AI-translation and I’ve added some line breaks for my own comments. The first part is not included because it pertained to something else.
So to my appearance in the ME debate on Dagsnytt 18. I am the first to admit that I made a rather pitiful figure here. But it was not so much about what I said. It was about me being cowardly and unclear.
Apparently, the accused gets to decide what was problematic and not.
Grasmo writes: “Eia presented unscientific myths and prejudices about ME as facts, for example that the disease is only in the patients’ heads.” I should have said instead that ME is a disease that cannot be understood only biologically or biomedically.
If you should have said something else, it was about what you said. And we don’t know that it cannot be understood only biomedically.
I should have added that a reductionist biomedical understanding of ME can be directly harmful in that it deprives patients and relatives of hope for recovery and weakens trust in the healthcare system.
As opposed to the reductionist psychosomatic understanding?
This was very recently discussed
here.
The understanding of ME and other long-term fatigue states as biopsychosocial conditions is not "unscientific myths and prejudices", as Grasmo claims, but is consistent with the national expertise service for CFS/ME, and with the Oslo Chronic Fatigue Network, which consists of approximately 100 researchers and clinicians (about half from Norway).
The national expertice service (NKT) is staffed by Wyller’s former students and they are acitvely working to eradicate the ME/CFS diagnosis. We all know OCFN.
This argument also shows a strange logical flaw in his reasoning, as he seems to think that something becomes scientifically valid if a scientist agrees with it. That’s obviously not true, it only become valid based on its own merit. This kind of thinking should exclude him as a candidate, regardless of his opinions.
This research community affiliated with UiO is the only one in Norway that is actively investigating treatment options for this patient group, which currently lacks effective solutions. They represent the only real and scientifically based hope for those who suffer.
This is a blatant lie, we’ve got e.g. Fluge, Mella and Tronstad, in addition to the ME Association (FUNCAP and their research fund)
As it is controversial to talk about this research out loud, due to strong reactions from activists (a report from the Science Media Centre mentions CFS/ME explicitly), it is important that the leadership at UiO supports the researchers working on this disorder.
Lies, lies and more lies.
I think my advantage is that I can tolerate being afraid (even though it didn't seem that way on Dagsnytt 18), and that I want and am able to convey research-based knowledge to a large audience.
I think it’s reasonable to assume that he implies that he’s afraid due to activists.
This should of course be done in a way that does not stigmatize those I speak about. I certainly have a lot to learn here. And it is precisely criticism, like from Tyra Grasmo, that allows me to improve.
If you twist the criticism to fit your own worldview, you’re not going to learn anything. In fact, all you’ve done is to double down on your lies.
