Trial By Error, Continued: A Few Words About “Harassment” David Tuller

W

worldbackwards

Senior Member
Messages
2,051
Comet said:
Perhaps some CBT could help the PACE researchers feel more positive about the situation. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
smc-media-campaign.png

It's wrong to say the PACE authors don't want to see the truth, but they've gotten locked in a pattern and their life has constricted around what they can sell.
 
B

Bob

Senior Member
Messages
16,455
Location
England (south coast)
Ellen's comment relates to historic events that she was involved in personally. (Of which I know very little about.) I guess there will be conflicts in any large community. But the events she refers to are not directly related to the alleged (fictional) extremist anti-science campaign of harassment that Tuller's article is discussing.
 
W

worldbackwards

Senior Member
Messages
2,051
Bob said:
Ellen's comment relates to historic events that she was involved in personally. (Of which I know very little about.) I guess there will be conflicts in any large community. But the events she refers to are not directly related to the alleged (fictional) extremist anti-science campaign of harassment that Tuller's article is discussing.
Click to expand...
I suspected as much. EG gets the wrong end of the stick and upsets everyone. Who'd have thought it.
 
halcyon

halcyon

Senior Member
Messages
2,482
Bob said:
Ellen's comment relates to historic events that she was involved in personally. (Of which I know very little about.) I guess there will be conflicts in any large community. But the events she refers to are not directly related to the alleged (fictional) extremist anti-science campaign of harassment that Tuller's article is discussing.
Click to expand...
Basically this. She's talking about harassment she allegedly suffered from Professor Hooper and the One Click Group, which as I understand is only tangentially related to PACE. This has nothing to do with what I took away from the article, which is that valid criticism, put forth in proper venues, is being labelled as harassment.
 
Daisymay

Daisymay

Senior Member
Messages
754
leela said:
One thing Mr. Tuller might mention next time is that even if there were a wild card or two in the patient population
(and what population won't have them,) painting an entire group of people with the broadest blackest brushstrokes based on the (alleged) actions of one or two people
is irresponsible and illogical at best.
Click to expand...

And completely unprofessional and quite possibly in breach of GMC professional guidelines.
 
GreyOwl

GreyOwl

Dx: strong belief system, avoidance, hypervigilant
Messages
266
leela said:
One thing Mr. Tuller might mention next time is that even if there were a wild card or two in the patient population
(and what population won't have them,) painting an entire group of people with the broadest blackest brushstrokes based on the (alleged) actions of one or two people is irresponsible and illogical at best.
Click to expand...
Is it a deliberate group attribution error which supports an idee fixe, held to avoid confronting a difficult cognitive dissonance?

Anyone can play - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
 
Esther12

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
I think uab9876's comments are both spot on. Even if there were a 'gang of four' who did do things that could be fairly considered harassment all those years ago, the attempt to smear and discredit those raising concerns about the PACE trial and trying to secure the release of important information.
 
Esther12

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
I think this is a slightly weaker Tuller piece overall (from very high standards), partly because it's dealing with such a political issue, where so much is unknown, and also... I think he's gotten pretty pissed off with the PACE people. They are unbelievably irritating, but it's really important not to let them get to you. They will try to ignore all the strong arguments and points, not giving them any publicity, and then as soon as a slip is made and a weak argument put forth, they can pounce and show how good they are in being willing to engage with their critics. I thikn that they're failure to engage can mean that people feel a desire to make stronger and stronger criticisms in order to try to force them in to defending themselves. Whenever I look at Wessely's twitter feed it has him ignoring reasonable and important concerns from patients, and then searching for the weakest points to respond to.

Given the hundreds of thousands of patients badly affected by the quality of their work, surely the PACE researchers would be able to dig up some e-mails of the sort which would scandalise polite society. I don't think that if they were to do that it would be a real problem, and the way they've presented FOIs as vexatious harassment means that they cannot score easy points here, but I thin that this piece plays its cards a little less carefully than the earlier Tuller pieces.

Also, I thought this paragraph could be a mistake too, as we don't actually know what evidence reporters were shown. The Hanlon piece did, sort of, have an interview with a patient. Shepherd often gets quoted too (I've always thought Shepherd's tactics on how to deal with this issue were a bit off, and I think that the recent Bishop Nature piece shows the danger of not getting out in front of the militant meme and being very clear about its misuse... although I also realise he was in an extremely tricky position).

Moreover, the reports did not present any independent evidence of the purported threats, other than claims made by the researchers. There were no statements from law enforcement authorities confirming the claims. No mention of any arrests made or charges having been filed. And no interviews with actual patients, much less these extremist, dangerous patients who supposedly hated psychiatry. In short, these news reports failed to pass any reasonable test of independent judgment and editorial skepticism.
Click to expand...

I remember a Crawley quote from that SMC publication about how she was worried because the BBC normally tries to cover both sides of an issue, but she was reassured about that [maybe the quote less good than I remember], and that a good illustration of the problems in UK reporting of CFS issues: the UK science media have learned the lessons of global warming and MMR: they should not report the controversy, but report the Truth. Just a shame that they're a bit shit at it.
 
Last edited:
S

Sean

Senior Member
Messages
7,378
leela said:
One thing Mr. Tuller might mention next time is that even if there were a wild card or two in the patient population
(and what population won't have them,) painting an entire group of people with the broadest blackest brushstrokes based on the (alleged) actions of one or two people
is irresponsible and illogical at best.
Click to expand...
And, frankly, it is starting to spill over into seriously immoral defamation.
 
Ecoclimber

Ecoclimber

Senior Member
Messages
1,011
Last edited:
MeSci

MeSci

ME/CFS since 1995; activity level 6?
Messages
8,234
Location
Cornwall, UK
Mrs Sowester

Mrs Sowester

Senior Member
Messages
1,055
Bob said:
Is it a case of trolling a comments thread with a straw man discussion?
Click to expand...
She's certainly hijacked the discussion, but she's not coming across well (does anyone know the Father Ted episode where he wins an award and his whole acceptance speech is a list of the people who've slighted him?). She grinds so many axes and you can't tell which camp she's in - probably because, as she says, she feels she's been rejected by both. I'm glad she's directed people to her blog, let's hope she posts a link so people can make their own minds up.
 
ukxmrv

ukxmrv

Senior Member
Messages
4,413
Location
London
I think Ellen is genuinely still upset about the fight she had with the one click group and to be precise one particular person who started the group. She wasn't the only one at that time targeted. Other ME patients were also the subject of claims and colorful forceful language and abuse. It's got nothing to do with PACE. It has nothing to so with ME patients. There is still a body of writing on the internet associated with this.

But bringing this up again in relation to the claims by the PACE researchers and the involvement of the SMC isn't helping things.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back