• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

An open letter to Psychological Medicine, again! by D Tuller et al

Messages
10
Farcical! By his logic, the MMR-Autism papers should not have been retracted from The Lancet, as people can read criticism of them elsewhere. It really is an indefensible position if you value the role of a scientific journal as a place for supposedly verified, reliable information.

The tone of the letter is also pretty unpleasant, dripping with snarky condescension.

I agree with Charles Shepherd - if the editor will not act, the publisher might. They'll probably respond, at least initially, by saying they don't exercise editorial control over their journals but at some point a publisher does have to take responsibility for what they're publishing. CUP do not want to acquire a reputation for printing discredited drivel.
 
Messages
13,774
I am beginning to see things a little differently. Like the last scene in the drawing room when all Agatha Christie's suspects are gathered together wondering who did it, and how many of them, and how, and why. And Miss Marple begins to explain about who lied to protect someone who did not actually do it and so on and so on. And you know that there is no going back. A few red hands and a lot of red faces.

Anyone who can think of another lever to pull at Cambridge University Press please go for it, but I suspect there is no rush. It is apparent that the truth is apparent to enough people. Maybe it's like banging your head against a wall that is already leaning dangerously down the hill and making cracking noises!

I don't know. Wessely is about to be made President of the Royal Society of Medicine. Many key figures have presented this dispute as being a case of 'science' vs 'anti-science'. There are a lot of institutions whose own prestiege will be harmed by recognising the problems with PACE.

We many now be at the point where few individuals are willing to defend PACE publicly, but I think it will be hard to get powerful UK institutions to criticise it in the way that they should.
 

user9876

Senior Member
Messages
4,556
This is starting to feel like a 'banging your head against a brick wall' situation

I think it may be time to see if Cambridge University Press is willing to accept that this is a serious matter of concern

I have just sent this to the Countess of Mar

CS

They should because the journal has refused to deal with or even investigate factual errors in the paper.

The journal is not part of COPE but they do claim they will deal with complaints seriously
 

user9876

Senior Member
Messages
4,556
I agree with Charles Shepherd - if the editor will not act, the publisher might. They'll probably respond, at least initially, by saying they don't exercise editorial control over their journals but at some point a publisher does have to take responsibility for what they're publishing. CUP do not want to acquire a reputation for printing discredited drivel.

They shouldn't have editorial control but they have a responsibility to check the journal is being run on professional lines. Ignoring errors and other issues because you and your friends support the paper is not professional.
 

Molly98

Senior Member
Messages
576
Farcical! By his logic, the MMR-Autism papers should not have been retracted from The Lancet, as people can read criticism of them elsewhere. It really is an indefensible position if you value the role of a scientific journal as a place for supposedly verified, reliable information.

The tone of the letter is also pretty unpleasant, dripping with snarky condescension.

I agree with Charles Shepherd - if the editor will not act, the publisher might. They'll probably respond, at least initially, by saying they don't exercise editorial control over their journals but at some point a publisher does have to take responsibility for what they're publishing. CUP do not want to acquire a reputation for printing discredited drivel.
But do they hold a legal responsibility. This paper has led and is leading to harm of patients. They have been made aware of this now in full force with many scientists and clinicians and patient groups signing.
Are they willing to risk being found legally culpable for harms to patients because this is what it may amount to in the not to distant future.
There is always a first for this kind of thing.
Their inaction to withdraw it could make them as owners of the journal vicariously liable.
Clinicians worldwide are prescribing these treatments based on a highly misleading paper in their journal.
 

Jonathan Edwards

"Gibberish"
Messages
5,256
I don't know. Wessely is about to be made President of the Royal Society of Medicine. Many key figures have presented this dispute as being a case of 'science' vs 'anti-science'. There are a lot of institutions whose own prestiege will be harmed by recognising the problems with PACE.

We many now be at the point where few individuals are willing to defend PACE publicly, but I think it will be hard to get powerful UK institutions to criticise it in the way that they should.

The Royal Society of Medicine is a sad little place for lonely doctors who want to find other lonely doctors to have dinner with. Its only claim to fame is that it has a very fine historical library. That Simon Wessely should want, or even agree, to be President of this lonely hearts club is an indication of just how fragile his facade is. Fear not, the RSM has about as much political clout as the Master of the Worshipful Company of Haberdashers.

PACE cannot survive without an international reputation. That is now dead.
 
Messages
2,158
The Royal Society of Medicine is a sad little place for lonely doctors who want to find other lonely doctors to have dinner with. Its only claim to fame is that it has a very fine historical library. That Simon Wessely should want, or even agree, to be President of this lonely hearts club is an indication of just how fragile his facade is. Fear not, the RSM has about as much political clout as the Master of the Worshipful Company of Haberdashers.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Oh, @Jonathan Edwards you are so good at cheering me up!

Another one for the quote collection.
 

Alvin2

The good news is patients don't die the bad news..
Messages
2,995
Are they willing to risk being found legally culpable for harms to patients
How does this happen?

PACE cannot survive without an international reputation. That is now dead.
I disagree, bad science has amazing staying power, for example a good percent of the population believes in the link between vaccines and autism no matter how withdrawn the study is. In fact many believe its withdrawal is a conspiracy to suppress the truth.
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,391
Location
UK
Messages
2,391
Location
UK
Anyone who can think of another lever to pull at Cambridge University Press please go for it, but I suspect there is no rush. It is apparent that the truth is apparent to enough people. Maybe it's like banging your head against a wall that is already leaning dangerously down the hill and making cracking noises!
I think the cracks in the dam are spreading ever more rapidly and widely, and soon the whole thing will give way now. Some of the PACE proponents are now showing signs of trying to scrabble away from the water that is leaking through, before dam finally breaches. The rest are putting their hands over their eyes and pretending it is not happening - but they know in truth it is.
 

Jan

Senior Member
Messages
458
Location
Devon UK
The Royal Society of Medicine is a sad little place for lonely doctors who want to find other lonely doctors to have dinner with. Its only claim to fame is that it has a very fine historical library. That Simon Wessely should want, or even agree, to be President of this lonely hearts club is an indication of just how fragile his facade is. Fear not, the RSM has about as much political clout as the Master of the Worshipful Company of Haberdashers.

PACE cannot survive without an international reputation. That is now dead.

Sometimes, dear Jonathon, I could kiss you :heart:
 

Wolfiness

Activity Level 0
Messages
482
Location
UK
I don't know. Wessely is about to be made President of the Royal Society of Medicine. Many key figures have presented this dispute as being a case of 'science' vs 'anti-science'. There are a lot of institutions whose own prestiege will be harmed by recognising the problems with PACE.

We many now be at the point where few individuals are willing to defend PACE publicly, but I think it will be hard to get powerful UK institutions to criticise it in the way that they should.

That's precisely what it is :)

Do you guys know Aesop's fable of The North Wind And The Sun? https://www.umass.edu/aesop/content.php?n=31&i=2

Perhaps switching to a Good Cop tactic of "we invite you ride to the rescue of patients and science and end up on the winning side" might bear more fruit now than a confrontational "admit you've been spineless corrupt morons" approach? I don't want to make the same mistakes I made arguing against Brexit and Trump. Backfire effect and all that. https://www.brainpickings.org/2015/05/20/blaise-pascal-pensees-persuasion/
 
Last edited:

Solstice

Senior Member
Messages
641
No, let them. It will just bring home to the PACE authors how their "friends" are deserting them to try and save their own skins. It is a good sign when that starts to happen.

Precisely. Force a decision out of them. Keep remembering them they have a vote to cast and that no answer after they board meeting on April is as good as saying no to the patients and yes to the pace-authors. Then it can go two ways they either support us which will add some more speed to pace going down or they can go down with their ship.