We need to be careful to put this in perspective. Somehow they ignored, dismissed or were unaware of the growing number of world class scientists who are saying what we are saying. Its not patients, alone, or activists, alone, its a growing number of scientists with impeccable credentials. Reuters needs to cover that as well.
It does not help that they are following the standard misrepresentation and bias either. I for one do not care if ME is considered psychiatric or not, I want good science. The substance of the science is important, not the label. We are not getting good science. We are getting atrocious "science" that does not meet the minimal requirements of what I consider even substandard science. Its not really science at all.
This is not being fought on the scientific merits, if it was we would have already won. This is being fought through politics, zombie science, and public relations. To the extent that science is involved its about the scientific establishment, not the science, who are supporting this. The emphasis is on establishment, and most of these do not seem to be scientists but doctors and others who do not adhere to sound scientific practice. That includes some under the Cochrane banner.
We do need to try to keep in mind that we need to address the public relations as well as the science. I almost did not write this post because of this potential conundrum. However I think something needs to be said, and we need to provide our own narrative, one based on evidence, reason, and sound scientific practices.
didn't note the name or make the connection to Wessley though, gaargh!
