Snow Leopard
Hibernating
- Messages
- 5,902
- Location
- South Australia
Some people just aren't interested in listening to the feelings, needs and thoughts of people who lead quite different lives to themselves.
Norwegian professor in biology supportive of PACE
- Thread starter Kalliope
- Start date
Some people just aren't interested in listening to the feelings, needs and thoughts of people who lead quite different lives to themselves.
Why would anyone sitting behind a computer screen in Norway need a bodyguard to protect themselves from a bunch of people lying in their beds or on their sofas beyond his country's borders? Either he's suffering from the patient-terrorist phobia that has spread amongst BPS believers like mass hysteria, or he is more worried that his ideas won't be able to defend themselves.
BurnA
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,087
A bodyguard to protect him from scientific debate ?
AndyPR
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,516
Perhaps it was lost in translation - he wants ear defenders to protect him from listening to logical arguments...
Bees, apparently. It's one of the weirdest insults to the forum I've ever seen.
Apparently putting an index finger in each ear works quite well, and it's supposed to be even more effective if you stick your tongue out at the same time.Perhaps it was lost in translation - he wants ear defenders to protect him from listening to logical arguments...
BurnA
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,087
It's very strange that he feels he can justify his argument enough to print it in a national newspaper but is afraid he can't justify it to a few people on a forum.
Either he has a strong argument which is worthy of national press or not.
Either he has a strong argument which is worthy of national press or not.
Marky90
Science breeds knowledge, opinion breeds ignorance
- Messages
- 1,253
Newspapers and their maximum letter limit, is perfect for clouding every serious debate with personal accusations, drifting arguments and cherry picking.
In a forum it`s harder to escape the issues one actually is trying to discuss, without looking like a douche.
Jonathan Edwards
"Gibberish"
- Messages
- 5,256
It does seem that Dr Gundersen is more interested in expressing his opinion than talking to the people his opinions may have an effect on. I find the critical atmosphere here very refreshing.
From his responses I suspect he has been talking with someone involved with PACE. From the comments of a recent ICO refusal they seem to be trying to build up PR as an evil terror supporting forum rather than one that encourages debate.
BurnA
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,087
Yes I was thinking about this. It would be nice if we could get a few more non patient academics or scientists to frequent here from time to time.
It would be useful to demonstrate that PR isn't full of crazy deranged angry patients, and if anyone were to point the finger at PR I am sure these people could give an honest opinion of the forums.
Snowdrop
Rebel without a biscuit
- Messages
- 2,933
Well now we know what kind of terrorist organisation we are. We're killer bees--with a hive mind.
Our message should bee: All we are saying is give bees a chance.
But really, how is it that educated scientists succumb to nonsense propaganda?
Our message should bee: All we are saying is give bees a chance.
But really, how is it that educated scientists succumb to nonsense propaganda?
Marky90
Science breeds knowledge, opinion breeds ignorance
- Messages
- 1,253
Pride, and the lack of the right form of it.
Only real scientists manage to change their verdict on something, if the evidence for a conflicting understanding is the best. Bad scientists try to save face.
Gundersen insists that the step-test from PACE showed that GET works, simply because the authors in the answer to Tullers criticism wrote that the GET-group got "significantly better". But this is simply a play with words and language, because this picture says it all.
But he don`t care about the patients not actually being significantly "significantly better", he cares about everything that backs up his stance, even though it`s a constructed fairy tale that severely harms people`s understandig of what ME/CFS is likely to be.
There`s no point talking to walls, they don`t do research.
Kati
Patient in training
- Messages
- 5,497
It's clear to me that the man had a briefing with Simon Wessely and co. Dare I use the term 'radicalization'?
Last edited:
The question that the PACE authors need to answer is how well did those they claim were recovered do on the 6mwt. Thus far not only have they refused to provide this data but they have accused those who ask for it of being vexatious.
What your graph doesn't show is the proportion of patients managing to do the 6mwt was smaller for the GET group where the figures are based on 69% as opposed to 74% for the SMC group.
Marky90
Science breeds knowledge, opinion breeds ignorance
- Messages
- 1,253
Thanks for bringing up those important points.
Forbin
Senior Member
- Messages
- 966
Perhaps he's been watching too much Saturday Night Live...
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/the-killer-bees/n8622
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/the-killer-bees/n8622
Deepwater
Senior Member
- Messages
- 208
Could that someone have been Trudie Chalder? The timing was of her visit was quite coincidental.
Wonder if manipulating uninformed third parties into publishing the nonsense (and taking the flak) on their behalf is a new tactic - I'm also thinking of how Suzanne O'Sullivan's chapter on CFS refers to the poor friend of hers who's done nothing but try to help these people and has got nothing but threats for his trouble (or something like that as I remember - can't say SOS's book is may bedtime reading of choice).
So are we to imagine Trudie Chalder chatting up Dr Gundersen till he's all fired up with outrage at what she and her colleagues have suffered, and Simon W. doing ditto with SOS?
Or am I letting my imagine run away with me?
BurnA
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,087
So has anyone been able to establish if fraud has been committed ? I think 4 and 5 are a given, if we can prove 1, then 2 should follow on easily, that would leave just 3 ?
alex3619
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,810
- Location
- Logan, Queensland, Australia
The only direct communication from me to a researcher on a controversial topic was to someone on the other side of the debate on XMRV. I disagreed with the general implication of his paper, but it was so well written and did not go into hype but stuck to evidence and good reason that I wrote and complimented him. He appreciated it.
While some of us are so passionate we can say some intemperate things, many of us stick to the evidence and reason. I appreciate good evidence and good reason even if I am on the other side of a position. However, nebulous or implied evidence, and poor or dogmatic reasoning, can be expected to be challenged .. and it should be. If I say something really silly I hope someone speaks up. I would like to encourage you to. Scientists and non-research doctors should be happy with that if they want to find the best understanding and options. It is, in my view, their ethical and moral responsibility as scientists and doctors.
While some of us are so passionate we can say some intemperate things, many of us stick to the evidence and reason. I appreciate good evidence and good reason even if I am on the other side of a position. However, nebulous or implied evidence, and poor or dogmatic reasoning, can be expected to be challenged .. and it should be. If I say something really silly I hope someone speaks up. I would like to encourage you to. Scientists and non-research doctors should be happy with that if they want to find the best understanding and options. It is, in my view, their ethical and moral responsibility as scientists and doctors.