• 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.

Scientists trade insults over ME (JHP special issue)

Jonathan Edwards

"Gibberish"
Messages
5,256
I don't understand why you say GDS speaks?

An excellent set of comments on the blog by "polite chap". I think it is interesting that in the open science and "tone" debates academic researchers are so into their own little world and arguments that they seem completely unaware of the big picture - that is that people are being harmed by bad science.

Yes, this blogger seems a bit pathetic. Coyne is not powerful because he is part of the senior establishment and has 43,000 citations. His power lies in being an honest sceptic. He is probably shunned by the establishment police. As a junior academic I would be delighted to be insulted by Coyne if he was wrong - because the people that mattered would see that he was just blustering. And I doubt Coyne could be bothered to insult a junior academic. he has bigger fish to fry - unless of course the junior academic was some sort of propagandist for hypocritical second rate senior colleagues.

Our friend seems to miss the point that being rude is not half as bad as being greedy and hypocritical.
 

Jonathan Edwards

"Gibberish"
Messages
5,256
I had a look at Dr Fried's home page, which says:

My main interest lies in studying individual symptoms of mental disorders and their causal relations, a framework we have termed Symptomics. More generally, I am interested in four aspects of psychopathology research: measurement (how to best measure whether someone is ill), modeling (what statistical models are most appropriate to model psychopathology, e.g. latent variable models and network models), ontology (what are mental disorders) and nosology (how do we best classify them).

Perhaps the best way to describe this is 'insufferable pomposity'.
Maybe Dr Fried should try working in Australia where people say what they mean about each other.
If a junior academic wants to be taken seriously they would do best not to set up a website draped in flannel but just get on with some proper science.
 

KME

Messages
91
Location
Ireland
Maybe you all know this already, but I found it interesting, as I had not heard of George Davey-Smith before this story emerged. George Davey-Smith was, reportedly, a signatory of a letter in support of Sir Simon Wessely in 2012.

The text of the letter is quoted here http://forums.phoenixrising.me/index.php?entries/simon-wessely-and-letters-condemning-me-cfs-patients-to-continued-illness-and-stigma.1324/&page=1#blogcomment-5657

and can be read on the Independent website also: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-online-postings-2-december-2012-8373777.html

The letter read as follows:
"Chronic fatigue syndrome/ME is a debilitating condition affecting some 1 per cent of the UK population ("ME: bitterest row yet in a long saga", 25 November). This serious illness needs improved treatments and care, and research is central to making this happen. So it is with sadness that we read in The Independent on Sundayreports of allegations made against Simon Wessely, one of the few UK clinicians with a specialist interest in treating CFS/ME and someone who has done pioneering research in the field. Such harassment risks undermining research, preventing the development of new treatments and discouraging specialist clinicians from entering the field. We fear that this may have resulted in patients not receiving the best treatments or care – staying ill for longer and not being able to live life to the full.
Dr Esther Crawley
University of Bristol
Professor Michael Sharpe, University of Oxford
Professor Peter White, Queen Mary University of London
Dr Esther Crawley, Reader in Child Health, University of Bristol
Professor Stephen Holgate CBE, MRC Clinical Professor of Immunopharmacology, University of Southampton
Professor Rona Moss-Morris, Head of Health Psychology, King's College London
Dr Charlotte Feinmann, Reader, UCL
Professor Hugo Critchley, Chair in Psychiatry, Brighton and Sussex Medical School
Dr Brian Angus, Reader in Infectious Diseases, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford
Dr Steven Reid, Clinical Director for Psychological Medicine, Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust
Professor Patrick Doherty, Professor of Rehabilitation, York St John University
Professor Paul Little, Professor of Primary Care Research, University of Southampton
Dr Maurice Murphy, HIV Consultant, Barts Health NHS Trust
Professor Tim Peto, Consultant in Infectious Diseases and General Medicine, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford
Professor Sir Mansel Aylward, Chair, Public Health Wales, Cardiff University
Dr Alastair Miller, Consultant Physician, Royal Liverpool University Hospital
Professor Diane Cox, Professor of Occupational Therapy, University of Cumbria
Professor Jonathan Sterne, Professor of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology, University of Bristol
Dr Margaret May, Reader in Medical Statistics, University of Bristol
Professor George Davey-Smith, Professor of Clinical Epidemiology, University of Bristol
Dr Jade Thai, Senior Research Fellow, University of Bristol
Dr Gabrielle Murphy, Clinical Lead Physician, Fatigue Service, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust
Dr Hazel O'Dowd, Consultant Clinical Psychologist and CFS/ME Team Leader, Frenchay Hospital Bristol
Dr Brian Marien, Director, Positive Health
Professor Willie Hamilton, Professor of Primary Care Diagnostics, University of Exeter
Dr Selwyn Richards, Consultant Rheumatologist, Poole Hospital NHS Trust
Professor Alison Wearden, Professor of Health Psychology, University of Manchester
Professor Trudie Chalder, Department of Psychological Medicine, King's College London."

Many of the above are also authors of the PACE trial and/or the "Response to the editorial by Dr Geraghty" in the Journal of Health Psychology (the latter had 19 authors).

They were responding to this article which appeared in the Independent on Sunday a few days previously, where a number of people objected to Sir Wessely having been awarded the John Maddox prize for Standing up for Science: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/me-bitterest-row-yet-in-a-long-saga-8348389.html

EDIT: I edited this post to add the link to the letter on the Independent website (scroll down): http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-online-postings-2-december-2012-8373777.html
and to the article they were responding to http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/me-bitterest-row-yet-in-a-long-saga-8348389.html
 
Last edited:

trishrhymes

Senior Member
Messages
2,158
The signature list on that letter @KME just posted is a record of the 'list of shame' in my eyes.

All the chief persecutors of ME patients and their cheerleaders and supporters. All prepared to put their names to a big fat lie manufactured by the SMC.

I hope they all live long enough to be publicly shamed and stripped of their honours and positions for the harm they have perpetrated either knowingly or in wilful ignorance.

I so wish the imagined harassment had 'undermined' their research efforts and they had departed and left the field to real scientists.

On the other hand a couple of years suffering from severe ME should sort them out! And they can't say I'm ill wishing them, because of course they would cure themselves with a nice dose of CBT and GET, so I'm not actually wishing them any personal harm.
 

trishrhymes

Senior Member
Messages
2,158
It has occurred to me to wonder whether any of these so called experts has ever been involved in setting up or running a clinical trial of a drug therapy, and therefore is familiar with the requirements for a an ethical and appropriate protocol for clinical trials and the need to design out sources of bias.

I ponder this with in mind @Jonathan Edwards excellent JHP PACE critique in which he points out the fact that clinical trials should never be designed with both unblinded treatments (where the patient knows whether they are in the active treatment arm or control group) and subjective outcome measures (where the patient reports their symptoms and whether they think they have improved).

George Davey Smith, for example, is an epidemiologist, and lots of the others are psychologists. Maybe he has never understood the implications of placebo effect and therapist effect because it's not part of his experience, so he leaves it to the 'experts' in clinical research.

Or maybe he's blinded by loyalty to his friends.

Or maybe he's just a dolt.
 

Jonathan Edwards

"Gibberish"
Messages
5,256
George Davey Smith, for example, is an epidemiologist, and lots of the others are psychologists. Maybe he has never understood the implications of placebo effect and therapist effect because it's not part of his experience, so he leaves it to the 'experts' in clinical research.

Or maybe he's blinded by loyalty to his friends.

Or maybe he's just a dolt.

I think the second must be uppermost. He is not a dolt. He probably has no clue about bias in the therapist context but if he was not blinded by loyalty he would pick up on that straight away.

It is interesting to see this list, particularly names like Mansell Aylward and Tim Peto, with Esther Crawley at the top (presumably having gathered this group together).

It is a bit like waving yours arms and saying ' Hi, it's us, yes, you know, Cosa Nostra...
yeah..., Godfather and all that, Hellloooo....'

It makes it easier to know the ground rules when talking to Cochrane and people like that.
 
Messages
724
Location
Yorkshire, England
... As a junior academic I would be delighted to be insulted by Coyne if he was wrong - because the people that mattered would see that he was just blustering. And I doubt Coyne could be bothered to insult a junior academic. he has bigger fish to fry - unless of course the junior academic was some sort of propagandist for hypocritical second rate senior colleagues.

Our friend seems to miss the point that being rude is not half as bad as being greedy and hypocritical.

If you called me an idiot, (or something ruder), as someone I respect, and as you are someone who respects others, the tone does not matter to me, the intent does.

Do any of these 'tone police' know anything about the history of thought, dissent etc?


Socrates was quite polite, his rudeness was in showing that others where wrong or misguided.
Voltaire was rude, should he have shut up?
Rabelais? Rude, crude and satirical.
Thomas Paine? So impolite, what did his rudeness accomplish?

The point is the rudeness is not in the words used, the rudeness is in challenging power, which is as welcome as a peasant farting in the face of the Sun King.



John Ralston Saul has an interesting book about these kind of people, "Voltaire's Bastards" and an amusing dictionary called "The Doubter's Companion".

Even his definition of Dictionary is thoughtful and funny:
"Dictionary: Opinion presented as truth in alphabetical order" :D

Here's a couple of his thoughts.

courtiers.png

politeness01.png
politeness02.png
 

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
Maybe James deliberately mis-referred to Fried as a PACE troll - to bring him in to the debate.
Fried seems to have fallen for it hook line and sinker.

Doesn't seem a great tactic to throw out inaccurate accusations about someone in order to draw them into a debate. I'd have thought it would just encourage them to view Coyne as untrustworthy. I don't like how Coyne engages with a lot of people on social media. Instead of explaining why he thinks people are wrong he often jumps to just calling people 'trolls'. While maybe it's better that he does this to academics rather than patients, it's not any more useful a way of moving the deabte forward than when academics have done it to patients raising concerns about PACE.
 

Snow Leopard

Hibernating
Messages
5,902
Location
South Australia
Is it unreasonable to expect a science editor to be able to read and evaluate scientific papers? Too much to ask?

Because Mr Tom Whipple seems to be basing his opinion that the JHP is "not an honest broker" on the fact that James Coyne is a bit of a gobshite. As a science editor, can't he just read and evaluate the science, instead of using the lazy heuristic of judging the JHP PACE edition on whether one person connected with it has been rather rude?

Agreed. I'm so tired of journalists who don't do any actual journalism (if you haven't read a paper, you have no right to write about it) and then act defensive when people point out that they've got their facts wrong.
 

Jonathan Edwards

"Gibberish"
Messages
5,256
Doesn't seem a great tactic to throw out inaccurate accusations about someone in order to draw them into a debate. I'd have thought it would just encourage them to view Coyne as untrustworthy. I don't like how Coyne engages with a lot of people on social media. Instead of explaining why he thinks people are wrong he often jumps to just calling people 'trolls'. While maybe it's better that he does this to academics rather than patients, it's not any more useful a way of moving the deabte forward than when academics have done it to patients raising concerns about PACE.

My assumption is that this guy already assumes that Coyne is untrustworthy and has revelled in the opportunity to turn an error into a long blog spiel about thought police. And whether or not that was James's intent it seems to me to be a major triumph to get this chap to do a blog piece because the people we really want to reach about PACE are the younger generation of psychology academics - students and postdocs. If in their early years they associate PACE with criticism that can only be a good thing.

James has been unreasonable on several occasions but this chap is a self-important gossip and deserves to be used for a greater good. I suspect there was good reason for Coyne calling him a troll - that seems to have been based on his previous experience with the guy. And if he is not a troll he is at least dumb enough to sound off about freedom of expression completely missing the point that the real problem is the establishment cronies Coyne is attacking. It is a bit like Boxer saying at the beginning of the book,' but wouldn't the pigs look so much nicer on two legs like those nice farmers'?
 

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
My assumption is that this guy already assumes that Coyne is untrustworthy and has revelled in the opportunity to turn an error into a long blog spiel about thought police.

I looked back to some of those tweets, and to me it did look like Coyne jumped on him unfairly. PACE is certainly now associated with 'criticism', but we want it associated with 'robust and rigorous criticism', not 'unfair criticism'. If Coyne is making unfounded criticisms of others it could just play into the PACE team's narrative of facing a 'witch hunt' from unreasonable critics.

A lot of these younger researchers do irritate me a bit, as they claim to be concerned about problems which one would think should lead to them speaking out about PACE, but then they often seem to have no stomach for taking on a real controversy like that. But if we do want to try to attract more of them as potential allies, I don't think that Coyne's approach is the most effective way of doing it.

Not that I have an amazingly high success rate myself.

Maybe we're just in a difficult situation?
 

A.B.

Senior Member
Messages
3,780
Maybe we're just in a difficult situation?

Ask them to look at pro and contra PACE arguments themselves. If they don't take time to read the arguments they can't really understand who is right. If they read them, it's an automatic win for us because PACE is just so bad, unless they have a conflict of interest or strong allegiance to CBT/GET/psychosomatic medicine. But those people will never admit anything is wrong, they'll just run from the debate.
 

TiredSam

The wise nematode hibernates
Messages
2,677
Location
Germany
Trouble with Coyne's approach is that although it might get us some much needed attention, which has something to be said for it, it also allows the issue of PACE to be reduced to a clash of egos, childish scientists having a spat. And seeing as the SMC can't stop ME research being talked about or steer the narrative as well as they used to, this is the next-best outcome for them.

Mind you having the prefix "controversial" automatically added to "PACE Trial" everywhere it appears nowadays must irritate the hell out of them :)
 

Barry53

Senior Member
Messages
2,391
Location
UK
George Davey Smith, for example, is an epidemiologist, and lots of the others are psychologists. Maybe he has never understood the implications of placebo effect and therapist effect because it's not part of his experience, so he leaves it to the 'experts' in clinical research.

Or maybe he's blinded by loyalty to his friends.

Or maybe he's just a dolt.
Or maybe there's just some weird sh*t going on at Bristol Uni.