Scientists trade insults over ME (JHP special issue)
- Thread starter Old Bones
- Start date
- Messages
- 60
- Likes
- 677
My reading of Coyne's account on Facebook was that The Times contacted him to let him know they were writing a story about him, and that he might want the opportunity to explain his side before they published. That strongly suggests to me that they already had the emails before they contacted him.
Given that GDS is the only person involved in the story that they apparently didn't bother approaching to obtain a comment from, I suspect that he spoke to them off the record when he gave them the story in the first place.
Given that GDS is the only person involved in the story that they apparently didn't bother approaching to obtain a comment from, I suspect that he spoke to them off the record when he gave them the story in the first place.
Yeah, could be.
I do hope we get more details this week.
I do hope we get more details this week.
What I love about the article is that GDS was looking for sympathy but will be forever known as a
"disgusting old fart neoliberal hypocrite”
Warning: journalists are to be approached with caution
"disgusting old fart neoliberal hypocrite”
Warning: journalists are to be approached with caution
http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=78
Even Alexei Sayle couldn't make up shit like this.
Georgie Porgie has quite happily referred to Marx in his epidemiological papers:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2465546/
Former reds everywhere looking for pies to stick their grubby little fingers in, and they just happen to have chosen our illness as the location for their piefest.
It is clear that Science Media Centre has spun the main crux of the story about a medical, scientific and financial fraud & scandal into a spat one about emails, resignations and insults.
It appears the SMC press release and behind the scenes briefings have crowded out our story.
It is public relations damage limitation what that they have done.
That they tried to block the JHP publishing and the damage caused to millions of patients doesn't appear in the story
I am not too happy about this. I don't think we should be too happy about this.
I think we need to get more journalists to look into the REAL story and not get sidetracked by SMC distraction narrative. Perhaps leave that as a comment.
Any more stories?
It appears the SMC press release and behind the scenes briefings have crowded out our story.
It is public relations damage limitation what that they have done.
That they tried to block the JHP publishing and the damage caused to millions of patients doesn't appear in the story
I am not too happy about this. I don't think we should be too happy about this.
I think we need to get more journalists to look into the REAL story and not get sidetracked by SMC distraction narrative. Perhaps leave that as a comment.
Any more stories?
That's not my take on this at all - my take is that the SMC (or another PACE supporter) has (through carelessness or disorganisation) broken the first rule of media management. Namely if someone is trying to promote a negative story about you, do not - under any circumstances - do *anything* that would draw attention to it. It's far better to let a negative story die from a lack of publicity or interest than to try and get your retaliation in first and risk turning it into a bigger deal than it would otherwise be.
It's highly unlikely that the British press would have had any interest in he publication of a special issue of the JHP looking at the PACE trial. Until that is, someone handed The Times a series of emails revealing how tempers are fraying behind the scenes - at which point they had a story they felt was worth publishing. And now a second newspaper (The Mail) has also published it. And both articles have made it clear that it's scientists - not patients - that are at loggerheads over an expensive, controversial and deeply questionable piece of research.
This isn't SMC damage limitation. This is damage maximisation. Somebody has screwed up royally, and as a consequence there are two damaging news stories about PACE today where there could have been none. And the JHP special issue has had a *lot* of publicity that it was otherwise very unlikely to receive.
It's highly unlikely that the British press would have had any interest in he publication of a special issue of the JHP looking at the PACE trial. Until that is, someone handed The Times a series of emails revealing how tempers are fraying behind the scenes - at which point they had a story they felt was worth publishing. And now a second newspaper (The Mail) has also published it. And both articles have made it clear that it's scientists - not patients - that are at loggerheads over an expensive, controversial and deeply questionable piece of research.
This isn't SMC damage limitation. This is damage maximisation. Somebody has screwed up royally, and as a consequence there are two damaging news stories about PACE today where there could have been none. And the JHP special issue has had a *lot* of publicity that it was otherwise very unlikely to receive.
And this Scotsman shouts out in glee:
"GET IT UP YE, YA BASTARDS!"
Oh what joy it is to see our abusers getting shafted in Public, and I long for criminal trials for the vermin as their cosy little world of corruption and malign perversion of Science and treating the sick, comes down on their dammed evil heads.
*chortles in glee*
"GET IT UP YE, YA BASTARDS!"
Oh what joy it is to see our abusers getting shafted in Public, and I long for criminal trials for the vermin as their cosy little world of corruption and malign perversion of Science and treating the sick, comes down on their dammed evil heads.
*chortles in glee*
He has also demonstrated why it was entirely right to oppose the CMRC's trojan horse MEGA project, within which he appeared to be a leading light.
Please take note @charles shepherd
Please take note @charles shepherd
- Messages
- 2,239
- Likes
- 16,242
Now picked up by the Daily Mail - who are concentrating on academics throwing mud at each other over the PACE trial >>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...lts-regarding-flawed-study.html#ixzz4oVLZUwAX
I suspect that the great British public will conclude that threre must something 'dodgy' going on here....
C
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...lts-regarding-flawed-study.html#ixzz4oVLZUwAX
I suspect that the great British public will conclude that threre must something 'dodgy' going on here....
C
One of the journalist in charge of this is replying to us on twitter. I sugest some of you join in to get the good argumentation my foggy and non-english brain isn't able to do Already pointed him to Tuller, Colby, MEactUK, etc
Already pointed him to Tuller, Colby, MEactUK, etcThe Times article identifies Profs Davey-Smith and Ogden as 2 of the 3 who resigned from the JHP editorial board.
Who was the third?
Who was the third?
Can somebody please post on the NYT that the problem with the recommended therapy is that is not just CBT but denying that you are sick, So they part from the premises that it is all in your head and you can think CFS away, and when patients get worst they get blamed for not trying hard enough and so on...
I cannot post for some reason even though I registered, I think it is important to clarify this point and nobody has bring it up. Also ask for a follow up article with more detail on ME. TX!!!!!
I cannot post for some reason even though I registered, I think it is important to clarify this point and nobody has bring it up. Also ask for a follow up article with more detail on ME. TX!!!!!
Daily Mail today Health Section online better than the Times
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...lts-regarding-flawed-study.html#ixzz4oVLZUwAX
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...lts-regarding-flawed-study.html#ixzz4oVLZUwAX
What I love about the article is that GDS was looking for sympathy but will be forever known as a
"disgusting old fart neoliberal hypocrite”
Warning: journalists are to be approached with caution
"disgusting old fart neoliberal hypocrite”
Warning: journalists are to be approached with caution
Is this fair? He's not that old!
I think this is the best piece The Times has every written about our problem. Previously they have followed an establishment line. The Sunday Times gave Wessely a platform and The Times had the former head of the MRC (Colin Blakemore? I am having trouble recalling the name) was given an opinion piece where he was supportive of Wessely and slagged of militant patients.
They have made quite a shift. Of course they have taken on the story in their own terms but they are presenting it in a fundamentally different way. It is no presented as an issue in science and no longer as anti-science ungrateful patients. I think it is a shame that they didn't put in a sentence or two about Montoya's study that came out on the same day. I would have liked them to say there is clear evidence of biological pathology.
I am hoping that this will be followed by a double page spread in The Sunday Times in a week or two.
They have made quite a shift. Of course they have taken on the story in their own terms but they are presenting it in a fundamentally different way. It is no presented as an issue in science and no longer as anti-science ungrateful patients. I think it is a shame that they didn't put in a sentence or two about Montoya's study that came out on the same day. I would have liked them to say there is clear evidence of biological pathology.
I am hoping that this will be followed by a double page spread in The Sunday Times in a week or two.