• 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)

lilpink

lilpink

Senior Member
Messages
988
Location
UK
Yogi said:
I am not too happy about this. I don't think we should be too happy about this.

I think we need to get more journalists to look into the REAL story and not get sidetracked by SMC distraction narrative. Perhaps leave that as a comment.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
A

AndyPR

Senior Member
Messages
2,516
Location
Guiding the lifeboats to safer waters.
For those who have a few moments to spare;

Daily Mail article - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...lts-regarding-flawed-study.html#ixzz4oVLZUwAX
No sign in necessary for comment up and down voting, there are a number of comments by patients that we can support in this way.

Times article - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...myalgic-encephalomyelitis-me-study-slk0cv5lj#
To read full article and be able to "recommend" (their version of liking) comments you need to sign up. This is free and only results in a once a day "round up of the news" sent to your email address. Last I looked there were far fewer comments, I guess because they limit them to paid up members, a few were worth recommending.
 
Esther12

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
NexusOwl said:
One of the journalist in charge of this is replying to us on twitter. I sugest some of you join in to get the good argumentation my foggy and non-english brain isn't able to do ;) Already pointed him to Tuller, Colby, MEactUK, etc

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/892376588515454976
Click to expand...

Also good to be respectful of the limitations journalists face to get things published in papers. No problem raising concerns, or pointing out problems, but unless you have an excellent understanding of these issues it's worth avoiding anything that would be taken as insulting. We want more coverage of this in the Times, and we've seen how trivial irritated tweets can play into the prejudices about harassing patients.
 
Mrs Sowester

Mrs Sowester

Senior Member
Messages
1,055
Coyne has posted on Facebook that this 'spat' coverage was obviously engineered by the SMC, which suggests to me that the leaked emails were an attempt to smear and discredit Coyne publically.
It would appear that, so far, the SMC has been hoist(ed?) by it's own petard.
 
S

Solstice

Senior Member
Messages
641
AndyPR said:
For those who have a few moments to spare;

Daily Mail article - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...lts-regarding-flawed-study.html#ixzz4oVLZUwAX
No sign in necessary for comment up and down voting, there are a number of comments by patients that we can support in this way.

Times article - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...myalgic-encephalomyelitis-me-study-slk0cv5lj#
To read full article and be able to "recommend" (their version of liking) comments you need to sign up. This is free and only results in a once a day "round up of the news" sent to your email address. Last I looked there were far fewer comments, I guess because they limit them to paid up members, a few were worth recommending.
Click to expand...

SonOfOdin is trolling hard :D .
 
Esther12

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
I think that the Daily Mail article is good. To me, that makes it even clearer that Coyne's sweary e-mails, while not what I would have done, have probably been to our benefit this time. I don't think it was a cunning master-plan, but it did get us some coverage that will add to the controversy and scandal surrounding PACE.
 
M

MEMum

Senior Member
Messages
440
You may be interested to know.....
Jane Ogden is speaking at a British Psychological Society meeting in November, on Critical Thinking, as described below:

"Over the past 20 years an explosion of information has created information overload, a distrust of experts, the circulation of misinformation and false facts and public debates based upon poor evidence.

Referred to as the ‘Post truth world’, this is epitomised by the Brexit referendum in the UK, the election of Trump as President of the US and health care practices which are not always evidence based.

There are two possible solutions to this problem.

The first is to accept that ‘anything goes’ and embrace a post-modern world in which all information is deemed equal.

The second is to stay critical and develop a critical understanding of evidence and the ways in which this evidence is presented.

This session will first describe the problems generated by information overload. It will then offer a solution in terms of staying critical through the use of a critical tool kit focusing on methodology, data analysis and the power of persuasion.

Lecturers are forever telling their students to be more critical but students rarely understand what this means.

This session should be useful for anyone wanting to know what being critical means and how to fine tune their critical skills for anything that they come across in their day to day lives."

For further information:

https://beta.bps.org.uk/events/critical-thinking-jane-ogden-dhp-scotland-event
 
S

Sbag

Messages
78
Esther12 said:
Also good to be respectful of the limitations journalists face to get things published in papers. No problem raising concerns, or pointing out problems, but unless you have an excellent understanding of these issues it's worth avoiding anything that would be taken as insulting. We want more coverage of this in the Times, and we've seen how trivial irritated tweets can play into the prejudices about harassing patients.
Click to expand...
Suggest the journalists look at the book "Science, Politics and ...ME"
 
CFSTheBear

CFSTheBear

Senior Member
Messages
166
Esther12 said:
Also good to be respectful of the limitations journalists face to get things published in papers. No problem raising concerns, or pointing out problems, but unless you have an excellent understanding of these issues it's worth avoiding anything that would be taken as insulting. We want more coverage of this in the Times, and we've seen how trivial irritated tweets can play into the prejudices about harassing patients.
Click to expand...

I wanted to add to this, as a distant colleague of Tom's, that he comes across as very conscientious and thorough in his work.

He's right to point out the rigours of deadlines, word counts and legal wrangling - it's part and parcel of publishing. All I'd say is that working with journalists is ultimately beneficial (we want stories) but that being combative or blunt is rarely helpful.

I think linking to a few well sourced studies and possibly looking to work with journalists to develop new stories + being able to provide case studies is always useful for the future. Once my brain fog improves I'll also be working on pitching something myself.
 
TiredSam

TiredSam

The wise nematode hibernates
Messages
2,677
Location
Germany
I have applied my critical faculties to the question of whether I want to pay 128 quid to listen to Jane Ogden talking about her version of critical thinking for a day and have decided that I do not.

upload_2017-8-1_17-26-23.png


Jane Ogden
Speaker
Jane Ogden is a Professor in Health Psychology at the University of Surrey where she teaches psychology, nutrition, dietician, vet and medical students to think more psychologically about health. She has published over 180 papers and written 7 books. Her main research interests focus on eating behaviour, obesity management, symptoms perception and communication. She is also passionate about communicating psychology to a more lay audience and is a regular contributor to the media and gives talks to local pub groups.
Click to expand...

"Think more psychologically" and "Symptoms perception" my arse.

Sorry, sudden Coyne moment there.
 
Countrygirl

Countrygirl

Senior Member
Messages
5,476
Location
UK
Prof Coyne has just posted this:

It's great to be getting publicity for special issue of Journal of Health Psychology from sources such as the London Times and the Daily Telegraph. It's unfortunate, however, two important scientific issues being reduced to a spat among the editorial board. And it is quite a distorted account of that disruption of the board, which was orchestrated by a three members with closer ties to the Pace trial then to the journal itself.

But this kind of publicity is ultimately good publicity because it pushes some issues into public discussion that otherwise would have reverberated within tight little bubbles. We need to fold the coverage into an ongoing conversation with the international community.

That's an old stock photo of George Davey Smith, when he was younger and more radical, he has not aged well, especially as he has gotten quite cranky and neoliberal.
Click to expand...
 
Countrygirl

Countrygirl

Senior Member
Messages
5,476
Location
UK
Esther12

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
One thing that pisses me off about this media coverage is the story that:

  • Patients were offended by the finding as they feared it showed a psychological cause of their symptoms.
  • Researchers and academics have now raised concerns about the methods and statistics used in the trial.
Is it really so hard to believe that patients had done a better job of assessing the science, and identifying methodological and statistical problemsm, than the UK science community? Why do they still seem to portray patients' concerns as emotionaly driven and stupid?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.