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, 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.
Because no good journalist is a one-source writer. Any writer, even a non-professional, knows you don't use only one source and take whatever it says as the absolute truth. That's regurgitation, not writing.They get sent a press release saying 'Oxford University study finds that graded exercise therapy and CBT ease symptoms of CFS' (or whatever the actual wording was.) The science writer, probably, has had no personal encounter with ME - why would they doubt what appears to be a landmark study, and by such a well respected institution?
Why the heck not? Just because they're (ooh, I'm so honored to even be saying the name ) Oxford, doesn't make them perfect and irrefutable. Or is that too American of me? Americans don't consider Harvard or Yale or Stanford publications to be inarguable. It's about the quality of the person or the argument, not the title or the name.The sad fact is, that we as patients can't argue with the name of Oxford University (always mentioned even though two other universities are involved.)
Unfortunately, too true.We need to consider what 'news' is and (sadly we must be cynical) - what newspapers think is a 'story'.
Because no good journalist is a one-source writer. Any writer, even a non-professional, knows you don't use only one source and take whatever it says as the absolute truth. That's regurgitation, not writing.
Why the heck not? Just because they're (ooh, I'm so honored to even be saying the name ) Oxford, doesn't make them perfect and irrefutable. Or is that too American of me? Americans don't consider Harvard or Yale or Stanford publications to be inarguable. It's about the quality of the person or the argument, not the title or the name.
What's with all this deference to self-proclaimed authorities?
He can't even get the name of his own book right, it's "Selfish, Whining Monkeys". According to a 1-star review on amazon, he writes about ME in the book."My suspicion, based upon the evidence I have seen and wrote about in my book "Whining Selfish Monkeys" ..."
How can anyone take this man seriously? That sounds like a comedy routine.
Yeah, I know some people do, but they're hardly worth arguing with. Some people believe professional wrestling is real wrestling, too. Rational argument is not going to change that kind of mind.
To be fair, the PACE followup is (deliberately) pretty confusing, even if familiar with the other PACE papers. If someone isn't reading medical research papers on a regular basis, they wouldn't be able to make anything of it.The thing is, journalism school is supposed to teach you not to simply trust information you are given but to look for other perspectives. Even including if the information is from well-regarded sources.
True, but that doesn't excuse them for not asking: Who are the other experts who study this disease and what do they have to say? Who can we find to represent the patients here?To be fair, the PACE followup is (deliberately) pretty confusing, even if familiar with the other PACE papers. If someone isn't reading medical research papers on a regular basis, they wouldn't be able to make anything of it.
I wrote the second Telegraph piece and so obviously spoke with a reporter at the Telegraph quite a lot. I think it's important, if we want to understand exactly how the media works and how these terrible headlines/articles get produced, to understand it from the science reporter's point of view. They get sent a press release saying 'Oxford University study finds that graded exercise therapy and CBT ease symptoms of CFS' (or whatever the actual wording was.) The science writer, probably, has had no personal encounter with ME - why would they doubt what appears to be a landmark study, and by such a well respected institution? How could they possibly understand all the nuance behind the 'controversy'? I can see how such an appalling headline was produced - it took the reporter I was working with a long time to finally really understand the difference between GET and exercise, and 'positive thinking' and CBT - and he is someone I know personally and who is 'on my side' so to speak. And then of course, I was asking in my piece, to go several stages 'further' than that and say that the whole study was rubbish. The Telegraph's initial story was awful and irresponsible, but I can almost understand how a naive reporter could have come to such conclusions based on the press statement. The sad fact is, that we as patients can't argue with the name of Oxford University (always mentioned even though two other universities are involved.) I'm fairly sure, I couldn't have argued my case were it not for the fact that I sent quotes from a similarly venerated institution - the IOM.
What I really liked about harveythecat's article was that it was a personal story, which I think are the most effective for getting the attention of a general audience, with it's own "what the science says" box, which said what the real science says. Perfect combination I thought.It's nothing personal. I've just started to wonder if there is any point publishing patients' stories, whether the juxtaposing of them with psych-based articles presented as "What the science says" may be counterproductive in reinforcing the common idea that ME sufferers are nice but deluded individuals railing at unpalatable scientific 'truths'.
We'll have agree to differ (about how these things are perceived, not about the article) but I'm just old and jaded. Ignore meWhat I really liked about harveythecat's article was that it was a personal story, which I think are the most effective for getting the attention of a general audience, with it's own "what the science says" box, which said what the real science says. Perfect combination I thought.
To be honest I'm middle-aged, jaded and a little pessemistic, but the inspiring efforts of @Sasha and the rest and the fact that they are bearing some fruit is making me feel a little younger and more hopeful as I watch in amazement and admiration.We'll have agree to differ (about how these things are perceived, not about the article) but I'm just old and jaded. Ignore me
This is basically an admission that Rod Liddle made up his mind a long time ago, and has been too lazy to reinvestigate or rethink the matter since, despite the enormous number of developments in the field since he came to the wrong conclusion.
To be honest I'm middle-aged, jaded and a little pessemistic, but the inspiring efforts of @Sasha and the rest and the fact that they are bearing some fruit is making me feel a little younger and more hopeful as I watch in amazement and admiration.
I like the idea of you writing a regular article, if you're up for that.
I also think we want something very simple, because the reason why PACE should not be used as an evidence base for guidelines is very simple.