Stuart Jones hearing with HPC for comments against Dr Myhill

[asleep]

It's about time that there was some push-back against the "Science-Based Medicine" movement. I'm not suggesting that medicine should eschew science, but rather that science already imbues the vast bulk of medicine. The problem is: science is messy, exploratory and unpredictable.

The "Science-Based Medicine" movement leverages the dichotomy between the exploratory nature of cutting edge science and the highly polished, commercializable output of the system to effectively serve as attack dogs of a political and scientific orthodoxy. With just the paltriest dash of hyperbole, the thesis of the movement can be summarized as: "Unless you have a massive, double-blind, placebo-controlled, FDA-approved study to support your ideas, any mention of a working hypothesis or theory or use or preliminary data to inform future work makes you a fraud." To say that this is antithetical to the scientific process is tautological.

Because of it's central focus on orthodoxy-approved output (i.e. "peer reviewed", which is beholden to funding interests and entrenched dogma, among other things) instead of the entire process and data pool of science (which does include this output), the movement operates by viciously attacking nascent ideas that don't conform to "published consensus." Obviously not all hypotheses pan out and obviously scientific fraud can and does occur occasionally. But this is no reason to subject the entire process to an empirical pipeline that fundamentally weeds out ideas that we don't already understand. Furthermore, as has happened with this movement, this "weeding out" can readily be focused selectively and exclusively on hypotheses that are inconvenient, costly, and/or embarrassing.

The "Science-Based Medicine" movement has essentially co-opted the language science for deeply unscientific ends. It serves, whether its individual acolytes realize it or not, as a vehicle that is used to steer medical science clear of political and commercial interests.

 

[Esther12]

The "Science-Based Medicine" movement leverages the dichotomy between the exploratory nature of cutting edge science and the highly polished, commercializable output of the system to effectively serve as attack dogs of a political and scientific orthodoxy. With just the paltriest dash of hyperbole, the thesis of the movement can be summarized as: "Unless you have a massive, double-blind, placebo-controlled, FDA-approved study to support your ideas, any mention of a working hypothesis or theory or use or preliminary data to inform future work makes you a fraud." To say that this is antithetical to the scientific process is tautological.

Hmmm... I certainly think that some can present 'science' as if it's a far more simplistic and consistently reliable process than it really is, but I'm pretty keen on limiting doctors to treatments/claims which are very well supported by the evidence. When I look back at the way psychosocial 'treatments' were applied early on in my own illness, and the incredibly weak evidence base that supported them, I'm disgusted by it, particularly as I never gave my consent for such an approach.

There should be space for treatments which are clearly labelled as experimental, and for those patients willing to take risks with their own health and who are able to give informed consent for them, but in general I'm pretty keen on doing more to restrict the freedoms of doctors. (This post isn't directly related to anything Dr Myhill does, which I have little knowledge of).

 

[Enid]

Um - sitting here in the UK and seeing the various anti-virals, anti-biotics etc being used in the US and other countries to which I am barred - not enough evidence yet - so experimental - does give one some doubt about your faith in what you call science. In fact they are working elsewhere. And any ordinary doctor (however highly qualified) works with a trial and see approach to illness. None will admit to all the answers - so educated experiment is the norm.

Pity Ben G and accolytes cannot see. And to even clearer my brother (Prof Neurology) is undergoing a number of drugs on a trial basis for an unknown condition whilst his Docs outside the UK hope with all their knowledge to contain. ME is another condition not quite understood yet - but will be without the aggrevation of iconoclasts.

 

[sianrecovery]

what an interesting thread. Thank you particularly to Mark and asleep. The ideology of 'disinterested' science performed in labs by men in white coats is exactly that - an ideology. Thomas Kuhn wrote well about it in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. As for Ben and BS, I have often found his writing very entertaining -despite the fact that according to him people like me - who's symptoms worsen when exposed to certain chemicals and strong EMF's - are neurotics, pure and simple. So at the base of these beliefs is a desire that I ignore the evidence of my own body.
The campaign against Dr Myhill has been consistent, well co-ordinated, and was clearly intended to destroy her career the way they just have Dr Wrights. She is the first doctor to have any impact on my ME, and has made a huge difference to the quality of my life. Of course this means I feel protective of her as a resource (and as a brave and compassionate woman) but I also think that it is simple justice that those who make serious allegations against a fellow professional are held to account for the damage they do. I'm afraid the idea of an innocent caught up in events he did not understand does not play here. This was sustained, and malicious.