1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Tymes Trust - No reported harassment of staff at Bristol University

Discussion in 'PsychoSocial ME/CFS News' started by Liv aka Mrs Sowester, Oct 29, 2017.

  1. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    776
    Likes Received:
    3,965
    If you consider that ME is not fussy who it hits, and that if you look on FB (by way of example) there is no shortage of people happy to fire off vitriol at the slightest excuse, it follows that some small percentage of people in the ME community will be vitriolic. It's a numbers game, and the number is not going to be zero. It's an inevitable fact of life that some low-integrity people will direct nasty stuff at her. But what's that got to do with people genuinely criticising her research? Nothing. But EC deliberately makes something of it, conflating the two, to garner sympathy, and so suppress and thereby censor the genuine critics. And people seem to buy it. In fact if we deny it can ever happen, she is in fact playing us as well - it's virtually impossible that it doesn't happen, so we fall into her trap as deniers. She only needs one or two examples. @Jonathan Edwards commented on this some while back, and that he also gets similar, but unlike EC does not conflate good with bad.

    I agree that us denying it can never happen is counter productive; of course it can happen. We need to identify and understand what the real issue is - and it is not whether EC gets hate mail or not ... that is a complete diversion. The real issue is that she receives genuine good-science based criticism of her work, but denies that that is what it is. It is her denial of good-science critiquing of her work that needs addressing somehow, and that people need to gain awareness of.
     
    Inara, Hutan, Jan and 16 others like this.
  2. Jenny TipsforME

    Jenny TipsforME Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    495
    This is a useful guide both ways. We need to stick to the top 3 layers. Noticeable that the level of debate back is far lower ;)

    [​IMG]
     
    Jan, Arnie Pye, MEMarge and 9 others like this.
  3. Adrian

    Adrian Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    775
    Likes Received:
    4,073
    Location:
    UK
    I think there is another issue which is the branding of actions from possibly a few individuals to a whole group. Its an action that increases prejudice and would not be acceptable for any other group. Its basically building a stereotype that PwME are aggressive and violent.
     
    Hutan, lycaena, Jan and 17 others like this.
  4. Luther Blissett

    Luther Blissett Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Exactly, you can't have reasoned debate with someone who refuses to debate in good faith.
     
    Inara, Jan, Zombie Lurker and 13 others like this.
  5. Keela Too

    Keela Too Established Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    522
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    I've seen this before - it is excellent, and I think should we should probably share it on Twitter and places where some of EC's sympathisers hang out. It would show very clearly how the different groups are operating (for those who take the time to consider it ;) )... However I'd like to know its source? Do you know who produced it Jenny?
     
    Esther12, Barry, MEMarge and 5 others like this.
  6. Jenny TipsforME

    Jenny TipsforME Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    495
    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.
     
    Esther12, Barry, MEMarge and 4 others like this.
  7. Keela Too

    Keela Too Established Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    522
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    Ah okay.. that's good Jenny if it's already out there being tweeted. :)
     
  8. Sbag

    Sbag Established Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    183
    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 :)
     
  9. Sbag

    Sbag Established Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    183
    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
     
    Jan, Sly Saint and MEMarge like this.
  10. ukxmrv

    ukxmrv Established Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    224
    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
     
    Jan, anniekim, Arnie Pye and 9 others like this.
  11. Valentijn

    Valentijn Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,531
    Likes Received:
    7,075
    Location:
    Netherlands
    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 :p
     
    Barry, Inara, Jan and 11 others like this.
  12. Adrian

    Adrian Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    775
    Likes Received:
    4,073
    Location:
    UK
    I view their approach as hate speech and I think they should be reminded of this. I say that because it is designed to label a whole group (and a minority) with a stigmatizing label (of dangerous and aggressive). The approach to me is to remind them of that.

    The way they talk about people with ME would be considered unacceptable for other groups.

    For the FoI and questions in parliament we should remind them that they are taking public money for their work and salaries and as such must be accountable to the public via the mechanisms that have been democratically agreed. They cannot opt out of this.
     
    Inara, ukxmrv, Jan and 12 others like this.
  13. chrisb

    chrisb Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    1,907
    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
     
  14. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    776
    Likes Received:
    3,965
    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?
     
    ladycatlover likes this.
  15. TiredSam

    TiredSam Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,053
    Likes Received:
    6,503
    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.
     
    Inara, Luther Blissett, Hutan and 8 others like this.
  16. Wonko

    Wonko Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    690
    Likes Received:
    4,588
    Location:
    UK
    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 ;)
     
    Inara, Luther Blissett and Sbag like this.
  17. Sean

    Sean Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    1,518
    Never debate them live, and especially verbally. They are masters of misdirection and obfuscation and smear, and will walk all over you.

    The format should be written, with adequate time allowed between responses, and hosted/mediated by a genuinely independent third party.
     
  18. ladycatlover

    ladycatlover Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    728
    Location:
    Liverpool, UK
    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.
     
  19. Wonko

    Wonko Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    690
    Likes Received:
    4,588
    Location:
    UK
    We, collectively, pay for them, in poor health.
     
    Inara, Luther Blissett, Hutan and 7 others like this.
  20. Solstice

    Solstice Established Member

    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    168
    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.
     

Share This Page