Edward Shorter to give talk on CFS at NIH

[dreampop]

Ha!!! You've made my day! Wouldn't that be great. Maybe this is all just an elaborate ruse. Maybe they'll invite him in, surrounded by scientists in some amphitheatre, and then laugh at him during his talk and belittle him during question time. That would be some pleasing retribution. If they do that, and post video on YouTube, I'll take back my judgments.

Edit: I spelled judgments wrong. Don't judge me.

I can dream. can't I?

 

[JayS]

I would have an easier time with this if Shorter were just the almost-cartoonish villain he seems to want to be. He uses the philosophy of the heel (bad guy) in professional wrestling. A couple of comments on one of the feminist blogs complaining about him alluded to this. Obviously that wouldn't make it okay--it's just an observation on an aspect of what he does.

But then we face serious problems even if he is little more than a cartoon bad guy. One, as pointed out by I think Tina Tidmore on Cort's site, is that this wasn't known, and we still wouldn't know if Maureen Hanson hadn't found it somehow. Another is that Koroshetz' response wasn't weak--it was disgraceful--to me, worse perhaps than the invite. The guy we've been told over and over to trust because he gets it...clearly does not get it. Then there's the idea that afterwards Shorter can bask in the glory of being recognized as an expert on the subject, one who has delivered a lecture to government researchers. Never mind that his whole idea is that they are wasting their time and taxpayers' money.

His initial blog about the IOM was so bad that even Simon Wessely claimed to be offended in a comment, which was deleted along with the rest of the blog; some comments do survive on the Wayback Machine link, some don't. I think I have an archive screenshot of the page somewhere with it. Regardless, it would be one thing to look at Wessely as the real villain, since his work and the work of his colleagues have created such harmful government and probably insurance policies. Shorter does seem like a cartoon bad guy by comparison, saying really outlandish things that Wessely strives to avoid. But then look at the reasoning used for the turndown by the peer reviewer on the Canadian grant application from awhile back. We're told that Shorter was not the reviewer and was not involved. But, come on. How likely is it that whoever wrote that is completely unaware of Shorter and his views, which he's been quite vocal about for some 25 years?

I discovered yesterday that Shorter recently called for a reexamination and rehabilitation of the reputation of Al Goldstein. Look that guy up. He made Larry Flynt look like Norman Vincent Peale. There's a very good reason that Al Goldstein was universally reviled as a vile, disgusting individual, but apparently in Shorter he had a fan. This is the guy who gets to tell people at NIH what CFS is.

If the response was disproportionate, that's casting aspersions at Jen Spotila, Solve, and Ron Davis. I see this as an extreme position, and I don't find any of their responses, nor any others that I've seen from the community, to be disproportionate.

 

[Forbin]

@viggster
Would it be usual procedure for some kind of recording to be made at an NIH appearance such as this, be it video, audio or a written transcript? If he's going to speak, I think it would be important that we get to hear exactly what he says.

 

[Kati]

@usedtobeperkytina 's letter to the NINDS director, with Vicky Whittemore:

http://mecfsfromme.blogspot.ca/2016/11/its-not-scandal-its-cover-up.html

An exerpt

Former US House Representative Tom Petri (RWI6) is quoted as saying: "As so often happens with Washington scandals, it isn't the original scandal that gets the people in the most trouble -- it's the attempted cover-up."

And the conclusion:

I hope to receive a response from you. I hope you openly respond to patients with the answers to the questions above. I hope we can gain the trusting and respectful relationship wanted by both your agency leaders (hopefully including you) and the patients. We want you to succeed in researching ME/CFS. We want to believe in the NIH. Show us that we can.

For the entire letter, check the link.

 

[Sean]

Shorter reminds me of Hans Esyenck. Same ruthless arrogant utter certainty in their own infallibility, and right to inflict their views on the rest of the world, regardless of the truth or cost.

 

[user9876]

I don't think it could be 'justified.' But I can easily think of scenarios that make it less troubling than is being widely presumed. What if Shorter knows someone at NIH, hears about the 'new direction,' the new intramural (very much *biomedical*) study, etc., and starts bugging his NIH friend. "Hey, you need to hear all sides." The NIH person caves after the nth phone call and says, "Fine, come in and give your little talk" while rolling his or her eyes. The point I was making is we don't know how this happened. At least I don't know how it happened.

I think that may well be a likely scenario that group are very pushy in trying to influence the agenda. But I would take issue with the rolling his or her eyes - given Shorter's attitude to women i think it would have to be rolling his eyes.

 

[JaimeS]

they add nothing to the science of psychology (which at least Wessely is trying to do), they are just slander.

Many have said, directly and indirectly that Shorter makes Crawley, Chalder, and Wessley look good to the community in comparison.

Never, ever, ever have I thought I would ever read a phrase "at least Wessley doesn't X like this guy!"... but in this context it's sensible to say.

Shorter sure is a uniter of men.

 

[Snowdrop]

No doubt the BPS community views him as the eccentric uncle--recognised as family but you don't want to trot him out in public too much.

 

[jimells]

My point is that the community is getting an unbalanced view. The positive developments are being glossed over, ignored, or not made public while the negative moves are greeted with huge outbursts.

SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!

Everything else is just bullshit and distraction.

 

[viggster]

@viggster
Would it be usual procedure for some kind of recording to be made at an NIH appearance such as this, be it video, audio or a written transcript? If he's going to speak, I think it would be important that we get to hear exactly what he says.

No. Major talks and conferences are streamed online but small talks like this aren't.

Edit: Here's the list of upcoming NIH talks that will bre recorded/streamed. Shorter isn't listed. https://videocast.nih.gov/FutureEvents.asp

 

[Sidereal]

I think Shorter is just saying what the rest of them are thinking but are too wise to say out loud.

 

[Nielk]

MEadvocacy blog with letter of reply to Dr. Koroshetz
- http://www.meadvocacy.org/our_respo...efusal_to_cancel_lecture_by_me_disease_denier

MEadvocacy blog with background - http://www.meadvocacy.org/systemic_bias_continues_at_nih

 

[Neunistiva]

MEadvocacy blog with letter of reply to Dr. Koroshetz
- http://www.meadvocacy.org/our_respo...efusal_to_cancel_lecture_by_me_disease_denier

MEadvocacy blog with background - http://www.meadvocacy.org/systemic_bias_continues_at_nih

They summed up Dr. Koroshetz's reply well:

So, basically, what we hear Dr. Koroshetz is saying:

• I hear your concern
  
  
• Your thoughts are not important enough to change my mind
  
  
• I think the belief that ME/CFS is somatoform constitutes a scientific enterprise
  
  
• We don't have evidence that ME/CFS is biological
  
  
• Science might lead us to the conclusion that it is just psychosomatic
  
  
• I hope you'll endorse my view

 

[Wildcat]

.
.
Oh for goodness sake @viggster ....

Shorter's writing about ME and the sufferers, over decades, (including his blatant support of Elaine Showalter's book 'Hystories' in the late 1990's) is sexist, misogynist, prejudiced, inflammatory, inciting of contempt, hatred, and discrimination against sick and disabled people, and constitutes disability discrimination and incitement of hatred against disabled people.


What would be the response if a person with such inflammatory views as Shorter's was invited to give a talk to the NIH on any other Minority Issue??


What do you think the responses would be if it was not a sick/disabled people Minority who were the targets of such discrimination and hate speech, but other Minorities?
.

..

 

[Forbin]

No. Major talks and conferences are streamed online but small talks like this aren't.

Edit: Here's the list of upcoming NIH talks that will bre recorded/streamed. Shorter isn't listed. https://videocast.nih.gov/FutureEvents.asp

Thanks for the info.

 

[Never Give Up]

@Valentijn, I just read your response to Shorter's Psychology Today piece from February 2015, I loooved this line

Maybe it's time to get your nose out of the history books and learn a bit about modern medicine, eh?

too, too funny!

 

[Large Donner]

No doubt the BPS community views him as the eccentric uncle--recognised as family but you don't want to trot him out in public too much.

Or is it faux outrage whilst actually blowing smoke up his arse behind the scenes? I mean who the hell got him this gig at the NIH in the same week we have a UK media blitz of the same rolled out propaganda?

 

[Forbin]

Nothing has changed since then [1992] in scientific terms. There have been no convincing new studies, no breakthrough findings of organicity, nothing.

And there never will be.

https://web.archive.org/web/2015022...essed/201502/chronic-fatigue-syndrome-is-back

A HISTORY LESSON:

In 1954, Linus Pauling won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry for his research into the nature of chemical bonds.

Some thirty years later, in 1982, a scientist named Daniel Shechtman claimed to have discovered a new structure of matter called "quasi-crystals."

Shechtman's discovery was ridiculed. He was shunned by colleagues. His superior told him to "go back and read the textbook."

In addition, 1954 Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling said, "There is no such thing as quasi-crystals, only quasi-scientists."

- - -
​

Five years later, in 1987, Shechtman's findings were confirmed.

In 2011, Daniel Shechtman won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his discovery of quasi-crystals.

[ In his Noble banquet speech, Shechtman never mentioned the opposition he faced.
Instead, he made his point all the more powerfully by simply saying,
"A humble scientist is a good scientist." ]
​

 

[Hutan]

Nothing has changed since then [1992] in scientific terms. There have been no convincing new studies, no breakthrough findings of organicity, nothing. And there never will be.

Perhaps while Shorter is at the NIH he can pop in on these NIH scientists to get an update on MUPS.
http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...ibs-hypermobility-pots-etc.47438/#post-776353

Scientists at the National Institutes of Health have identified a genetic explanation for a syndrome characterized by multiple frustrating and difficult-to-treat symptoms, including dizziness and lightheadedness, skin flushing and itching, gastrointestinal complaints, chronic pain, and bone and joint problems. Some people who experience these diverse symptoms have elevated levels of tryptase — a protein in the blood often associated with allergic reactions. Multiple copies of the alpha tryptase gene drive these tryptase elevations and may contribute to the symptoms, according to a new study led by investigators at NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

Affected individuals had multiple co-morbid symptoms, including those often considered ‘functional’ in nature because of the lack of pathological findings.

On second thought, cancel Shorter's talk and pay for an author of this study to give a talk in Toronto.

 

[Woolie]

A politician would pay someone to look into Shorter's BDSM "research interests".

But of course we are not politicians, and we would never do that.