Yeah, thanks for posting. Some of Richard Horton's comments, including the one Sean highlights, must be up for 'unintended irony of the decade' award. And notice how he uses emotive phrases like 'orchestrated response' to suggest underhand tactics, rather than just the ME charities and ME sufferers reacting sensibly to the weak science and media distortion of the paper.
Given Horton has already framed the debate (to take place in the Lancet) as 'sensible, impartial researchers versus orchestrated attacks from fringe groups', it strikes me as odd that he even intends to publish parts of Hooper's so-called 'diatribe'. It's incredibly unprofessional of Horton to frame the debate thus before it's even been published.
I wonder if Horton has ever heard of countertransference. Some of his sentences were just perfect inversions of the actual state of affairs.
Hortons statements and his attitude were far more extraordinary to me, than anything else in this news piece. It was everything other than what you would expect from a man in his position. A very aggressive attack.
I have not read the" diatribe" and know scant details on the substance of Hoopers allegations regarding ethics breaches...but that is a serious complaint, which would put the lancet in the position of having the study reviewed further etc. The lancet would not like this challenge to their authority, I am sure.
However, if Hoopers assertions had no substance, then there would be little need for such an aggressive response. Is it a case of where there's smoke there's fire?
Puzzling to me and of more of a concern, was the less than objective reporting style of the ABC and the repeated reference to patient advocacy groups (a possible dig at the Australian Society and it's press release on the matter perhaps?, though it's hard to say)
All the same, I hope the Society finishes what it started with it's issue of the press release, in taking up the fight on this issue and takes steps to insist that the ABC provide the Society a right of reply, failing which..it should lodge an immediate complaint to the ACMA. Anything less, would be an huge mistake in light of how much trouble this journalistic piece has created.
I would be encouraging people here to drop the CEO of the Australian Society a request that they do just that