Thanks for the transcript
@Lucibee. Much appreciated.
Here’s my alternative take on what MS might have said:
MK: “There have been criticisms though, haven’t there, about the methodology – the Journal of Health Psychology said that the results are at best reliable [sic] and at worst manipulated to produce a positive-looking outcome.”
What MS actually said: “The way that science works is, as you know, people do studies, those studies are peer reviewed, and then we see whether those studies are replicated. The studies of this treatment have been replicated maybe a dozen times in trials. These journals – journals like Health Psychology – are at liberty to publish campaigns against the treatment – because that’s effectively what it was – but it’s very important that science takes its course with peer review and replication, and we don’t have science bent by campaigning.”
What MS might have said: The way our science works is, as you know, people come up with woolly, politically expedient ideas and they design studies to try to show that those ideas are true. They key to biospsychosocial research is study design: if the data doesn’t support the theory, change the methodology until it does. So, if it looks like we might not be getting the desired results we adjust the outcome measures to ensure that the ship arrives at the right destination, so to speak. Then we get our mates to rubber stamp it under the guise of peer-review and fast track it for publication. If anyone criticises our methodology we just get our mates in the media to accuse them of harassment and abuse. Simples.
MK: “Do you have any sympathy for patient groups that say that they feel marginalised and dismissed? I mean, historically, people talked about ME, didn’t they, as ‘yuppie flu’?”
What MS might have said: F#*@ the patients!
