Edward Shorter reviews SO'S book It's All in your Head

[Dx Revision Watch]

Hip wrote:

"For those old enough to remember the decades before political correctness and "safe spaces," the proper response to Coyne would be something like: "Coyne, go fuck yourself, you supercilious fuckwit!" I am sure he would actually appreciate and respect such as response; and it would also show you have a bit of spice and "attitude" and charisma in you."


Hip,

I am old enough to remember the decades before "political correctness."

This is not about "political correctness" or a woman's failure to show "spice" and "attitude" by responding with "Coyne, go fuck yourself, you supercilious fuckwit!".

Mothers of young children and those with academic or professional careers or businesses and those who use their own names on internet platforms rather than anonymous pseudonyms or unidentifiable usernames may not in any case chose to communicate with an academic (or anyone else) in that manner.

As Wildcat has written:

"Its not about objecting to swearing in general. I shouldn't think the advocates whom Coyne sets upon are wilting violets who become faint at the sound of a F***.

"Coynes expletives were in the context of his aggressive attempts to control patient/advocates views and statements."

Coyne's behaviour over the course of several days was played out across a number of public Facebook pages (which have since been "cleaned up" by the admins) and also, as you now see, in PMs.

He then sought to shut down on Twitter anyone who questioned or challenged his behaviour over the preceding days.

After that weekend, a whole raft of stunned Twitter users (including myself) found themselves Blocked by Coyne on Twitter.

These included Northern Ireland ME advocate, Sally Burch. Sally is a well known NI advocate and blogger who had been involved with the hosting of Coyne's PACE presentation.

Sally wrote up her concerns, here:

Professor Coyne What Happened?

Monday, 29 February, 2016

http://sallyjustme.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/professor-coyne-what-happened.html#comment-form

"...I didn't understand. I still don't really.

After all, I had met this man, eaten a dinner with him, and my husband had taken him sight seeing around Northern Ireland on the day between the two #PACEni events.

"I shared Jeannette's post this morning, and then noticed that James Coyne had blocked me on Twitter. No explanation, no communication, just my account was now blocked from seeing his tweets." Read full post here


He did later unblock Sally. But I and some others remain Blocked.

So I had to smile when Valentijin suggested providing citations and quotes to counter Shorter's opinions because one cannot communicate if Blocked or if comments in response to blog posts are being held back on pre-moderated blog platforms, as several of mine are.

I am very uncomfortable that you appear to be seeking to dismiss this unaccountable level of aggression (for which no apologies have been forthcoming) as locker room banter.

As Wildcat has said, he has used aggression to control patient/advocates views and statements. And yet he's railed on Twitter against those who seek to suppress the views of patients. He's not even consistent.

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

Thanks for posting those dialogues, @Wildcat and @Dx Revision Watch.I am not excusing his behavior; it's his character. Remember character? That human phenomenon that political correctness and "safe spaces" wants to homogenize and pasteurize.

Yes, I think you are.

If this is his "character" do you suppose he tells his colleagues and students to "go fuck the fuck off" when they disagree with him?

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

Here's another example of controlling opinion when it does not align with Coyne's own views or agenda:

On February 25 (just before the Facebook debacle) an advocate calmly objected on Twitter to Coyne's use of the term "premature overraction" in relation to criticisms being expressed about the NIH project. She had also said she had some issues with some aspects of Cort Johnson's commentary on the NIH project (a commentary that Coyne had been circulating).

After a series of exchanges with her and several others, Coyne wrote to her, PM, telling her she did not know what she was talking about, adding that he was prepared to block her on Twitter and encourage others to block her, also.

He then PMd a second time, saying "You are now blocked and I'm going to encourage others to do so."

 

[JayS]

After months of polite discourse, I got a 'tell your fucking friend to shut up or...' message also. Prior to that it was odd that he'd taken Cort's side on Walitt to begin with. Made no sense. I saw absolutely nothing wrong with Jeannette's tweet--zero. I didn't pay as much attention to the argument with Angela Kennedy, but I don't think it matters. Jeannette's tweet was five days old & as buried as a five-day-old tweet can be, and if anyone at NIH had been 'offended'--that would make THEM the special snowflakes in this scenario. Not the dozens of people who got 'fuck yourself' messages and posts on Facebook and Twitter. And over what? Jeanette's tweet? Really? GMAFB.

I could speculate on why Coyne did what he did when he did, but what's the point, I really don't know any more than anyone else and it doesn't matter anyway. I object to the use of the phrase 'Jeannette and her troll supporters' and though I have chosen to not interact with James or most anyone who has continued to act like nothing ever happened, doesn't mean it doesn't burn me to see how someone was treated who didn't deserve it, regardless of what you think of her (and others) as a person and an advocate (I will take the liberty of assuming that my assessment is more positive than that of some others). James went on and on about how the community needed to police itself--after reading a pro-psych blog by Cort? Well, gee. I remember the last time the community tried just that--on this very website. The result? Some good--and a whole lot of bad, too. 'Policing the community' when you're talking about a very small number of people that most would say they have a problem with--is a non-starter. Beyond that, you'd think they were some kind of violent rabble. Nonsense. Most of us are pains in the ass to someone else in this community at one time or another.

But James never responded to my email. If he cares about PACE, which anybody should, and he wants to continue working on it, I won't try to stop him and wouldn't be able to if I did try. People acting like nothing ever happened? That's on you. I could have done what James David Chapman did, but I didn't see the point, and I don't have the strength to spend time on things when I have a pretty good idea they're not going to change anyone's minds. So I keep my mouth shut about it, until I don't.

But James owes Jeannette an apology, period. His behavior was unbelievably hostile, and over what. Fucking nothing, seriously. He wasn't around for a certain 'scientist' from Wales & his cheerleading squad. I wonder what he would've thought of THAT guy. Meanwhile, his promotion of Shorter given all the particulars is beyond bizarre. And oh, yeah, he wasn't all that nice to Dx Revision Watch, either, though that was rather different than what happened a couple of months later. To those who are convinced PACE is so important that we so badly need his presence, let's not forget this was David Tuller's initiative. I'm not sure Coyne's presence isn't notable and important, perhaps crucial. He sure made a lot of noise about it. But he wasn't just rude and nasty; he went over the line to an extent so shocking that it really was, and I'm no fucking special snowflake, believe me, it really was ultra violent.

Doesn't seem to bother some folks. Whatever. But ask yourselves this: after all the 'fuck yourself's, would an apology from him have been so fucking difficult? Even if you thought Jeannette's tweet was outrageous (I can't see it, but everyone's entitled), and even if you thought the nasty anger directed at all of us as a group was warranted, you know, sometimes people who have no reason to apologize actually do so because it's the best way forward for everyone. In this case an apology is so blatantly warranted it's not even funny. I guess it was too much to ask, regardless of whatever it was that was going on in his head that weekend, and whatever hasn't been going on since.

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

Re post #163

@Coyneoftherealm

in a thread of exchanges re NIH, Walitt etc with several commentators, including

@AcademicAnge @ME_Valentijn @thegodofpleasur

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/702760276479836160

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

..

Hip wote: ..."ME/CFS patients are much more emotionally sensitive to social discord...."

What Coyne does is not 'social discord' - its verbal abuse and defamation. The 'you are sensitive' argument/excuse for his behaviour just does not stand up.

Please also remember, Hip, that some of us long-term advocates aren't ME, CFS patients - we are carers and parents of PWME. So your "thin skin, emotionally sensitive due to illness" thing doesn't stand up, either.

 

[ScottTriGuy]

Hip wote: ..."ME/CFS patients are much more emotionally sensitive to social discord...."

People who have experienced (multiple) trauma from the healthcare system may be 'more emotionally sensitive' - not due to the illness, but due to the negative reactions of healthcare 'professionals' to the illness.

Anger and fear are natural by-products / symptoms of traumatic experiences: post traumatic stress syndrome.

Acknowledging that many / most ME patients have been traumatized by the healthcare system must inform our perspectives of communication.

 

[Wildcat]

.
@Living Dead wrote: ...

"Now that was certainly showing "the other side of the Coyne".

Has James Coyne ever clearly and unambiguously stated that he thinks ME/CFS is a somatic illness?"

.

In a word, I don't know.

.
But Coyne's February online aggression, Twitter blocking, public defamation of, and attempted silencing of, ME advocates, was directed solely at advocates who had criticised the psychosomatosis enthusiast Brian Walitt's views and his inclusion as a researcher on the NIH study….. and at those who disagreed with Cort Johnson’s blog defence of Walitt, and his inclusion as researcher on the NIH study.
.
‘Somatic’ meaning ‘of the body’; heart disease, diabetes are somatic diseases for example. .. … not short for ‘psychosomatic’... sometimes the two words are confused.

.
Brian Walitt's views are thoroughly critiqued here:

https://thoughtsaboutme.com/2016/02...e-perception-mecfs-as-normal-life-experience/
Brian Walitt’s Radical Bias: Disorders of Subjective Perception, ME/CFS as Normal Life Experience?

.

So far Coyne has defended or promoted the work of two individuals (researcher/academic) who construct ME as psychosomatic.

.
Is it Really possible that Coyne was oblivious of Shorter’s long history of ME denigration? Very Unlikely as Shorter’s ME smear essay in Psychology Today is pretty recent. And his book ‘From Paralysis to Fatigue’ is widely known. Its just not credible that Coyne did not know Shorter’s widely circulated views on ME.

.
If Coyne is really trying to expose PACE, whose researchers construct ME as psychosomatic, then its not clear whether Coyne has just shot himself in the foot by promoting Shorter’s review of O’Sullivan’s gruesome book, or stabbed the ME patient ‘community’ in the back.

.

 

[Living Dead]

It's possible to react strongly negative to PACE because it is research that is carried out in a hopelessly wrong fashion, while still thinking that ME/CFS is psychiatric condition.

 

[Bob]

As far as my memory and interpretation go, James Coyne has repeatedly dismissed the idea that ME/CFS is a psychosomatic or psychological illness, and has repeatedly reinforced the idea that it's a biomedical illness. I don't think there is any room for ambiguity when it comes to his opinions re ME/CFS. I can't provide quotes because I'd have to search through his entire Twitter stream and blogs to find them.

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

As far as my memory and interpretation go, James Coyne has repeatedly dismissed the idea that ME/CFS is a psychosomatic or psychological illness, and has repeatedly reinforced the idea that it's a biomedical illness. I don't think there is any room for ambiguity when it comes to his opinions re ME/CFS. I can't provide quotes because I'd have to search through his entire Twitter stream and blogs to find them.

If this were the case, Bob, why on earth is he promoting and giving a platform to Shorter and Shorter's books and blogs?

Have you asked him on Twitter for his rationale (apart from the already cited and risible, "Too bad small band of patient trolls drive others out of discussing #MECFS. We sadly have to rely on Shorter.." rationale).

 

[Esther12]

Some of Coyne's ranting took place during the period when he was having that growth removed from his nose, and to me it did seem a bit drunken too. I think it would have been totally forgivable if he'd apologised, and it was really disappointing that he did not. I was expecting an apology and for it to blow over, so never really looked in to all the details of what happened.

It would have been really worrying if other patients/activists had been ostracised because of Coyne's tantrum. It doesn't seem like that has happened to anyone, and it sounds like Coyne can have a misplaced sense of how much influence he has over patients, who are pretty used to telling authority figures to piss off.

It's all been pretty disappointing tbh. Along with the UK establishment's resistance to engaging with Tuller's work, it really makes clear how broken academia is (particularly in the UK?). Coyne, as a brand name, is the only thing that brings credibility to concerns about PACE for a lot of researchers - the arguments and evidence seem to play very little role.

If this information tribunal decides that the PACE data should be kept secret, I think that we're in for a real slog. The political problems around PACE/CFS/etc are so irritating it doesn't surprise me that this leads to drama, frustration and outbursts, but people still should be willing to look back at their behaviour and say sorry for when they've got things wrong. Thanks to all those working to minimise the drama and keep focussed on picking apart the bad research instead!

 

[Bob]

If this were the case, Bob, why on earth is he promoting and giving a platform to Shorter and Shorter's books and blogs?

I have no idea. I wish he wouldn't promote them.

 

[Hip]

Again, the arguments that 'Its just Coyne's character' ... and 'Coyne's targets are just too thin skinned' sound like making excuses for him, and locating 'the problem' in the people he attacked.

Most people have character flaws, myself included. I get days when I get into angry rants, raising my voice in argumentative tirades against friends and family around me, probably in a largely unreasonable manner, although usually there is alway some truth behind my invectives.

Sometimes this surge of anger is a random occurrence, other times I can trace it back to accidentally taking too high a dose of certain supplements which I know cause me to become aggressive.

In fact, ever since I had an episode of viral meningitis / encephalitis (mostly like from the same enterovirus that triggered my ME/CFS) some years back, which appeared to cause some mild brain damage and personality change, as such infections are apt to do, I find myself becoming easily irritated, and prone to outbursts of anger, whereas previously I was a calm and quite spiritual type. I don't even enjoy these angry states of mind, and try my best to avoid them, but they do occur.

Often I put these surges of anger to good use. For example, when I wrote this email to the Wellcome Trust, expressing how I was appalled that the Wellcome Trust (which historically has championed the biomedical view of illness) awarded their book prize for O'Sullivan's psychobabble writings, I had been in a particularly angry mood for days (again, due to certain medications).

Had I not experienced that surge of anger, I probably would not have written that email. And this applies to lots of hard criticism that I post online targeting Wessely School psychobabble. Thus even character flaws can be put to good use.

I'd rather have a few angry persons amongst those professionals arguing for ME/CFS to be understood as a biologically caused disease, that just a calm and placid bunch of allies. Calm and placid is great as well, but it can be very useful to have one or two temper tantrum-prone "rock stars" among your allies.

That's my view anyway, though I respect that you have a different one.


In summary: if you have heavy artillery firing away at your enemy's positions, don't be surprised if you get hit by the recoil when you stand too close to the barrel.

Coyne now appears to have resorted to passive aggression against the Entire ME 'community' by promoting and praising Edward Shorter's Blog review of Suzanne O'Sullivan's book on psychosomatosis, whilst praising long term ME psychologiser and ME basher Shorter.

Are you sure you are not projecting into this you own ideas about his motivation? What if he just likes Shorter's style, or what if Shorter might be a friend?

When I was reading some of Shorter's writing, I quite liked his outspoken writing style. And with O'Sullivan, to me she comes across as a very warm and pleasant person who . That makes it all the harder for me to attack their ideas through my posts online (and attack them I certainly do). But I have nothing against these people personally; I don't dislike them. It just that the ideas they have got in their minds are pseudo-intellectual nonsense, and are detrimental to increasing funding and progress in ME/CFS biomedical research.

Please also remember, Hip, that some of us long-term advocates aren't ME, CFS patients - we are carers and parents of PWME. So your "thin skin, emotionally sensitive due to illness" thing doesn't stand up, either.

I think you may have misunderstood what I said about the emotional sensitivity symptom of ME/CFS: what I said is that I have sympathy for Jeannette having to experience Coyne's temper; I did not say the ME/CFS emotional sensitivity explains it.

 

[Wildcat]

.
@Hip wrote: "Are you sure you are not projecting into this you own ideas about his motivation?"
.

Yes, Hip. I am quite sure. .Coyne could not have chosen a worse person to review O'Sullivan's book on Coyne's Blog... with the possible exception of Elaine Showalter (author of 'Hystories: Hysterical Epidemics and Modern Culture') who Shorter collaborates with to construct ME as a cultural epidemic, and to denigrate ME and the patients. Have you actually read any of Shorter's work on ME?.

.

.

 

[Wildcat]

.
@Hip wrote: "In summary: if you have heavy artillery firing away at your enemy's positions, don't be surprised if you get hit by the recoil when you stand too close to the barrel."
.
.
Nonsense.

If White, Crawley, or Moss-Morris had behaved and written as Coyne did they would be up in front of the GMC. If a UK Psychologist had done the same as Coyne they would be facing a case of bringing their profession into disrepute with the Health Professionals Council.
.
.
If Coyne had laid into Cancer patients/advocates or MS patients/advocates in that way, with personalised verbal abuse, personal and professional defamation of individuals, and extensive swearing, there would be outrage and official complaints about him.
.
.

 

[Wildcat]

.
.
@Esther12 .... wrote:
" It would have been really worrying if other patients/activists had been ostracised because of Coyne's tantrum. It doesn't seem like that has happened to anyone,"
.
How would you know what has gone on in different parts of the internet since Coyne did his abusive so called 'tantrums'?
.
.
A number of the targets of Coyne's anger and defamation in February (which took place over a period of time, not just a possibly drunken saturday night) have since been subjected to extreme unpleasantness and even downright viciousness by those who have put Coyne on a pedestal, or who just like joining in. Its ongoing. One has had enough of the acceptance of abuse of advocates by the greater ME 'community' and left campaigning, another is on the point of doing so. Years of experience and knowlege down the drain.

Personally I am fed up with hearing trivialisation/apologism and excuses for him. I have nothing more to say on this subject here - it could go on for ever.

.
But Coyne has demonstrated that he is as likely to antagonise other professionals as to convince them about the methodological problems in the Pace Trial Economic Analysis paper, or persuade Plos to insist on the release of that Paper's data. The FOI Appeal case result we are waiting for has nothing to do with Coyne, despite many patients appearing to think that he is officially challenging PACE.
.
.

 

[Hip]

Have you actually read any of Shorters work on ME?.

I had a very quick scan of his book From Paralysis to Fatigue: A History of Psychosomatic Illness in the Modern Era, and read his articles on Psychology Today, where he clearly seems to have a palpable dislike of ME/CFS patients.

As a result, I added him to my list of people who I want to individually target in future, by bring to light the foolishness of his ideas on functional disorders. I have for some years now been planning a website which closely examines and scientifically criticizes psychosomatic and somatoform notions of disease; I would on this site to like have a web page for all the major proponents of this psychosomatic nonsense, like Wessely, White, Shorter, O'Sullivan, with the particular flavors of psychosomatic etiology they espouse.

But currently brain fog prevents me from undertaking such a project; I find I can handle the relatively small amount of information and material that is involved in, for example, discussions such as this thread; but cannot at present mentally marshal larger amounts of info, such as whole book. But I am constantly working on trying to pharmacologically fix the brain fog.

Coyne has demonstrated that he is as likely to antagonise other professionals as to convince them about the methodological problems in the Pace Trial Economic Analysis paper, or persuade Plos to insist on the release of that Paper's data. The FOI Appeal case result we are waiting for has nothing to do with Coyne, despite many patients appearing to think that he is officially challenging PACE.

For me, your above consideration is the only one so far that I think has validity in this discussion on the effects of Professor Coyne's involvement in extricating the psychosomatic pseudoscience from ME/CFS research and treatment.

If you could demonstrate that the net effect of Coyne's involvement were negative, then that would be of importance. But I would want to see evidence of a negative effect, not just speculation.

Until then, I am not too concerned about any temperamental outbursts of anger, provided the overall result is positive for the ME/CFS cause.

 

[Hip]

People who have experienced (multiple) trauma from the healthcare system may be 'more emotionally sensitive' - not due to the illness, but due to the negative reactions of healthcare 'professionals' to the illness.

Anger and fear are natural by-products / symptoms of traumatic experiences: post traumatic stress syndrome.

Acknowledging that many / most ME patients have been traumatized by the healthcare system must inform our perspectives of communication.

There may be some truth to that, but be aware that you are now proposing a psychosocial etiology to an ME/CFS symptom, in this case the emotionally sensitivity.

It's interesting that by and large, ME/CFS patients are vehemently opposed to psychosocial etiologies for ME/CFS; but interestingly, I have seen patients on this forum before suggest that the neuropsychological symptoms of ME/CFS (such as anxiety, depression, flat emotions, emotional sensitivity to social discord) are caused by the life circumstances of the illness — ie, the lack of response or understanding from healthcare professionals, or the social isolation of individuals.

Again, there may be some truth in that, but be aware that this is to propose a psychosocial etiology for these neuropsychological symptoms.

My own view is that these neuropsychological symptoms are primarily, well, neuropsychological! That is to say, caused by the neurological dysfunction of ME/CFS.

 

[Nielk]

Until then, I am not too concerned about any temperamental outbursts of anger, provided the overall result is positive for the ME/CFS cause.

Who will be the judge of the "overall result for the ME/CFS cause"? You are acting as if Coyne's narcissistic rage targeting an entire community of very sick patients was just a small inconvenience. Yes, he did target an entire community by terrorizing all of us with threats on facebook patient group calling all of us guilty and in need of apology to HIM.

The method of narcissistic control that Coyne used is classic astroturfing method. If you don't know what astroturfing is, you can watch this video here.

This is what I wrote a couple of months ago about the Coyne outrageous incident:

A prime example of astroturfing is to first discredit the one who is the most vocal (as an example to the others). This is accomplished by exaggerations, inflammatory language and character assassination. We saw a prime and vivid example of this in our community about six weeks ago. A prominent psychology professor who had recently taken on the cause of pressuring the authors of the PACE trial to release their papers, targeted, with a smear campaign, one of our most prominent and vocal advocate/attorney who has fearlessly stood up to the corruption of the government health agencies and actually won an important lawsuit against them.

With a planned attack, the professor zeroed in on two UK based social media patient groups to intimidate and inflame against a US advocate and those who stand with her. Her sin was that she dared to reveal the utter bias by NIH’s lead associate investigator to the ME/CFS intramural study (see Jeannette’s blog about Walitt here and here). This professor exaggerated a tweet that was sent out with the link to the blog in an attempt to silence the community and stop any further criticism against NIH.

His copious use of profanities and threats to the entire community was a tactic used to terrorize the community. He threatened to stop the work on their behalf, unless they all apologize to him (what sin was committed against him personally was never revealed). The message was clear - any criticism of the study or NIH comes with the risk of having your name besmirched in public (see Jeannette Burmeister’s blog here and Edward Burmeister’s blog here).
Since the incident with the professor, astroturfers have been busy on social media calling out any individual or organization that are criticising the government and the NIH study. They have vilified, harassed, and spread lies about those who have been criticising the NIH in order to assassinate their characters. These are all classical astroturfing methods.