There seems to have been a gut reaction to Jodie's first statement. I took her statement about patient activist behavior- which
can sometimes go in the wrong direction - to be tied directly to David's editorial choice of leading with the idea of research misconduct, whilst not actually making a judgement on it, and leaving it to others to decide. People often barely read things, and could walk away thinking that David has made a call on this and perpetuate that idea. Patients
are vulnerable -- half the time I can barely comprehend the detail of some articles. So, putting catch phrase statements out like "research misconduct" could easily become a rallying cry for patients when in fact, no one has found this yet, legally, even if it seems obvious as a casual statement to make.
I think that's what Jodie was reacting to, and fair enough that she can have an opinion on it. It doesn't mean she's tearing david down entirely. Plus, she's actually trying to be protective of the patient community. We
are vulnerable. There
are misunderstandings. They can lead to ill informed activism.
This very thread has been aggressive toward
@jodie100 because she had a critical POV on a piece written by someone we all admire. There are many comments implying she is therefore pro pace and doesn't understand what GET is. I've been reading it going.. wtf? Here's someone who helped finesse a piece, and is protective of patients being totally not credited for it. It's a bummer.