• 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.

Science Media Centre expert reaction to Journal of Health Psychology’s Special Issue on The PACE Tri

TiredSam

TiredSam

The wise nematode hibernates
Messages
2,677
Location
Germany
Dammit! I was going to put a fiver on "nothing to see here, move along" this morning but forgot.

The quality of the stooges (sorry, I believe the correct term is "expert" at the SMC) they can drum up to support them is getting embarrassingly poor even by their standards - some bloke whose wife had an office next to Sharpe who can't even get the name of the illness right?
 
L

Londinium

Senior Member
Messages
178
Esther12 said:
I agree that it was a less than full throated defence of PACE, but it still had : "The Medical Research Council funded and supported the PACE trial after subjecting the research proposal to a robust peer-review process involving experts in the field, as is the case with all our funding decisions."

That looks like a willingness to prioritising protecting the reputation of the MRC over pursuing good science, and standing against the way that patient criticis of PACE have been smeared. At this point, that sort of response isn't anywhere near acceptable.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with you. But I'm an optimist* and hope that this is still a sign that the tide is slowly (too slowly!) turning.



*not really, I'm British.
 
JohnCB

JohnCB

Immoderate
Messages
351
Location
England
Kalliope said:
Unbelievable..

“So I don’t think there is really a story here, apart from a group of authors, some of doubtful provenance, kicking up dust about a study which has a few minor wrinkles (as all do) but still provides information reliable enough to shape practice. If you substitute ‘CFS’ for ‘autism’ and ‘PACE trial’ for ‘vaccination’ you see a familiar pattern…”
Click to expand...

This paragraph, quoted on its own, as you have done, struck me as being exactly the style of an ennobled psychiatrist. It reads as if it could have been dictated.
 
JohnCB

JohnCB

Immoderate
Messages
351
Location
England
Prof. Malcolm Macleod Professor of Neurology and Translational Neuroscience University of Edinburgh said:
... and wondered where some of the authors came from. In fact, one of them lists as an institution a research centre (Soerabaja Research Center) which only seems to exist as an affiliation on papers he wrote criticising the PACE trial.
Click to expand...

This looks very much like playing the man, not the ball. He has little of value to say so he goes for a contributor with innuendo.

Prof. Malcolm Macleod Professor of Neurology and Translational Neuroscience University of Edinburgh said:
... apart from a group of authors, some of doubtful provenance, ...
Click to expand...

And another ad hominem remark.

Prof. Malcolm Macleod Professor of Neurology and Translational Neuroscience University of Edinburgh said:
If you substitute ‘CFS’ for ‘autism’ and ‘PACE trial’ for ‘vaccination’ you see a familiar pattern…”
Click to expand...

And more innuendo.



Editted to sort out my use of QUOTE.
 
Last edited:
Countrygirl

Countrygirl

Senior Member
Messages
5,468
Location
UK
Prof James Coyne has just posted this on FB:

Life is interesting right now.

I awoke this morning to a an email from the London Times, informing me that there was a story about to come out about the turmoil on the editorial board of Journal of Health Psychology. The email informed me that I might want an opportunity to respond.

Sounded ominous,didn't it?

I had other things to do this morning, but I ended up getting caught up in what was a long telephone call with an editor at the Times.

I recall the advice of a trusted clinical supervisor, John Weakland about managing threatening clinical situations. He told me that in such situations, one of the only options you have is to create some doubt where there was previously only a certainty. The idea was that rash actions by patients were sometimes justified by their sense of certainty, which you had to undermine, in order to renegotiate a tense situation. Twisting a line from Ronald Reagan when he was hawlking General Electric products on TV, John said "confusion is our most important product."

Anyway, here is my email to the editor of the Times after our conversation.

"I appreciated the opportunity to talk to you and that you were willing to hear me out on some complex and arcane matters.

I would be happy to talk with you more about this story or others, anytime in the future.

But there is a story about your story that you might want to consider. Namely, Journal of Health Psychology is hardly a high profile, vanity journal that competes for attention with dubious exaggerations and outright falsehoods, as some journals do. I blog regularly exposing the sausage factory that such journals are, Tracing back the products that you see in print to the hidden and often unsavory processes by which they were made.

I think you and your colleagues have to ask yourself why this whole story fell into your lap. Note that it was coordinated with a press release from science media centre, obviously also put together hastily.

The question that you have to ask yourself is 'why is such a fuss being made about a special issue of a modest, but solid journal?'

I have no idea who brought you the information that you received, but I have an eye for paradox. Your story can only attract further attention to this underated journal, which was previously in short supply.

Very Best,

Jim
Click to expand...


..


 
Jonathan Edwards

Jonathan Edwards

"Gibberish"
Messages
5,256
I was struck not only by the complete absence of meat but the complete absence of any arguments supporting any of the contentions. Maybe Dr Macleod has never heard of an obscure research centre called the Department of Medicine of University College London - often ranked in the top five in the world!

The people are a caricature of dumb pomposity. (You often get that sort of thing at little places like Edinburgh.)
 
Last edited:
Esther12

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
Wolfiness said:
They're not even trying. Nothing to see here.
Click to expand...

Looks like they're trying pretty hard to me. They just realise that, tactically, open debate of the issues surrounding the PACE trial is a terrible tactic for them. They'll be doing a lot behind closed doors too.

To me, this all just shows how much we were up against with PACE. I remember in 2011 being surprised that the obvious problems were not promptly recognised and apologised for. What an idiot I was.
 
U

user9876

Senior Member
Messages
4,556
Jonathan Edwards said:
I was struck not only by the complete absence of meat but the complete absence of any arguments supporting any of the contentions. Maybe Dr Macleod has never heard of an obscure research centre called the Department of Medicine of University College London - often ranked in the top five in the world!

The people are a caricature of dumb pomposity. (You often get that sort of thing at little places like Edinburgh.)
Click to expand...

He seemed to think that outcome switching was the only issue so maybe he didn't bother to read the articles but just wrote something in support of his friends.

What is perhaps made obvious by Macleod's response and CoI is that he is prepared to support his friends allowing them to retain a publication on PLOS without releasing the data.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.