Behind the scenes: Setting up the UK CFS/ME Research Collaborative (UK CMRC) - Tymes Trust

[alex3619]

I think we might start making the point that people standing up for their rights and for the rights of others are being denigrated, intimidated and indeed facing harassment. I speak of patients and advocates of course. We have so little power compared to big agencies and in/famous figures. The harassment is mostly the other way around than what the SMC would have us believe.

I think we need to start talking about advocates legally making FOI requests being harassed. The same goes for freedom of speech, stakeholder involvement, patient rights, and so on.

 

[Wildcat]

.
This (rather long) Document contains important background material re the Science Media Centre, its role in biased reporting on ME matters, and material about the SMC’s and its Director Fiona Fox’s highly contentious Media exploits on other political issues.



‘The Role of the Science Media Centre and the Insurance Industry in ME/CFS:
the facts behind the fiction’

http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/The-SMC-and-its-campaign-against-MECFS.htm

Professor Malcolm Hooper September 2013

‘Some of the content of this document is already in the public domain; it was, however, commissioned for lawyers and high-profile others who had no knowledge of the background behind the ME/CFS controversy specifically to provide for them in a single document the facts relating to the Science Media Centre and its acknowledged campaign against people with ME/CFS, as well as the SMC’s relationship with the Wessely School and their relationship with the permanent health insurance industry.’


This document is in 6 sections:

Section 1 sets out the facts behind the Science Media Centre (SMC).

Section 2 considers the link between the SMC and key players in the ME/CFS controversy (whose own links with the permanent health insurance industry cause senior Parliamentarians serious concern).

Section 3 considers how the SMC is supporting and publicly promoting in the media certain mental health professionals who are acting in contravention of Department of Health policy.

Section 4 provides evidence of the SMC’s campaign to discredit people with ME/CFS.

Section 5 provides evidence of the SMC’s misrepresentation of the PACE trial results to the media.

The Conclusion considers how the SMC can credibly claim to represent “science” when it ignores so much science.




From Section 1:

“Section 1: The Science Media Centre (Founder Member: Simon Wessely)

The Science Media Centre (SMC) began work in 2002 under New Labour to operate like a newsroom for national and local media when science stories hit the headlines. It is funded by, amongst others, the pharmaceutical and chemical industries. Its Director is Fiona Fox. Its origins lie in the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee’s Third Report (Session 1999-2000) which identified a breakdown of trust in the public’s understanding of science and wanted to renew that trust.

The public increasingly have legitimate concerns about industry’s corporate control over scientific and medical matters and they are right to be concerned.


For those not blinded by the SMC’s dazzling aura, it appears that its covert purpose is to ensure that journalists and the media report scientific and medical matters only in a way that conforms to Government and industry’s “policy” on the issues in question. To that end the SMC provides “training days” for journalists so that what they report on scientific and medical issues is effectively influenced and controlled by the SMC – indeed, Health Editors of various broadsheets have on numerous occasions confirmed that they will only publish items on ME/CFS research that emanate from the SMC.”…….

.

 

[Wildcat]

.
Continued:......


‘The Role of the Science Media Centre and the Insurance Industry in ME/CFS:
the facts behind the fiction’
http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/The-SMC-and-its-campaign-against-MECFS.htm


.......“LobbyWatch (founded in 1998 by Jonathan Matthews to expose the complex web of pro-corporate lobbying and to keep track of the Living Marxism (LM) network – a political group that engages in infiltration of media organisations and science-related lobby groups in order to promote its own agenda) reported that within just months of its launch the SMC was embroiled in controversy over its activities: it was accused of employing “some of the clumsiest spin techniques of New Labour” .......


David Miller of Strathclyde University was amongst the SMC’s critics: “The SMC is …not as independent as it appears. It was set up to provide accurate, independent scientific information for the media but its views are largely in line with government policy….Its independence was supposed to be guaranteed by the fact that no more than 5% of its funding comes from any one source; yet 70% of its funding comes from business which could be said to have similar interests” (http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=121 ).



Ten years ago, George Monbiot (winner of the United Nations Global 500 Award 1995 – a Roll of Honour which recognises environmental achievements of individuals and organisations) described how “a cultish political network became the public face of the scientific establishment” and said that Fiona Fox has used the SMC to promote the views of industry and to launch fierce attacks against those who question them (Invasion of the Entryists. George Monbiot: The Guardian 9th December 2003). http://www.theguardian.com/education/2003/dec/09/highereducation.uk2


In his article, Monbiot set out the background to the SMC and its infiltration by vested interest groups: “One of the strangest aspects of modern politics is the dominance of former left-wingers…There is a group which has travelled even further to the extremities of the pro-corporate right. Its tactics (involve) entering organisations and taking them over (and) members of this group have colonised a crucial section of the British establishment. The organisation began in the late 1970s as a Trotskyist splinter; it immediately set out to destroy competing oppositional movements. In 1988 it set up a magazine called Living Marxism (known as) LM.

….In the late 1990s the group started infiltrating the media, with remarkable success. In 2000, LM was sued by ITN after falsely claiming that (its) news journalists had fabricated evidence of Serb atrocities against Bosnian Muslims. LM closed, and was resurrected as the web magazine Spiked.


“What seems to be a new front in this group’s campaign has come to light. Its participants have taken on key roles in the formal infrastructure of public communication used by the science and medical establishment.


“The scientific establishment appears unwittingly to have permitted its interests to be represented to the public by the members of a bizarre and cultish political network. Far from rebuilding public trust in science and medicine, this group’s repugnant philosophy could finally destroy it”.


LobbyWatch notes that the Living Marxism network members often hide their affiliations and engage in infiltration of media organisations in order to carry out advocacy for the corporate bodies by whom they are funded.


According to Monbiot, these people are “industry lobby groups, they are not science lobbyists….Their ideology bears very little relation to science. It actually bears a close relation to corporate demands and where those demands are consistent with science they will claim to be on the side of science and where those demands are inconsistent with science they will keep quiet about it….We should not be at all surprised to find the corporate press embracing these people. They are putting out exactly the message that the corporate press wants people to hear….Clearly theirs is not a scientific position…it is a pro-corporate position and they will adapt their claims to what science is and isn’t around the demands of that pro-corporate position”.


Referring to the lack of transparency, Monbiot said that even more important is: “the way in which they stage debates which claim to be objective and even-handed debates but are totally controlled and managed. And this is what the Institute of Ideas specialises in” (see below).


As Monbiot points out, it is very hard to believe that the Living Marxism network and its successors (ie. the SMC, Sense about Science, “spiked”, the Institute of Ideas etc) includes a network engaged in corporate advocacy across a wide range of issues, taking a wholly pro-industry line, which makes things doubly difficult for critics.’


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




Wildcat:

Some informative links re the history of the Science Media Centre and Fiona Fox's Media exploits:

'Invasion of the entryists'

'How did a cultish political network become the public face of the scientific establishment?'
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2003/dec/09/highereducation.uk2

...'Fiona Fox, the sister of Claire Fox, who runs the Institute of Ideas. Fiona Fox was a frequent contributor to LM. One of her articles generated outrage among human rights campaigners by denying that there had been a genocide in Rwanda.'.....

Fiona Fox is also the director of the Science Media Centre, the public relations body set up by Baroness Susan Greenfield of the Royal Institution. It is funded, among others, by the pharmaceutical companies Astra Zeneca, Dupont and Pfizer. Fox has used the Science Media Centre to promote the views of industry and to launch fierce attacks against those who question them. She ran the campaign, for example, to rubbish last year's BBC drama Fields of Gold.'

....'In the late 1990s, the group [LM network] began infiltrating the media, with remarkable success. For a while, it seemed to dominate scientific and environmental broadcasting on Channel 4 and the BBC. It used these platforms (Equinox, Against Nature, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, Counterblast, Zeitgeist) to argue that environmentalists were Nazi sympathisers who were preventing human beings from fulfilling their potential. In 2000, LM magazine was sued by ITN, after falsely claiming that the news organisation's journalists had fabricated evidence of Serb atrocities against Bosnian Muslims. LM closed, and was resurrected as the web magazine Spiked and the thinktank the Institute of Ideas.

All this is already in the public domain. But now, thanks to the work of the researcher and activist Jonathan Matthews (published today on his database www.gmwatch.org), what seems to be a new front in this group's campaign for individuation has come to light. Its participants have taken on key roles in the formal infrastructure of public communication used by the science and medical establishment.'.....





'Genocide? What genocide?'

'Serbian atrocities were not the only ones Living Marxism tried to deny. They targeted Rwanda too'

Chris McGreal
Monday 20 March 2000
http://www.theguardian.com/comment/story/0,3604,181819,00.html



‘Naming the Genocide Deniers’
June 13, 2011

'The right-wing denial of the genocides in Bosnia and Rwanda is bad enough; the new left-wing denial is even worse.'

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 14th June 2011
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/06/13/naming-the-genocide-deniers/




Matthew Norman
Wednesday June 19, 2002
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/diary/story/0,3604,739944,00.html

'The row over the scientific content of BBC1's GM food thriller Fields of Gold, co-written by the editor of this newspaper and Ronan Bennett, rumbles on. Yesterday Fiona Fox, head of the Science Media Centre a body gracious enough to accept a quarter of its funding from the biotech industry - had another go in the Independent. If the editor's office has been sombre since (and if there's been much of the usual horseplay, we haven't heard it up this end of the newsroom), this will be because of Fiona's vastly impressive record as a reliable heavyweight analyst.

Marina Hyde rings her to ask if she might be the same Fiona Fox who, seven years ago, as co-author of a series of pieces in Living Marxism, made her name as a gifted apologist for the genocide in Rwanda. "Erm, no," she says. Come now, Fiona, are you sure? "Erm. I contributed part of an article which was edited, and published under a different name." Why a different name? "Erm... can I get back to you about this?" asks Fiona, sounding unbelievably flustered. Of course you can, you cunning old Fox. We'll count the moments.

... As good as her word, Fiona Fox calls back, unforgivably choosing the moment of South Korea's golden goal winner against Italy (the hat hasn't been made large and gaudy enough for removal to those Koreans). Taking it on the chin, Marina wonders if Fiona has managed to recall yet whether or not she wrote the piece in which the world's disgust at the slaughter of 800,000 Tutsis was dismissed as an "emotional overreaction". "I was associated with it," she says judiciously. "But it was seven years ago." Sorry to fuss, but does "associated with" mean you wrote it? "Look, it's really complicated. It was seven years ago, and it's a long story. The point is, I've moved on to lots of interesting things. I don't do Africa stuff at the moment." Well, let's hope you're back in business soon.'




Matthew Norman
Friday June 21, 2002
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/diary/0,6957,181043,00.html

'Two days after meeting Fiona Fox, that fierce critic of the scientific content of Fields of Gold (the GM thriller co-written by the Guardian's editor), a warm welcome to namesake Claire. This Ms Fox used to help run Living Marxism, the defunct pro-GM journal in which Fiona established herself as an apologist for Rwandan genocide.

'After hearing Claire [Fox] on Women's Hour supporting school bullying - it's just something kids have to get used to - we ring to ask if the two might be sisters. "Public knowledge," she barks, in the manner of Serena Williams asked about Venus during a grand slam final. "I'm amazed the Guardian are so behind the times." There was a follow-up question: since they show this gift for wildly contentious statements, would the Vixens care to be paired, Daily Mail-style, in a "Yes, says Fiona", "No, says Claire" feature format on the issues of the day? Forestalled, alas, by the inevitable click, brrrr. '
.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Just so we know who and what we are dealing with.


.

 

[alex3619]

Promotion of science via funding or political interest is the phenomenon of Zombie Science. I have had a blog on the SMC in planning for years, but haven't been well enough to write it. The SMC is something that cannot be easily fought. To fight it we need other better, independent, promotion organizations. Not that it hurts to point out funding bias, mistakes, systematic campaigns against special interest groups and so on.

 

[Chickadee9]

.
Professor Lipkin's presence has nothing to do with the open mindedness of the Collaborative, who did not originate the idea to invite him. . His trip to Britian was crowdfunded by patients.
.

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. It had everything to do with the Collaborative. If you look at what is online and in the public domain my take is that you can clearly see the initiative came from Dr. Charles Shepherd of the MEA. The MEA is part of the CMRC. He organised it and raised the money from individuals associated with the MEA and Action for ME. To say that it spontaneously came from the "patient community" is simply untrue. It's a classic case of "don't confuse me with the facts".

 

[Wildcat]

.
The MEA is a member of the Collaborative, but the MEA is not the Collaborative itself. The charity operates quite apart from the Collaborative.

The Collaborative did not originally propose for Lipkin to speak.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


EDIT. Correct Link!

http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...eminar-in-london-on-me-cfs.31289/#post-480302

Post 9:

Esther12 said:

“Is Crawley involved in the London talk somehow? I didn't see that”


Firestormm said:

“No she isn't.

She is of course a part of the CMRC and will be in Bristol at that conference.

As you know Esther [Crawley] one of the reasons Dr Lipkin was nominated - and why we launched a campaign to raise funds to bring him over - was to help 'balance' the contributions or to better ensure that at least some of those speaking at the Bristol conference could talk with authority about the biomedical aspects of ME/CFS research and findings to date.

Dr Lipkin seemed a strong candidate for this from the start and judging by the relative ease with which funds were raised by the general public to bring him across - and the positive reaction his acceptance has received - I think a great many folk are chuffed he is going to be present.

The London seminar is solely comprised of Dr Lipkin. It will be a good opportunity for those unable/unwilling to attend Bristol and let's face it they will get Dr Lipkin to themselves for 2 hours as opposed to a few minutes in Bristol during the patient's workshop afternoon.

His main presentation in Bristol will be recorded and made available on the internet - as mentioned above.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


The "we" that Firestormm refers to is not the Collaborative.
.
.

 

[Sasha]

The MEA initiated the crowdfund to bring Dr. Lipkin to speak at the Collaborative conference:

http://www.meassociation.org.uk/201...rofessor-ian-lipkin-to-the-uk-this-september/

and AfME trustees added their own personal donations. I don't know if you could call it a Collaborative initiative but certainly those two charities are members of the Collaborative so it came from within the Collaborative. Personally I don't think it's important whether you call it a "Collaborative" initiative or not. It's a good thing, and it's to do with the Collaborative.

I understand that some people don't like the Collaborative but it's important to get the facts right. It's also important to praise the Collaborative and our charity volunteers when they do things that we like because that's going to encourage more of the same. If all we ever do is criticise people or attribute the good things they do to other people, they're not going to take that criticism seriously.

I'm delighted that the MEA did this. It was an excellent and imaginative initiative and I'm looking forward to hearing how Dr. Lipkin's talk went at the conference today. He's also talking tomorrow at a joint AfME/MEA meeting tomorrow:

http://www.meassociation.org.uk/201...-on-wednesday-september-3-how-to-get-tickets/

 

[Wildcat]

It is important to get facts right. Thats why we use references and quotes.

But it is simply not the case that everything that AFME or the MEA do is "from within the Collaborative.

And the Initiative to ask and fund Ian Lipkin to come to Britian was not a Collaborative initiative.

 

[Chickadee9]

.
The MEA is a member of the Collaborative, but the MEA is not the Collaborative itself. The charity operates quite apart from the Collaborative.

The Collaborative did not originally propose for Lipkin to speak.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


http://forums.phoenixrising.me/index.php?threads/uk-me-cfs-research-collaborative-september.30924/

Post 9:

Esther12 said: ↑

“Is Crawley involved in the London talk somehow? I didn't see that”


Firestormm said:

“No she isn't.

She is of course a part of the CMRC and will be in Bristol at that conference.

As you know Esther [Crawley] one of the reasons Dr Lipkin was nominated - and why we launched a campaign to raise funds to bring him over - was to help 'balance' the contributions or to better ensure that at least some of those speaking at the Bristol conference could talk with authority about the biomedical aspects of ME/CFS research and findings to date.

Dr Lipkin seemed a strong candidate for this from the start and judging by the relative ease with which funds were raised by the general public to bring him across - and the positive reaction his acceptance has received - I think a great many folk are chuffed he is going to be present.

The London seminar is solely comprised of Dr Lipkin. It will be a good opportunity for those unable/unwilling to attend Bristol and let's face it they will get Dr Lipkin to themselves for 2 hours as opposed to a few minutes in Bristol during the patient's workshop afternoon.

His main presentation in Bristol will be recorded and made available on the internet - as mentioned above.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


The "we" that Firestormm refers to is not the Collaborative.
.
.

This is hair-splitting. The MEA is a fully paid-up member of the Collaborative. It is misrepresentation to say the "patient community" brought him over, completely neglecting to mention Dr Shepherd and his role.
Anyway, does it matter how he got here? He did. And he has spoken. And he is speaking to PWME again tomorrow morning. Are you not pleased about that? Or are his credentials suspect like so many others?

 

[Wildcat]

.

Chikadee wrote: "Or are his credentials suspect like so many others?"


That’just a straw man argument.

I had checked out Professor Lipkins ‘credentials’ many years ago, before most, and have circulated his credentials and his work and Comments on ME very many times, over a few years.

The patients crowd funded Professor Lipkins visit. It was not initiated by the Collaborative. It was initiated to ‘balance out’ the influence of Dr Esther Crawley and Prof Peter White, Collaborative members.

 

[Chickadee9]

.

Chikadee wrote: "Or are his credentials suspect like so many others?"


That’just a straw man argument.

I had checked out Professor Lipkins ‘credentials’ many years ago, before most, and have circulated his credentials and his work and Comments on ME very many times, over a few years.

The patients crowd funded Professor Lipkins visit. It was not initiated by the Collaborative. It was initiated to ‘balance out’ the influence of Dr Esther Crawley and Prof Peter White, Collaborative members.

Your argument is absurd. De facto he was invited by the Collaborative. Does it matter anyway? The important thing is that he's here. Sounds to me from what others have posted that Peter White barely had time to state his name in 2 full days of conference. Does the fact he was there invalidate Lipkin's presence let alone the other 50 or 60 or whatever number it was of other biomedical researchers? The world has moved on from the dark days of psych domination but you clearly haven't. I'm signing off now...no point in continuing this discussion.

 

[Wildcat]

.
Chikadee wtote: "The world has moved on from the dark days of psych domination..."


If that were the case I would be shouting it from the rooftops. But psyche domination is more prevalent and powerful than ever and is entrenched.

And similar psyche based initiatives, CBT/exersise/even NLP now are increasingly being 'prescribed' in mainstream medicine that is not only ME. And there appears to be a bottomless research pot of gold for the psyche based studies. We can only look on hungrily at the huge amounts of money floating around in the research world that is allocated to those kinds of studies.

The 'CFS' psyche contingent, within and outside of the Collaborative, are not just giving up and going away.

Thats why they are on the inside of the Collaborative.
.

 

[Min]

If

The world has moved on from the dark days of psych domination..."

then why can we in the UK still not access any effective treatment, only nonsense ?

 

[Bob]

For Lipkin to take such a major role at the conference then my guess is that the collaborative members as a whole (i.e. at least a majority) would have had to approve. (I'm sure they would have had to have agreed on the program.) So his presence was initiated and arranged by members of the collaborative and probably agreed by the majority of members.

Whether the collaborative achieves meaningful change for our community remains to be seen, but the conference certainly seems to have pulled together quite a number of researchers and a variety of speakers.

 

[Firestormm]

.
The MEA is a member of the Collaborative, but the MEA is not the Collaborative itself. The charity operates quite apart from the Collaborative.

The Collaborative did not originally propose for Lipkin to speak.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


EDIT. Correct Link!

http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...eminar-in-london-on-me-cfs.31289/#post-480302

Post 9:

Esther12 said:

“Is Crawley involved in the London talk somehow? I didn't see that”


Firestormm said:

“No she isn't.

She is of course a part of the CMRC and will be in Bristol at that conference.

As you know Esther [Crawley] one of the reasons Dr Lipkin was nominated - and why we launched a campaign to raise funds to bring him over - was to help 'balance' the contributions or to better ensure that at least some of those speaking at the Bristol conference could talk with authority about the biomedical aspects of ME/CFS research and findings to date.

Dr Lipkin seemed a strong candidate for this from the start and judging by the relative ease with which funds were raised by the general public to bring him across - and the positive reaction his acceptance has received - I think a great many folk are chuffed he is going to be present.

The London seminar is solely comprised of Dr Lipkin. It will be a good opportunity for those unable/unwilling to attend Bristol and let's face it they will get Dr Lipkin to themselves for 2 hours as opposed to a few minutes in Bristol during the patient's workshop afternoon.

His main presentation in Bristol will be recorded and made available on the internet - as mentioned above.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


The "we" that Firestormm refers to is not the Collaborative.
.
.

Excuse me.

In the initial thread from whence you have taken my quote. I was replying to our member here 'Esther'. Not 'Esther Crawley' - so please do NOT twist the damned context.

The collaborative were kicking around ideas about who to invite to the conference. The suggestion of Ian Lipkin came from me if you really must know (and I am sure others).

When it was determined that the cost of bringing him here - he was keen to come and did so for free - was prohibitive: (cost of flight) - the MEA launched an appeal.

The money was raised in RECORD time and yes at least one of the AfME trustees contributed, as I am sure did members of other charities and people who are members of no charity.

The decision to invite Ian Lipkin was a collaborative one. They approved the decision and by all accounts his contributions were very well received by absolutely everyone: but no - before you ask - I don't have sworn statements to that effect.

Now would you kindly correct your error? Thank you.

 

[Scarecrow]

I'd also like to add that I contributed to the appeal to raise funds for Ian Lipkin's travel due to the MEA initiative and on the understanding that it was part of the collaborative.

 

[Esther12]

Maybe I've missed something, but it looks to me like people are arguing over some odd stuff.

It was patients who funded Lipkin's appearance, through patient groups the are members of the collaborative, and the collaborative themselves clearly at least approved his attendance. Does everyone agree on this?

Whether the collaborative as an organisation deserves any 'credit' for his appearance... who knows. I'm not really sure what that means. (sounds to me like Firestormm deserves all credit, and all credit for any future advances Lipkin's research leads to).

I've always been uncertain about whether the collaborative will do more harm or good, and it sounds like these e-mails will include some reason to think it is doing some harm. Hopefully we'll get to read through them ourselves, and they might also show that the collaborative has done some good we've not been previously aware of... who knows?

I am concerned that there might be too great a willingness to turn a blind eye to some of the problems around biopsychosocial quackery in exchange for more funding for research likely to be beneficial to patients, and that is a deal I would deeply oppose.

 

[Sasha]

Maybe I've missed something, but it looks to me like people are arguing over some odd stuff.

You're not kidding.

And while that's been going on, Prof. Edwards has described the Collaborative's 2-day conference as "terrific" and basically a neuro-immunology conference with lots of new ideas, new researchers, and convergence on certain lines of research clearly emerging.

I understand people's bitterness about what the BPS school has done and I understand people's suspicion of anything in which those people are involved but there comes a point where we have to take a step back and look at the big picture. And in this big picture, a successful biomedical conference and all the downstream effects of that and all that it promises for the future far outweigh the issues raised on this thread, in my opinion.

Endless focusing on the negative and refusing to accept that positive things are coming out of the Collaborative is to fail to give an accurate picture. I don't think that helps anyone.

 

[alex3619]

.If that were the case I would be shouting it from the rooftops. But psyche domination is more prevalent and powerful than ever and is entrenched.

I concur with Wildcat on this. Psych views are now so entrenched, without a sound evidence based, that they have become ubiquitous. They don't stand out so much because they have become the norm, not the exception.

I compare this with economics, and especially economic forecasting. Economic forecasts routinely operate at the level of chance, forward projections become much less reliable the further they go into the future. We based critical economic decisions on these, but we do not allow sufficiently for the risk and uncertainty. Its economic babble for the most part, with fancy numbers and stats to make it look pretty.

 

[alex3619]

I am concerned that there might be too great a willingness to turn a blind eye to some of the problems around biopsychosocial quackery in exchange for more funding for research likely to be beneficial to patients, and that is a deal I would deeply oppose.

This is the crux of the issue in my view, and its not just about the collaborative. Its about all of medicine. Its why I started a thread on this. http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...le-the-biggest-issue-in-medicine-today.32354/

I have the tentative view that issues we have with the Collaborative are just a symptom of a much wider problem - it reflects the rest of the medical profession. Of course it does so in an area very important to us, hence the debate.