Michael Sharpe on Radio 4 Today / Tom Feilden BBC (18th march 2019)

I would imagine all good scientists adopt this approach in some form or other. If you don't look for the flaws in your own theories, how the hell are you going to find them, or accept flaws when other spot them? It actually says an awful lot about scientists who do not do that.

 

Kelland referred repeatedly in our exchanges to my "campaign." I told her it wasn't a "campaign" but an investigative journalism and public health project.

 

Not sure what is wrong with a campaign that seeks only to expose the truth anyway.

 

It goes against the established order.
When fat was discovered not to be a villain in human health an entire industry turned against science because it had been built to profit off of the low fat mantra.

 

And vilifying fat happened by turning against science. It was shoddy sugar industry-funded research that promoted it. Next thing you know sugar was added to everything. Since then I have not heard of any interest in pushing for consequences on those who faked and promoted the research.

Bad science has consequences, rarely on those pushing it, however. Did any of the researchers publishing fake research for the tobacco industry get in trouble? Millions died because of this fake research and hardly any consequences. This all basically guarantees that bad science has an unfair advantage, as we painfully know. Enormous gains, hardly any punishment, if at all.

The case is pretty strong that the main motivator being the psychosocial model of ME was the insurance industry and DWP salivating at billions saved. And they sure did. It's good return on investment to sacrifice lives by fabricating a controversy. And we're punished again for pleading for sanity and ending this brutal nonsense.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1107644784745824257


talk about making it up as you go along.......

have you read the paper? have you listened to the interview? have you seen my CV..............

 

Used it before but here it comes again

 

There was a revealing article in today's copy of Private Eye for all you football lovers. It's alright. Don't give up yet. You're quite safe.

It concerned bribery allegations involving the 2022 World Cup finals and FIFA.

"....It detailed the work of PR lobbyists for the UAE, Qatar's sworn enemy, in planting material on the British media. The two outlets it cited as being the most susceptible were the BBC and....the Sunday Times."

I have already forgotten why that might be of interest.

 

This is from the long list of tweets to the BBC.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1107674784287076354

 

Can someone please add this to MEPedia

 

clicking through to that thread of eskabaduGotME's makes quite good reading although i didnt manage any further down than this vid from Mark Vink which is amusing

https://twitter.com/user/status/1107803635285745664

 

I watched the video but I didn't get what it was supposed to be portraying. Explanations in words of one syllable, please.

 

The spoon didn't go back in the soup.

 

Thanks.

 

Just following up the initial tweet to include some interesting responses. I seem to have gone tweeting mad today!

 

Notable that the substance of their response was not peer-reviewed, with the reviewer roughly saying "this is part of the discussion so I will allow it but I won't comment on the substance". And refusing the premise of criticism is not responding to criticism. Circular illogic, as always.

 

Never seem to twig that merely 'responding' does not cut it ... it's the substance of any response that matters.