Professor & patients' paper on the solvable biological challenge of ME/CFS: reader-friendly version
Simon McGrath provides a patient-friendly version of a peer-reviewed paper which highlights some of the most promising biomedical research on ME/CFS ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Science Media Centre briefing on new Hornig, Lipkin et al. immune study

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Dolphin, Feb 27, 2015.

  1. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,672
    Likes:
    28,181
    All these critical comments contrasts sharply with their uncritical coverage of the PACE Trial, etc.

    http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-biomarkers-for-cfsme/

     
  2. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    9,844
    Likes:
    33,946
    England (south coast)
    oceiv, MeSci and Dolphin like this.
  3. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,672
    Likes:
    28,181
    Given how influential the Science Media Centre are with regard to this research study and other ME/CFS coverage in the UK media in recent years I thought it was worth highlighting it and discussing it in its own thread.
     
    mango, Kati, snowathlete and 8 others like this.
  4. Denise

    Denise Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,095
    Likes:
    3,447
    Thanks for this thread @Dolphin

    While I understand that replication of the Hornig/Lipkin study is still needed and that we need to investigate how solid these findings are compared to other illnesses, the comments collected by Science Media Centre really irritate me.

    It feels as though anything that corroborates their views is viewed far less critically than something that challenges their approach/view.
     
    oceiv, Antares in NYC, leela and 8 others like this.
  5. Denise

    Denise Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,095
    Likes:
    3,447
    I am seeing these (SCM gathered) quotes scattered in several mainstream media articles.

    sigh
     
    oceiv, MeSci and Dolphin like this.
  6. Denise

    Denise Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,095
    Likes:
    3,447
    It is interesting that for instance, there are no quotes from Luis Nacul or Nigel Speight or Julia Newton or ....
     
    snowathlete, leela, beaker and 8 others like this.
  7. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,491
    Likes:
    35,112
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    Is this a surprise? This pattern of one sided reporting from the SMC has been noted in academia.
     
    snowathlete, leela, beaker and 4 others like this.
  8. Sidereal

    Sidereal Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,097
    Likes:
    17,174
    Funny how the sharpened knives come out when a large multicentre study showing biological abnormalities is published. When an unblinded trial with subjective outcome measures and laughable inclusion criteria is published, we're told that "for those who appreciate these things, the trial is a thing of beauty".
     
    oceiv, Aurator, halcyon and 20 others like this.
  9. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,672
    Likes:
    28,181
    No, it didn't surprise me. But it all adds to the evidence base that the SMC is biased. It is also interesting to see the source for lots of the quotes in the media coverage.
     
    mango, snowathlete, leela and 8 others like this.
  10. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,449
    Likes:
    28,522
    I mentioned this in the other thread, but thought I'd put it here too: Sharpe has not mentioned his insurance COI, when he normally declares it.

     
  11. Sean

    Sean Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,257
    Likes:
    17,985
    The SMC is not the answer to the problem, the SMC is the problem.
     
    Roy S, beaker, MeSci and 7 others like this.
  12. Sidereal

    Sidereal Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,097
    Likes:
    17,174
    The SMC is like a Politburo. Antithetical to science.
     
    beaker, Valentijn, Wildcat and 5 others like this.
  13. Sean

    Sean Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,257
    Likes:
    17,985
    Anything that claims to offer an 'officially approved' version of science (or truth) is automatically suspect in my books.
     
    moosie, Aurator, jimells and 6 others like this.
  14. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,491
    Likes:
    35,112
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    Oh, I cannot agree. Let me modify this:

    The SMC is not the answer to the problem, the SMC ***IS*** the problem.

    I am slightly exaggerating of course, but it makes the point and I think its a great slogan.
     
    leela, beaker, Ritto and 8 others like this.
  15. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,672
    Likes:
    28,181
  16. SOC

    SOC

    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes:
    16,462
    Dolphin likes this.
  17. JamBob

    JamBob Senior Member

    Messages:
    191
    Likes:
    764
    So they didn't get any actual immunologists to critique the study? Funny that given their funding to work with mental health and neuroscience "experts".
     
    snowathlete, beaker, MeSci and 3 others like this.
  18. SOC

    SOC

    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes:
    16,462
    Yeah, interesting isn't it, that the SMC didn't find immunologists to comment on an immunology paper, but instead brought in psychiatrists? o_O Now that makes a whole lot of scientific sense. Do they call in psychiatrists to comment on cancer, MS, and diabetes papers as well?

    I didn't think so.... :rolleyes:

    So, not the Science Media Center, but the Propaganda Media Center, it appears.
     
    mango, Aurator, halcyon and 9 others like this.
  19. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,449
    Likes:
    28,522
    Thanks Dolphin and Sharon.

    The above quote is from their 2014 accounts: www.sciencemediacentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/SMC-final-accounts-31-March-2014-UNsigned.pdf

    In case it's of interest, the 2013 accounts state:

    "Improving awareness and understanding of mental health research - A restricted fund in the form of grants and donations

    from several organisations within the mental health research community continues to allow the SMC to employ a full-
    time member of staff to work specifically on mental health stories in the media. This much-needed position fills a
    recognised gap in the field to improve public access to accurate information and research on mental health, psychiatry,
    neuroscience and psychology. This post has enabled the SMC to work on many issues including ADHD treatments and
    criminal activity, the schizophrenia commission, discrimination and stigma in depression, premature deaths in people with
    learning difficulties, and violent offending and the military"

    2012:

    "lrnproving awareness and understanding of mental health research ~ A restricted fund in the form of grants and donations
    from several organisations within the mental health research community allows the SMC to employ a full-time member of
    staff to work specifically on mental health stories in the media. This much-needed position fills a recognised gap in the
    field to improve public access to accurate information and research on mental health, psychiatry, neuroscience and
    psychology."
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2015
  20. SilverbladeTE

    SilverbladeTE Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,909
    Likes:
    3,562
    Somewhere near Glasgow, Scotland
    No, the SMC is NOT a "Politburo", , which is a purely political body in charge of the country
    No, it is far, far more like the Soviet Academy of Science under the influence of both the the Stalinists and it's "enfant terrible", and pseudoscientists, the arrogant, monstrous and disastrous Trofim Lysenko.
    Guess who I think is a modern day Lysenko? :p

    SMC is run for the advantage of the political opposite of Stalinists, but extremes are just as bad as each other.
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page