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.
I am seeing these (SCM gathered) quotes scattered in several mainstream media articles.
sigh
The SMC coverage itself was more positive than the quotes from their "experts" were?
Immune tests suggest chronic fatigue, like most illness, isn't all in the mind
Michael Sharpe, Professor of Psychological Medicine at the University of Oxford, comments on new American research into chronic fatigue syndrome: “Whilst this finding that some patients with CFS/ME have an immune abnormality is potentially interesting, we should treat it with great caution. Everyone who has worked clinically with patients with CFS/ME knows this is a real illness; this study neither proves nor disproves that observation.”
No. The only coverage they provided was those quotes.
I saw them in most UK coverage of this study.
The UK news outlet articles I have read are more skeptical than the U.S. news outlet articles. I am wondering if it's because the SMC "expert" quotes trickled down into other media coverage, as @Denise mentioned:
I wonder if Fiona Fox actually realizes that she is providing a platform on her Science Media Centre (SMC) website for these Wessely School psychiatrists and their psychobabble ideas about ME/CFS.
Does Fiona know that these Wessely School researchers used a deceptive trick to make their PACE trial of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET) for look like these treatments lead to recovery from ME/CFS, when in fact they do no such thing?
The SMC claim to be "unashamedly pro-science," but in the case of chronic fatigue syndrome, the SMC would appear to be "unashamedly pro-psychobabble."
I have no doubts whatsoever that she understands fully what she is doing.
The biopsychosocial stuff seems to fit in with the ideological values of Fox
There are plenty of reasons to be infuriated by false balance and the loudest groans in the SMC office are reserved for the dreaded calls from producers looking for ‘pro- and anti-’ scientists on GM, nuclear and climate change.
So why not take sides against this kind of journalism? Let me explain why not:
The small matter of public opinion
It is true that our top scientists believe that GM is safe, the climate is warming and homeopathy is voodoo but, as the latest BIS poll shows, not all the public is convinced. Repeating the fact that scientists are generally agreed on the safety of GM or the basics of climate change is an important point for scientists to make and for journalists to highlight. But the scientific consensus should not be used to close down debate or refuse to engage with opponents. Do the views of anti-vaccine campaigners or climate sceptics reflect public opinion? We might not think so but that is a separate question from that of scientific accuracy, and if news editors believe those views have a degree of public support they are entitled to decide whether they should be aired. I think scientists would do better to use these encounters to good effect than refuse to engage. Creating a row where none exists is wrong. Reflecting real divisions in public opinion in a TV studio feels legitimate.
Source: here.
The Science Media Centre (SMC) was set up in 2002, in the aftermath of public controversies on BSE, GM crops and MMR, and in response to recommendations in the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee’s 2000 report on science and society. Its aim is to support and encourage more experts to engage with the media more effectively in times of crisis and controversy, in order to ensure that the public get access to accurate and evidence-based information through the news. In over 10 years of responding to stories such as the Northwick Park clinical trial disaster, claims of cloned human beings, the HPV vaccine scare, swine flu, antibiotic resistance, hybrid embryos, and the recent horsemeat scandal, we have built up a huge body of expertise.
Would you have any links that detail the ideological values of Fiona Fox?
Not quite sure what you mean. The SMC describe with pride in one of their own documents (there is a link in a thread here - not sure if it's in this one) how they brief all the main UK media outlets, including radio and TV, on issues where they want their versions of 'science' reported, and they cite ME/CFS in particular. This is why you get the exact same stuff being published across the media. The SMC hand it to them, and they publish it.
EDIT - here is a post from which you can download the SMC's self-congratulatory document.
Would you have any links that detail the ideological values of Fiona Fox?
I don't think that she is just incompetent.