Science Media Centre briefing on new Hornig, Lipkin et al. immune study

[oceiv]

Was there any UK coverage, which was unsullied by the SMC quotes? Or did all the UK coverage include quotes from these so-called "experts" compiled by SMC?

 

[Esther12]

I actually thought that the SMC's coverage of this research was better than their coverage of any other recent CFS research. It's the context of their past coverage which makes it problematic.

 

[oceiv]

@Esther12 Interesting. The SMC coverage itself was more positive than the quotes from their "experts" were? What I was curious about is how the compilation of SMC "expert" quotes affected other UK news outlets' coverage? For example, I noticed that the BBC used one of SMC's "psychological experts" in their article. If the SMC had quoted UK immunologists instead of psychiatrists, might the UK news outlets have reported the news of this study differently and with a less skeptical attitude?

The UK news outlet articles I have read are more skeptical than the U.S. news outlet articles. I am wondering if it's because the SMC "expert" quotes trickled down into other media coverage, as @Denise mentioned:

I am seeing these (SCM gathered) quotes scattered in several mainstream media articles.

sigh

 

[Esther12]

The SMC coverage itself was more positive than the quotes from their "experts" were?

No. The only coverage they provided was those quotes.

I saw them in most UK coverage of this study.

 

[Kati]

Here is what came through from my google alert :
http://www.psych.ox.ac.uk/news/immu...atigue-like-most-illness-isnt-all-in-the-mind

Immune tests suggest chronic fatigue, like most illness, isn't all in the mind

Michael Sharpe, Professor of Psychological Medicine at the University of Oxford, comments on new American research into chronic fatigue syndrome: “Whilst this finding that some patients with CFS/ME have an immune abnormality is potentially interesting, we should treat it with great caution. Everyone who has worked clinically with patients with CFS/ME knows this is a real illness; this study neither proves nor disproves that observation.”

Just more tactics to create confusion and doubt.

sorry about big fonts.. Ipad is not letting me unbloding and making font smaller... Ugh. Makes the news even worse.

 

[oceiv]

@Kati Ugh! Terrible.

No. The only coverage they provided was those quotes.

I saw them in most UK coverage of this study.

I've read the BBC, Daily Mail and The Independent's coverage of the study. No Guardian article. The Times' article is behind a paywall, Where else should I be looking be looking for UK coverage?

 

[MeSci]

The UK news outlet articles I have read are more skeptical than the U.S. news outlet articles. I am wondering if it's because the SMC "expert" quotes trickled down into other media coverage, as @Denise mentioned:

Not quite sure what you mean. The SMC describe with pride in one of their own documents (there is a link in a thread here - not sure if it's in this one) how they brief all the main UK media outlets, including radio and TV, on issues where they want their versions of 'science' reported, and they cite ME/CFS in particular. This is why you get the exact same stuff being published across the media. The SMC hand it to them, and they publish it.

EDIT - here is a post from which you can download the SMC's self-congratulatory document.

 

[MeSci]

I wonder if Fiona Fox actually realizes that she is providing a platform on her Science Media Centre (SMC) website for these Wessely School psychiatrists and their psychobabble ideas about ME/CFS.

Does Fiona know that these Wessely School researchers used a deceptive trick to make their PACE trial of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET) for look like these treatments lead to recovery from ME/CFS, when in fact they do no such thing?

The SMC claim to be "unashamedly pro-science," but in the case of chronic fatigue syndrome, the SMC would appear to be "unashamedly pro-psychobabble."

I have no doubts whatsoever that she understands fully what she is doing. I would recommend reading up on her history, much of it reproduced or linked on PR.

 

[Hip]

I have no doubts whatsoever that she understands fully what she is doing.

Are you saying you think Fiona Fox is fully aware of the two main rival theories on ME/CFS: the psychobabble psychogenic theories in one corner, as espoused by the Wessely school; and the biomedical theories in the other corner?

I was very interested in all manner of scientific issues going on in the world, as well as interests in psychology, philosophy, and so forth; but before I developed ME/CFS, I had no idea whatsoever of this psychogenic / biomedical dichotomy in ME/CFS research. I imagine even many ME/CFS patients do not know about this.

The SMC website hosts articles about a wide range scientific fields; I doubt if Fiona Fox is fully au fait with the intricacies within all of these fields.

Hence why I am curious to know if Fiona Fox is aware that Wessely school ideas about ME/CFS she hosts on her SMC site are more psychobabble that hard science.

 

[Esther12]

The biopsychosocial stuff seems to fit in with the ideological values of Fox and her colleagues at LM. Wessely has been associated with this group previously, has a history at the SMC, etc. I don't think that she is just incompetent.

 

[Gijs]

''isn't all in the mind'' must be; '' isn't AT all in the mind''... White is a grazy bad human being.

 

[Roy S]

It is, or should be, Fiona Fox's and the Science Media Centre's responsibility to be well educated on the issues and provide accurate and balanced information to the media. They are not doing that.

 

[Hip]

The biopsychosocial stuff seems to fit in with the ideological values of Fox

Would you have any links that detail the ideological values of Fiona Fox?


I am reading Fiona Fox's blog at the moment to get a sense of her overall views. She writes well and coherently.

So far I have learnt that Fox says she is no fan of the royals, and was when younger a political activist involved in defending the democratic rights of Sinn Fein. But she swapped her political rebel activities for a love of science debate. Generally her blog seem thoughtful and intelligent.

I quite like the following paragraphs she wrote regarding balance in scientific debates:

There are plenty of reasons to be infuriated by false balance and the loudest groans in the SMC office are reserved for the dreaded calls from producers looking for ‘pro- and anti-’ scientists on GM, nuclear and climate change.

So why not take sides against this kind of journalism? Let me explain why not:

The small matter of public opinion
It is true that our top scientists believe that GM is safe, the climate is warming and homeopathy is voodoo but, as the latest BIS poll shows, not all the public is convinced. Repeating the fact that scientists are generally agreed on the safety of GM or the basics of climate change is an important point for scientists to make and for journalists to highlight. But the scientific consensus should not be used to close down debate or refuse to engage with opponents. Do the views of anti-vaccine campaigners or climate sceptics reflect public opinion? We might not think so but that is a separate question from that of scientific accuracy, and if news editors believe those views have a degree of public support they are entitled to decide whether they should be aired. I think scientists would do better to use these encounters to good effect than refuse to engage. Creating a row where none exists is wrong. Reflecting real divisions in public opinion in a TV studio feels legitimate.

Source: here.

According this UK Parliament publication:

The Science Media Centre (SMC) was set up in 2002, in the aftermath of public controversies on BSE, GM crops and MMR, and in response to recommendations in the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee’s 2000 report on science and society. Its aim is to support and encourage more experts to engage with the media more effectively in times of crisis and controversy, in order to ensure that the public get access to accurate and evidence-based information through the news. In over 10 years of responding to stories such as the Northwick Park clinical trial disaster, claims of cloned human beings, the HPV vaccine scare, swine flu, antibiotic resistance, hybrid embryos, and the recent horsemeat scandal, we have built up a huge body of expertise.

 

[Esther12]

I think that she's more careful about what she says now. The SMC have removed comments about CFS from Fox's blog:

http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...-pushing-corporate-science.30393/#post-478872

Fox used to write under 'Fiona Foster'. LM morphed into Spiked, and the articles there can be flicked through - they have some on CFS. A couple from Wessely.

 

[Snowdrop]

Would you have any links that detail the ideological values of Fiona Fox?

Silverblade mentions a reference to this: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fiona_Fox
in an earlier post.

 

[oceiv]

Not quite sure what you mean. The SMC describe with pride in one of their own documents (there is a link in a thread here - not sure if it's in this one) how they brief all the main UK media outlets, including radio and TV, on issues where they want their versions of 'science' reported, and they cite ME/CFS in particular. This is why you get the exact same stuff being published across the media. The SMC hand it to them, and they publish it.

EDIT - here is a post from which you can download the SMC's self-congratulatory document.

I understand. I didn't know that history - I just started posting here, recently. Did they have a public press conference or press briefing on this study? Or are these all private briefings? What I had meant in my comment was that I was looking at U.S. and UK media coverage for a requested media guide on this study (here and here, conversation started here). The differences in U.S. coverage versus UK coverage were quite stark. UK media all referred to this illness possibly being either imaginary, psychological and/or controversial. In contrast U.S. media was much more positive towards the illness and on the whole, presented the illness as physical. I was commenting (and people replied) about my opinion that the SMC collecting quotes from "experts" on this illness and including 3 psychologists, but no immunologists affected the coverage and was one factor in the differences between U.S. and UK coverage.

Thanks for the link and the background on SMC.

 

[WillowJ]

One problem with the SMC coverage was that it led to people like Michael Sharpe being quoted as a "balance" perspective saying "but it needs further research, and replication, and stuff!" as if this were somehow a contrary position to the study authors, when it is not.

e.g. Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/27/us-health-chronicfatigue-idUSKBN0LV2BH20150227

I saw this story picked up in at least one US paper.

 

[eafw]

Would you have any links that detail the ideological values of Fiona Fox?

ten seconds on google http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=337

I don't think that she is just incompetent.

Not at all, very competent spin-politician.

 

[Wildcat]

.
@Hip

There are lists of links to background information on this very thread about Fiona Fox, the history of the LM network, their controlling of science media reporting via the Science Media Centre, Sense about Science, the Institute of Ideas, etc.

Fiona Fox is an accomplished political (and now corporate, pro GM, Global warming denier, genocide denier) Spin Master. Highly convincing if all you read is the public statements of Fiona as Director of the SMC.


.

 

[SilverbladeTE]

As I've said before about those people (Spiked/Living Marxism), their objective is two fold:

Master of the populace
"Technology Uber Alles" at ANY cost.

They went form one extreme political stance to another that's much the same
they have infiltrated the British corrupt, nepotistic elite system that pulls the strings
They are *dangerous*