Scientists trade insults over ME (JHP special issue)

[IreneF]

In the comments someone had to link to a 2011 article from the Guardian on the dangerousness of ME/CFS patients. I tried to reply but couldn't.

I wonder whether the concept of freedom of speech is foreign to the British professional class. You know, other people can say bad things about you. I also wonder whether there ever were actual threats against Wessely et al (other than wishful thinking) and if anyone was charged.

The only violence against researchers I know of has to do with PETA.

 

[A.B.]

I have to say that again, Coyne's disinhibited behaviour has worked against us here. It has given the SMC something to work with, and something that overshadows the actual validity of the arguments.

I do not think David Marks covered himself in glory either. He should have said something much more statesmanlike, about how UK psychology/psychiatry is a tightly woven group, and many feel that disagreeing with one's colleagues is dishonourable, etc. etc. Often its more about factions than the truth.

Edit: on the other hand, shit sticks, and out of all these insults, what many people will remember is that it all had something to do with that particular trial.

I think it attracts attention which is exactly what we need. We need more people to look at this stuff and get curious. The facts are overwhelmingly in our favor.

 

[Snow Leopard]

I have to say that again, Coyne's disinhibited behaviour has worked against us here. It has given the SMC something to work with, and something that overshadows the actual validity of the arguments.

Yes, it's yet more evidence of Coyne being abusive... Sigh.

 

[Barry53]

I have to say that again, Coyne's disinhibited behaviour has worked against us here. It has given the SMC something to work with, and something that overshadows the actual validity of the arguments.

Yes. Coyne does seem to do a lot of good, but often in a rather bad way. The examples cited in this article are a gift to the other side.

 

[TreePerson]

I have to say that again, Coyne's disinhibited behaviour has worked against us here. It has given the SMC something to work with, and something that overshadows the actual validity of the arguments.

I do not think David Marks covered himself in glory either. He should have said something much more statesmanlike, about how UK psychology/psychiatry is a tightly woven group, and many feel that disagreeing with one's colleagues is dishonourable, etc. etc. Often its more about factions than the truth.

Edit: on the other hand, shit sticks, and out of all these insults, what many people will remember is that it all had something to do with that particular trial.

I agree about Coyne but not about David Marks. Coyne could very easily appear rude and unbalanced but David Mark's comments, coming as they did straight after, sound reasonable enough. Blunt forceful and unapologetic, he doesn't mince words but I think that's needed. The idea is out there - a bad trial, a waste of money and serious conflict of interests. And an establishment protecting itself. Some of that will stick.

 

[AndyPR]

I'm more positive about this coverage than others here. In regard to Coyne, I'm cautiously on the side of the argument that says that he can be useful to us, in that basically he can be rude and obnoxious but, importantly, he's not a patient, where as us patients can suddenly appear more reasonable and moderate voices, and that takes strength away from the vexatious patients meme.

I think we also need to look at how these two articles compare to previous coverage of the ME situation, the coverage is far more even handed than it used to be, and that itself is progress.

 

[adreno]

It makes it sound a bit exciting, and the sort of thing others may want to look into?

Sounds more like the sort of thing others may want to stay out of.

 

[AndyPR]

Sounds more like the sort of thing others may want to stay out of.

I'm not sure. Now that the story is being established as one group of scientists against another, rather than one group of patients against a group of scientists, I believe the potential for journalists being interested in it goes up.

 

[user9876]

I think that it would have been better if Marks and Coyne had been more restrained, but it's unlikely the Times was ever going to write up the methodological problems with PACE, and maybe there's something to the 'shit sticks' argument. Having stuff like this coming from academics is certainly much better than having patients portrayed as the insulting radicals

I think it may prove to be important to have the behind the scenes lobbying exposed in public. Its easy to lobby for friends behind the scenes but much harder to publicly back bad practice.

 

[Sean]

Yet many patients resent the implication ME is somehow “in the mind”.

'implication' ?

Oh please. There is no implication about it at all. It is the central claim by the PACE crowd. It is stated clearly in PACE itself. You have to work extremely hard indeed to miss it or misinterpret it.

The BPS crew has a history of stropping off in a huff when they don't get their own way.

Like all small spoiled children too used to getting their way.

Let them eat cold humble pie.

 

[adreno]

I'm not sure. Now that the story is being established as one group of scientists against another, rather than one group of patients against a group of scientists, I believe the potential for journalists being interested in it goes up.

I was thinking more in terms of other academics might wanting to avoid getting into this dirty fight.

 

[Stewart]

Yes, it's yet more evidence of Coyne being abusive... Sigh.

Yes. Coyne does seem to do a lot of good, but often in a rather bad way. The examples cited in this article are a gift to the other side.

There's a world of difference between Coyne losing his temper and venting privately at a couple of colleagues that are working to prevent the publication of legitimate scientific criticisms (which is what happened here) and Coyne blundering onto a public internet forum and taking out his frustrations on a group of people who did nothing to upset him and are powerless to address the issues he's angry about. In this instance he had every right to get annoyed - it seems clear there's been a concerted effort to 'nobble' the JHP behind the scenes - and he directed his anger at people who seem to have been entirely deserving of it. Obviously that's my personal opinion, and your mileage may vary.

Also I suspect The Times had no intention of publishing *anything* today about the JHP's special issue - for all that we're very excited about its' publication, it's really not the sort of story that the mainstream media are likely to get that worked up about ('Newsflash: contested treatments continue to be contested'). But then somebody connected with PACE passed a couple of journalists Coyne's personal emails in an attempt to discredit the JHP, and suddenly The Times found they had a much jucier story about a scientific spat erupting into the open...

Given that The Times article includes the quotes "...the results are, at best, unreliable, and at worst manipulated to produce a positive-looking outcome", "...the PACE trial is a disgraceful confidence trick to reduce patient compensation payments and benefits" and that PACE "...did not justify the “extraordinary sum” charged to taxpayers" I have to say that I consider this a *spectacular* own goal by whoever made the decision to pass Coyne's emails to the press. That's some pretty blunt and damning criticism, delivered through the medium of a 'juicy gossip' article (that the public just love to read) in a serious mainstream newspaper that probably wouldn't have otherwise printed any anti-PACE sentiment today.

 

[Skippa]

A slip up by Coyne... or a shrewd move?

Didn't know how to respond in public... or did exactly what was needed to get the story to run?

A fine line indeed.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

I have to say that again, Coyne's disinhibited behaviour has worked against us here. It has given the SMC something to work with, and something that overshadows the actual validity of the arguments.

Coyne's remarks seemed to me on this occasion entirely reasonable. If someone has become deeply hypocritical then why not say so?

 

[AndyPR]

I was thinking more in terms of other academics might wanting to avoid getting into this dirty fight.

Maybe, or perhaps some might look at it in a new light and decide that they need to stand up for science against PACE. At the end of the day, the only way we'll be able to tell is to fast forward 5 years.

 

[Stewart]

I was thinking more in terms of other academics might wanting to avoid getting into this dirty fight.

Thinking of the few academics I know, I suspect they'll enjoy the Times story *far* more than anyone else (who doesn't enjoy seeing their colleagues' dirty laundry and private feuds explode into public view?) and hopefully even be intrigued enough to get hold of the JHP to see what the fuss was all about...

 

[adreno]

Thinking of the few academics I know, I suspect they'll enjoy the Times story *far* more than anyone else (who doesn't enjoy seeing their colleagues' dirty laundry and private feuds explode into public view?) and hopefully even be intrigued enough to get hold of the JHP to see what the fuss was all about...

Yes everyone enjoys reading gossip. But there is a difference between reading gossip and getting engaged in a debate. How many of the academics you know would want to publicly join the fight?

 

[Skippa]

All we need to consider is this: there are xyz number of people that weren't aware of a "problem" with PACE, or even that PACE existed earlier today when they woke up... and now they are.

How many GPs read The Times?

 

[Stewart]

Yes everyone enjoys reading gossip. But there is a difference between reading gossip and getting engaged in a debate. How many of the academics you know would want to publicly join the fight?

Generally speaking, they're more likely to get involved if they read the JHP articles and realise there's a serious issue here. And I think - I hope - The Times's article will result in more academics tracking down a special issue of a little-known journal than would otherwise have been the case.

 

[A.B.]

I think the insults can signal that there is a serious problem. Friends don't become enemies over nothing.