• 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 (FM), 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.

More from Science Medica Centre on SMILE

Countrygirl

Senior Member
Messages
5,387
Location
UK
The other reported on findings from a clinical trial on a controversial treatment for CFS/ME denounced as pseudoscience by many, which revealed that some patients benefitted from the technique. Both briefings fitted the usual mould: top quality scientists explaining their work to smart science journalists and making technical and complex studies accessible to readers.

.....er..............is this seriously referring to EC?
 

Countrygirl

Senior Member
Messages
5,387
Location
UK
. If you had only read the headlines for the CFS/ME story you may conclude that the treatment tested at Bristol might be worth a try if you are blighted by the illness, when in truth the author said repeatedly that the findings would first have to be replicated in a bigger trial.

:bang-head::aghhh::ill:

Someone, please advise Esther to cut out a paper circle and jump into it yelling STOP! ever time she gets the urge to inflict another rubbish trial on seriously ill children. :aghhh:
 

Countrygirl

Senior Member
Messages
5,387
Location
UK
Other friends wrote to us expressing concern about the unintended consequences of SMC briefings – with one saying that policy makers were furious at having to deal with the fallout from our climate briefing and others worried that the briefing on the CFS/ME trial would allow the only private company offering the treatment to profit by over-egging preliminary findings.

So you agree SMC that EC might just be over-egging Parkerism
 

Countrygirl

Senior Member
Messages
5,387
Location
UK
When we received the paper; we sent it to every expert qualified to read it and assess its strengths and weaknesses.

.....er.....................

....................................

I will refrain from stating the obvious here.

We will only ever win arguments on science if the public trust scientists to tell the truth, admit their mistakes and be open about uncertainty

I think the poor author is out of touch with reality. Perhaps just young, idealistic and naive?
 

Orla

Senior Member
Messages
708
Location
Ireland
One good thing about this is that it looks like the SMC has been criticised by the wider scientific community (on the climate change stuff), so possibly less people will just swallow what they put on. George Monbiot as well has criticised them for their antics around GM foods as well.
 

Orla

Senior Member
Messages
708
Location
Ireland
Our remit is to encourage and support good scientists to speak out openly and honestly about science in all its guises including the uncertainties, mistakes, poor standards, changes in evidence. If that delivers bad headlines on animal research, GM and pesticides then so be it. We will only ever win arguments on science if the public trust scientists to tell the truth, admit their mistakes and be open about uncertainty
.

Vomit.

I know it will horrify many senior PR managers to hear this but we do not base decisions about which press briefings we run on how the findings will advance or set back a cause.

Really? Why not run a press conference on the call by many doctors and scientists to retract some of the PACE papers then? Or one on the NICE decision to review the guidelines for ME/CFS?
 
Messages
1,055
"The subjects are complex and contentious, and there is always the potential for jarring or simplistic headlines and strong reactions from the vocal critics of research in these fields. But it was the criticism from within the scientific community that we had not anticipated". (My bold)

Poor SMC, my heart bleeds for them. But it leaps for us, because as @Demepivo points out this is a good sign.
A very good sign.