposed to at least attempt to be impartial. <br /><br />The issue with BBC health reporting is that the corporation does not employ anyone who has a clue, believes that the WHO and other politicised QUANGOS are still the idealistic organisations that they set out to be and implicitly trusts its favoured public health sources in the face of massive evidence suggesting that they should not. The BBC seems incapable of understanding that campaigning charities and the public health industry are vested interests.<br /><br />I believe that their bias is to a large extent unintentional so Chris pursuing them in this way might at least achieve a bit of a rethink on their relationship with charity “experts”. The problem with this piece is that it was spun by CRUK and then spun again by the BBC so bears no resemblance to reality by the time the majority of the public gets to read it. <br /><br />It would be nice if the BBC covered public health properly or not at all. What they produce at present is really unacceptable and below the standards that we should expect.Ivan Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18364023294207490403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-66632056667575838652011-07-28T11:10:08.029+01:002011-07-28T11:10:08.029+01:00Question - is it worth even bothering with the Bee...Question - is it worth even bothering with the Beeb?James Highamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14525082702330365464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-57595577920104412502011-07-28T09:58:33.184+01:002011-07-28T09:58:33.184+01:00Good luck, keep plugging away.Good luck, keep plugging away.Bennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-40447801639609320262011-07-28T09:12:46.185+01:002011-07-28T09:12:46.185+01:00Good for you Chris and I admire your tenacity, but...Good for you Chris and I admire your tenacity, but the BBC as you know are a law unto themselves. Good luck.subrosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00151702590329788260noreply@blogger.com