Scientists trade insults over ME (JHP special issue)

[TiredSam]

The print version cuts the Macleod quote at the end, so it's better for us:

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...=75f2d7c9fc2e65c5b29caac689405148&oe=59FABC3E

Wow, that really is progress. SMC view now regarded as optional and something that can be safely ignored if it's too daft. By the Times no less .

I wonder if there couldn't be a lot of people (including journalists) who are sick of being leant on by the SMC and have been waiting for a moment like this to be able to turn round and tell them to "f*** off", if I may Coyne a phrase. If everyone jumps on that train the PACE trial may even be judged on its merits, with no-one to speak up for it except the authors and a few remaining stooges. Excuse me, I'm dreaming again.

 

[Sean]

Wow, that really is progress. SMC view now regarded as optional and something that can be safely ignored if it's too daft. By the Times no less .

I agree. If that is what is happening, it is real progress.

I wonder if there couldn't be a lot of people (including journalists) who are sick of being leant on by the SMC and have been waiting for a moment like this to be able to turn round and tell them to "f*** off", if I may Coyne a phrase. If everyone jumps on that train the PACE trial may even be judged on its merits, with no-one to speak up for it except the authors and a few remaining stooges. Excuse me, I'm dreaming again.

I don't think so. Propaganda based power – the kind of power the PACE cult wield – has one great weakness, it is not sustainable. Eventually reality will somehow force its way back into the picture, and one way or another the power will shift.

Looks to me like it is happening now.

*checks popcorn stocks *

 

[Woolie]

What makes you say that things were out of control @Woolie?

Ah, all the evidence to hand, including this thread.

If your view that GDS was culpable, well that's interesting. I'd believe that over Coyne any day.

Coyne's twitter feed has become propaganda-like. I love the latest few installments, where he repackages being fired from the PLOS Mind and Body blog as a win!

 

[Skycloud]

I give more weight to Marks than Coyne, who makes me uncomfortable, but they do corroborate each other.

I'm more interested to know the impact, if any, of all this on NICE.

 

[Barry53]

Obviously, things were very out of control in the management of this special issue. We can see that from the emails. Its very possible GDS had a non-PACE reason for quitting. And given some of the things that have been happening, and what's been said, that could have been perfectly legitimate.

I would suggest we leave him alone.

PS I do not trust either side of the story, and I'm certainly not willing to take the Coyne account of GDS as gospel.

I broadly agree. Whatever Coyne's advocacy strengths and weaknesses (and he seems to excel in both), he must be an absolute nightmare to try and work alongside ... bad enough from a distance from what I see in these forums and elsewhere.

As for GDS' comments re PACE being OK etc, then suggest he put a publication together detailing why he thinks PACE is fine, and detailing what he thinks is flawed in all the PACE critiques. He's a scientist, so he should be able to back up his very generalised comments with detailed, rational argument. It's how we all agree science should really work, so it's what he should do if he really believes what he is saying, else he merely joins the ranks of the other PACEites.

 

[lilpink]

inews have picked it up too now

‘You’re a disgusting old fart neoliberal hypocrite’ – scientists in furious row over ME study
https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news...rious-row-pace-trial-journal-special-edition/

That was interesting in terms of using Marks' comment to emphasise in an emboldened box.

 

[Sidereal]

I wish that editor Marks had accepted a few more low quality contributions from the PACE camp (like that lame blogpost, for example) and published them for posterity. That would have avoided the charge of one-sidedness and it would have worked in our favour - their best efforts exposed for all to see.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

Ah, all the evidence to hand, including this thread.

I don't get it @Woolie. David marks gave a transparent account of a very fair process. We have every reason to think that PACE supporters had the same opportunities to write and that very few did.Of those turned down we know at least one was empty and badly written. Marks had to apply peer review to both sides. He was not entitled to put in bad supportive pieces for the sake of ridicule and he did not.

If Davey Smith felt so strongly why did he not write a cogent defence of PACE? Presumably because it is not really possible to do so.

 

[wdb]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/892420921599963136

 

[Valentijn]

I wish that editor Marks had accepted a few more low quality contributions from the PACE camp (like that lame blogpost, for example) and published them for posterity. That would have avoided the charge of one-sidedness and it would have worked in our favour - their best efforts exposed for all to see.

One problem is that the letter posted at Mental Elf wasn't just of poor quality - it contained outright lies. For any self-respecting journal to publish falsehoods, they would have had to commission yet another response exposing it, or risk misleading their readers. So it'd be one more for PACE, but also one more for anti-PACE, and no real change in the balance.

 

[dangermouse]

@wdb yes, exactly, it's a bit dramatic to describe 3 people as a ''mass resignation'' isn't it.

 

[Sean]

Delusions of Mass Resignation

 

[lilpink]

Delusions of Mass Resignation

Actually made me 'LOL'

 

[Luther Blissett]

Delusions of Mass Resignation

Actually made me 'LOL'

Newspaper Editor eats 5% of chocolate bar.

Subversive Sub-editor: "Editor BINGES on chocolate"

Picture Editor: *photoshops chocolate all over a picture of Editors face*

 

[Barry53]

I notice the photo of GDS is a BBC photo. Has the BBC actually reported on this anywhere?

 

[Chrisb]

I notice the photo of GDS is a BBC photo. Has the BBC actually reported on this anywhere?

He was on "The Life Scientific" when they used this photo.

 

[lilpink]

I notice the photo of GDS is a BBC photo. Has the BBC actually reported on this anywhere?

I've been keeping an eye and not seen anything yet. They did know about it. I told them. As, I imagine, did many others.

 

[Gijs]

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mahatma Gandhi

I think we' re in stage three now

 

[Esther12]

Coyne's twitter feed has become propaganda-like.

I just looked and he seemed to be accusinga couple of researchers of trolling on PACE, when they'd done no such thing. It doesn't seem that this media coverage has led to him taking a more cautious approach.

As for GDS' comments re PACE being OK etc, then suggest he put a publication together detailing why he thinks PACE is fine, and detailing what he thinks is flawed in all the PACE critiques. He's a scientist, so he should be able to back up his very generalised comments with detailed, rational argument.

Have we ever seen any comments from GDS on PACE? Seems to me like he's avoided making any, and has just been providing vague cover.

I wish that editor Marks had accepted a few more low quality contributions from the PACE camp (like that lame blogpost, for example) and published them for posterity. That would have avoided the charge of one-sidedness and it would have worked in our favour - their best efforts exposed for all to see.

Yes. That would have also lowered pressure on the pieces critical of PACE that were published.

 

[Robert 1973]

Marks had to apply peer review to both sides. He was not entitled to put in bad supportive pieces for the sake of ridicule and he did not.

He went pretty close with the Petrie and Weinman article.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1359105317703789