Tymes Trust - No reported harassment of staff at Bristol University

I saw it on Twitter from Micheal van Elzakker in this context, but when I asked him he just said google Debate Pyramid and it was there lots of times in the search result.

 

Ah okay.. that's good Jenny if it's already out there being tweeted.

 

Maybe we ought to come up with a symbol like a peace lily. Then if we send in any questions/FOIs, or ask questions at public meetings we can attach/hold said symbol to show we are part of a group that does not do personal harassment, but are only interested in getting answers to legitimate questions.
... maybe we could put the flower in a test tube to tie it in with the fact that we are after scientific answers

 

or probably more sensibly could use the S4ME banner and have some authorised people that are allowed to use it to show they are part of a group that doesn't harass etc

 

When we do this we fall into a trap of their making

Whenever we address "their" argument we further feed the stereotype of a dangerous, aggressive ME patient. They created this, not because they have a genuine fear of such a person, but to stigmatise all ME patients and to avoid genuine debate.

Remember, they include FOI requests and questions in parliament as being "harassment"

You can't win by pandering to their trap

 

Or we can just tell them to fuck off (preferably in politer terms) when they make baseless accusations, instead of tiptoeing around and acting like we've done something wrong

 

One has to wonder whether the harassment and threats narrative developed specifically to counter FOI requests:

Dealing with vexatious requests

30 In some cases it will be readily apparent that a request is vexatious.

31 For instance the tone or content of the request might be so objectionable that it would be unreasonable to expect the authority to tolerate it, no matter how legitimate the purpose of the requester, or substantial the value of the request.

32 Examples of this might be where threats have been made against employees, or racist language used.

https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1198/dealing-with-vexatious-requests.pdf

 

Is their any kind of facility within the scientific community, where scientists can be formally invited to some form of chaired debate between themselves, albeit open to public scrutiny, and is guaranteed to be chaired independently and fairly? Such that EC, SW, etc, could not validly complain they would be treated unfairly? And if they backed out with such accusations, it would be clear to all they were just excuses. Is there such a thing @Jonathan Edwards?

 

We would probably be diagnosed with Passive-Aggressive-Syndrome.

Whilst it's true that David Tuller's chances of getting a sensible answer were just about zero, it did give him the springboard for his latest blog, in which he could summarize all her failings alongside her most recent ridiculous behaviour.

Quite, just ignore their deluded ramblings and name-calling and keep picking their "work" apart in front of an ever larger international audience.

Do we really want them to be offered a platform? EC and Wessely are very good at being charming, witty, and presenting themselves favourably to their audience. I'd rather see them picked apart by scientists and journalists online where their responses look as stupid as they are. Look how EC managed DT with "did you really come all this way ...?" - knowing that a roomful of people who didn't know the back story could be easily manipulated and she wouldn't have to answer any questions of substance. I think at a public debate with an audience they would be on home territory and just play their silly games the whole time. Much better to pick them apart in writing online, then let them be completely bypassed by the science. They haven't earned the right to be invited to a public debate on ME, to invite them would be to acknowledge that they have some business being there, or that anything they say might be worth listening too.

 

Or go the whole hog....and send them a horse's head (detached/severed, as sending a whole horse - that'd be weird) - as to those who want to it'd be interpreted the same way. It's quite a common theme in films/TV

 

I just started a new thread in the Health News and Research unrelated to ME/CFS Forum...

https://www.theguardian.com/healthc...e-trumps-patients-uk-healthcare-needs-inquiry

Various links to papers I haven't had time to look at yet. But one bit that seemed relevant here says:

But the reliability of research findings published in medical journals must also be questioned. In his paper How To Survive the Medical Misinformation Mess, Stanford University professor of medicine and statistics John Ioannidis, an authority on scientific integrity, reveals only 7% of more than 60,000 clinical studies analysed passed criteria of being high quality and clinically relevant to patients.
​

Only 7% of more than 60,000 clinical studies... And we pay for many of those through our taxes.

 

We, collectively, pay for them, in poor health.

 

Not sure I agree here. If you meet them at their venues with a host sympathetic to them, sure they're gonna come off as the "winners". They however didn't know how fast to get rid of Tuller, before he pointed out the plethora of faults in their work. With an unpartial moderator and faced with someone that knows their stuff they wouldn't stand a chance imo, however charming they may be.

 

In a properly chaired scientific debate - which is why I specifically said that - EC would would not have been able to do to DT what she did. The audience would not have been allowed to shout him down, nor EC have been able to rally them to her side. There would have been no bouncers to usher him out the building for no good reason. EC would have had to do what she fears most I suspect - debate real science on a level playing field. I'm not talking about what the media likes to pass off as debates, but the real thing.

 

Yep. Their bullsh*t-baffles-brains strategy would not work.

 

They only win because they chair their own "debates". A proper debate forestalls this.

 

When was the last time you actually saw something like that take place? It seems depressingly rare to me.

Personally, I think that written debate is probably best for matters like this, but also think that Wessely/White/etc would now struggle to do a good job defending their work. I think that the recent controversy makes it much harder for them to bluff authority.

 

This idea is wishful thinking because EC wouldn't agree to take part in such a thing just as she doesn't attend the Invest in Me conferences.

eta or any of the rest of them