Hi Holmsey.
I guess that approach will work fine so long as all researchers are always honest and thorough and self-critical in making that declaration. But people do seem to tend to differ in their assessment of what's relevant and what's not. Surely some level of public scrutiny and investigation is appropriate? As regards Members of Parliament, I wouldn't expect you would argue we should all just trust their expense claims, for example...
I think SW's past (and ongoing?) work with insurance companies is not in dispute, no? What I haven't seen yet is any indication of what money SW is said to have received for what alleged services provided. I guess it would take an investigation to find out those sort of details.
However I have read a lot of the info and I've still yet to see a definitive 'smoking gun' snippet that confirms SW receiving significant sums of money from insurance companies. One isn't looking for essays in these matters, just simple, clear and verifiable facts. I don't myself really doubt that SW has these competing interests, but I don't see much clarity on precisely what those interests are.
How's your conversation with SW been going btw? Last I heard, you asked him a number of questions (suggested by forum members) and he seemed to clam up at that point. Some of the issues seemed to be what he's likely to regard as 'old chestnuts' that he's fed up of refuting, but there were also some sharp and crucial questions on the threads you were pursuing with him, as I recall. I felt that was an important conversation you were having there, so I hope it isn't finished...
Hi Mark, hope you're keeping well.
I'll make this a kind of general reply. So first up, my correspondence with Simon Wessely, hi Garcia, nope he didn't, it just occured to me. Mark, I made a couple of posts which I beleive covered all of those things I was asked to discuss with him, only one of which really got answered, I also indicated that he's backed off and give 'my' reasons why I think that may be.
Since then I've had two mails, one was a copy of a mail to his secretary asking that she dig out the book in question regarding the 'disgusted' quote, and or a specific paper which includes that same quote. Don't know what his intentions are once he has those, hopefully I'm to be offered an opportunity to read it for myself, at source. The other was the response to PlosOne with regard to ours and other critisisms of the Imperial College study. I didn't mention or post that as it had already been posted by another user, but both posts were just copy in's.
Mark, Mithriel and theFreePrisoner,
But that depends on the authors being honest about their competing interests. Sadly not everybody is honest, especially if their professional reputation depends on them covering a few things up - it's human nature.
I appreciate that, but of course there is us and similar groups pouring over evey paper, even writing to publicists suggesting that authors have done exactly that. Then there are other proffessionals who are 'in the know', fall out with them and there are potential disciplinaries, and of course the publications, most of whom stand upon reputation alone. Quite a few safeguards in my opinion. I've also taken some particular claims on and posted back the view from the otherside, as given to me. In respect of all of these there's a clear opportunity for anyone who 'knows' rather than just 'states' differently to provide the killer shot from that smoking gun, to date it's not happened.
A question for you, is it your position then that I can't trust such authors but I can trust what I read in any posting on this site, or any other similar site with more surity of that being honest and without alterior motive?
I've come to the conclusion that there's a degree of missinformation, rolled out with such efficiency and with such regularity on ours and other sites that I'm at the point I beleive nothing until I see it at source, then I can decide for myself if I beleive it states or indicates that which is suggested about it.
Such dissinformation may be greeted with a hearty cheer on each occassion it appears but of course the down side is that as a group, we make enemies of people who are genuinely trying to help us, who may or may not have it wrong, who provided such work with genuine motive and not the array of alternate motives we dream up with such dissinformation as their soul support. People like those involved in the topic of this thread for instance, Imperial College.
We also do great harm to the general cause, which is as I understand it, to get to the bottom of CFS thus allowing for treatment and hopefully a cure. We harm this because we provide anyone who would sidestep that goal with an opportunity to dissrespect anything we say by quoting the things we have always got wrong, and the right things are just ignored. I wonder how often an MP has asked questions on our behalf to be fobbed off with a few easily disputed quotes and the general suggestion that we're overwrough with our illness.
