http://homeopathy4health.wordpress.com/?s=Dr+Ben+Oldacre

2 January 2008

Goldacre’s conflicts of interest exposed.

‘……In fact, nothing Goldacre says seems to be grounded in everyday life, the condition of ‘ordinary people’ or the public at large’.


I found the above by correcting the spelling in the link given by Pug: work to word. You'll need to scroll down on the page link above to come to article.

Hi All

Did you hear the program. It gave a 'reasonably' balanced view as to where we are now on IB but I got the 'vibes' that getting onto IB in the future for new claimants will be far more difficult. Also once ESA is eventually up and running they will try and get existing claimants back into some kind of work unless they can prove that they are unable to do any work. What else did we expect!

But with the downturn in the economy this will put pressure on ESA for new claimants.

Thanks

Charlie

You can listen to it again from the BBC R4 website,

well yes its common sense that most people on IB for 2 years will stay on it long term as its then likely they got long term chronic conditions. When they say how is it allowed to happen they should be looking at the nhs for failing to provide proper care but instead it seems its easier instead to think the system is wrong to support people long term.

I agree with earlier comments that he is likely to be pro dwp as they all tend to scratch each others backs.

I did hear the program and found it to be very biased, no mention that the Waddell research, 'work is good for you' was based on faulty research work. The subjects chosen were hand picked, and I recall that they had mild to moderate depression, and where only studied for a one year period; plus they also had a lot of support in and out of the workplace. The sample group was very low so the results would not be considered to be valid. It seems that the DWP PR department are paying professionals to front debates and programs that a very biased. The interviews with claimants sounded as if they were scripted. There was no mention of how difficult it is to claim in the first place, or how complex the new ESA scheme is!

In a half hour program you have to be selective with your topics and can't cover everything. If you believe the program to be biased then you should make a formal complaint to the BBC.

I've complained to the BBC in the past and you just get a computer-generated letter, that always very patronizing. A bit like the letters you sometimes get from the DWP!

The group of people used to back up the research work related to , ‘work is good for you’ was not based on a cross section of the people who actually claim benefits for disability or long-term health problems; that are usually caused due to stress at work. A lot of the research work related to ‘work is good for you’ is usually connected with multinational insurance companies or the DWP, who always put a spin on problematic ‘research’ work. Moreover, the program sometimes put a positive spin on people claiming benefits, that bears no resemblance to reality: the glowing reports regarding a job seekers scheme, and the emphasis on voluntary work. It is obvious that if you do voluntary work and tell the DWP about it, it could effect your entitlement to benefit at a later date; as the DWP believe that if you can do part-time voluntary work, you should then be able to do full-time work, regardless of your illness or disability according to the DWP ‘work is good for you’ ideology. And finally, the BBC as a whole has got a poor record of representing the views of the unemployed, due to the countless propaganda programes they have shown, that always show us as undeserving and all capable of work.