This might already have been responded to--I haven't read the whole thread. They are completely in bed with the PACE team and the rest--the leading FND experts, Jon Stone and Alan Carson, studied under Prof Sharpe in Edinburgh, as I understand it, and are now close colleagues. The FND people have a huge stake in this debate. This is why I have been trying to point out their constant misinterpretation of prevalence rates and other stunts they have tried to pull with their data. The fields are intimately connected.
-
New Forum Software Installed (Still a few issues but reopening the forum) More details.
Anomalies in the review process and interpretation of the evidence in the NICE guideline for (CFS & ME), 2023, White et al
- Thread starter Three Chord Monty
- Start date
This might already have been responded to--I haven't read the whole thread. They are completely in bed with the PACE team and the rest--the leading FND experts, Jon Stone and Alan Carson, studied under Prof Sharpe in Edinburgh, as I understand it, and are now close colleagues. The FND people have a huge stake in this debate. This is why I have been trying to point out their constant misinterpretation of prevalence rates and other stunts they have tried to pull with their data. The fields are intimately connected.
I took the evening off and went to see an excellent production of The Crucible. The arguments supporting witchcraft in Salem, Massachusetts, in 1692 came across as more reasonable than the stupid notions advanced by this crew of sore losers terrified about having lost their long-standing control of the narrative.
clearly they thought these were not "errors" but "anomalies."
Dolphin
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Is that the title of Jane Austen's last unpublished novel?
This is that published article. It's been with the journal being reviewed for 6 months.
rvallee
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Probably irrelevant, I assumed it would just be brushed aside, but with the admission that the commentary was written in full by White and the rest merely provided a few comments, isn't it a strict norm in academia that only people who worked on a paper, if it qualifies as that, should be named authors?
Otherwise it's just people endorsing the commentary but being named authors anyway. But it's just a rant written by one dude with a few signatories. And a few of them already basically published the same rant already in another journal. Seems not to fall under academic standards and more in op-ed ones.
Otherwise it's just people endorsing the commentary but being named authors anyway. But it's just a rant written by one dude with a few signatories. And a few of them already basically published the same rant already in another journal. Seems not to fall under academic standards and more in op-ed ones.
I've been entertaining myself in a bout of insomnia composing alternative headlines for the media on this mess.
NICE confirms exercise IS harmful for people with ME.
Researchers put careers before ME patient safety, says NICE.
Dotty professors' feeble defence of failed ME research.
Clinicians would rather harm ME patients than admit research failings.
Flat earther medics make fools of themselves.
NICE stands firm against failed researchers.
NICE confirms exercise IS harmful for people with ME.
Researchers put careers before ME patient safety, says NICE.
Dotty professors' feeble defence of failed ME research.
Clinicians would rather harm ME patients than admit research failings.
Flat earther medics make fools of themselves.
NICE stands firm against failed researchers.
Joan Crawford
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
100%
They will not stop. For some of 'them' it is a game. No matter about science, knowledge, decency, reliability, validity or any such thing. It is all about keeping the gravy train on track.
Just change the name they say. No one will notice. CFS or FND. The same to them. Only a few patients will notice and in their eyes they really don't matter.
Overall this is profoundly antisocial, devious and ultimately viciously nasty. Of no benefit to patients at all. An enormous distraction. The results for patients: disbelief, gaslighting, reduced social, practical and financial support. While a few profs and their protégés keep on going. Same old, same old. The MO doesn't shift.
Hoopoe
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
My favorite.
One of the authors have now shared a free access link to the article:
Andrew resigned as chair of FME and I think there is currently a temporary chair. One of the issues is what FME really is about. Is it a place where the charities talk and co-ordinate or is it intended to be a single voice and organization.
Tilly
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Does anyone know? I asked Sonya about the talk given by BACME. she advised me she did not attend and I questioned this as she was on the agenda to give a talk so what is going on? The mins have not been released from June so it is a right snake put of a muddle
When they say GRADE wasn't properly applied I wonder if they realize that they are basically saying GRADE isn't fit for purpose as it will take meaningless outcome measures and try to give them credibility.
InitialConditions
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Yes, I knew Andrew had left but had forgotten. I don't think FME was ever intended to be one organization; it was meant to bring all the charities together under one umbrella. Today would be a prime example of how FME could work; you would have FME issuing a statement in response to yesterday's commentary and associated media, which would be co-written by and/or supported by all the charities. I don't know what is going on behind the scenes now, but from my experience with FME via the CMRC PAG it was not fit for purpose, particularly as a modern, dynamic org.
InitialConditions
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Again, I don't want to take this too far off topic, but my post above is about responses to the White commentary and media.