Norway and prof. Gundersen: PACE-debate in newspaper Morgenbladet

Andy said:
So he's fine with attacking patients and dismissing their concerns but his feelings are hurt when one of his peers does the same to him....
Click to expand...

Indeed it seems to be fine for Dr Gundersen to insult people. Perhaps that is not 'ad hominem' because he insults people en masse, but it is clearly the same. Why on earth does Dr Gundersen think he has the right to be rude to patients? He accuses highly intelligent patient scientists who have constructed cogent critiques of being 'activists'. I pointed out that he seems to be something of an activist himself. In the UK this is known as a pot/kettle situation. If Dr Gundersen wants to debate then he might explain why he is defending a trial that fails on the most basic methodology - subjective outcomes without blinding? Or if plain English is easier then: if you tell people to say they are better they will say they are better (to avoid hassle). In clinical pharmacology this trial would be a non-starter. It is effectively alternative medicine, which Dr Gundersen is supposed to be a stalwart critic of.
 
strategist said:
I think it's time to coin the term alternative science. PACE is alternative science. A mess of self-confirmatory nonsense, done by people that don't know enough about real science to recognize their own incompetence.
Click to expand...

Trish said:
I prefer non-science, pronounced nonsense.
Click to expand...

MEMarge said:
Or fake science
Click to expand...

I think the best term is fraud

Jonathan Edwards said:
Perhaps Dr Gundersen should be invited to join the Science for ME forum - then we could have the debate in full, with everyone allowed to join in.
Click to expand...

Its been my experience that people who argue nonsense know on some level they can't stand scrutiny so they will avoid it and even vilify those who won't accept the alternative facts.
 
MEMarge said:
NOooooooo!!!!!!!
We have far more important things to work on!
Click to expand...

There is plenty of space on the forum for different threads. Surely we should welcome Dr Gundersen to the most constructively critical forum on science in the field? He may not wish to join but I cannot see why not. I have found it hugely informative and also a delightful place to meet people with interesting ideas. The debate here is at a much higher level than in academia itself. He should be only too pleased to take part.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
There is plenty of space on the forum for different threads. Surely we should welcome Dr Gundersen to the most constructively critical forum on science in the field? He may not wish to join but I cannot see why not. I have found it hugely informative and also a delightful place to meet people with interesting ideas. The debate here is at a much higher level than in academia itself. He should be only too pleased to take part.
Click to expand...
I agree entirely. We are Science for ME after all, and so long as a debate sticks to science then should be prepared to debate with anyone - that is science surely. Including the BPS crew if they felt up to it :).
 
If Dr Gunderson were to join I think discussion could be instructive. Perhaps it might not be as shortlived as I suspect. Perhaps he might come to see things differently, perhaps not. In any case it could be a good thing showing that we welcome debate and are prepared to argue our case, and have a good case, against those who disagree (quite strongly) and support PACE etc.

I suppose I'm questioning whether S4ME is meant to be a cosy echo chamber.

There are arguments against.

It's up to others if they are prepared to engage. It's not discussion I could participate in, though I'd be very interested to watch and learn.

Alvin said:
The fireworks would prove "interesting". I would take bets that it would end with him advertising S4ME as a place for quacks, liars and neurotics.
Click to expand...

I would hope there wouldn't be fireworks; at least not from any of us - we don't need them, the facts are on our side.

It should also be evident to anyone who looked that we are not quacks, liars and neurotics. Some people think that of the patient community already - nothing new.

edit - deleted waffle - it happens more as I become foggy.
 
Last edited:
Skycloud said:
I would hope there wouldn't be fireworks; at least not from any of us - we don't need them, the facts are on our side.
Click to expand...
Facts matter little, people make decisions based on intuition, experience, emotion and in this case power and the willingness of authority to harm victims.

Skycloud said:
It should also be evident to anyone who looked that we are not quacks, liars and neurotics. Though of course there are people who think that of the patient community already - nothing new.
Click to expand...
Same problem, someone once said the facts have a liberal bias, notice how the right is running circles around facts and reality. In the end the consequences always catch up to reality deniers and their strategy has been to use scapegoats and more elaborate lies and propaganda, which does work for a long time and at some point the cognitive dissonance will get too high for society to avoid. But by that point many lives are lost and a great deal of harm is done and a huge amount of time is wasted.
We won't win on facts, we will win with a repeatable disease mechanism and shaming the reality deniers into submission which uses facts but also by fighting on their level whether its with emotion, highlighting consequences or even the courts.
 
Alvin said:
We won't win on facts, we will win with a repeatable disease mechanism and shaming the reality deniers into submission which uses facts but also by fighting on their level whether its with emotion, highlighting consequences or even the courts.
Click to expand...

You seem to be talking much more widely than me than me - I was just talking about a BPS chap joining the forum.
I agree with you on the wider front.
 
Skycloud said:
You seem to be talking much more widely than me than me - I was just talking about a BPS chap joining the forum.
I agree with you on the wider front.
Click to expand...
I do always look at the big picture but i also know giving a reality denier ammunition is a bad idea. I'm not saying keep the forum a secret but inviting someone who looks for reasons to smear us is like playing with fire.
 
It is my opinion that Gundersen would never ever be interested. He thinks of us as lower species, and we should have enough self respect to not invite people who thinks himself so much superior.
Answer is coming up.
 
Alvin said:
I'm not saying keep the forum a secret but inviting someone who looks for reasons to smear us is like playing with fire.
Click to expand...
No, I don't agree. Reasoned debate is a good thing, and if those who have negative perceptions of patients were to actually engage, they might realise how inaccurate their ideas are.

QMUL attempted to use a thread on the other forum to bolster their arguments against releasing the various PACE trial minutes, and the Information Commissioner was having none of it, saying,
The Commissioner considers that although
anyone unaccustomed to facing a disgruntled audience is likely to find some of the comments unpleasant, the dissatisfaction is not expressed in such strong terms that it would cause those against who it is directed at any real concern.
Click to expand...
That's the second time (at least) that an official body has ruled that the BPSers are, shall we say, a tad hysterical over-sensitive to criticism. Any reasonable person is likely to agree, and if those who support the psychosocial view of ME would come and debate then, while we might not convince them, it would be revealing for others.
 
Indigophoton said:
if those who have negative perceptions of patients were to actually engage, they might realise how inaccurate their ideas are.
Click to expand...
I LOLed :emoji_face_palm:

Indigophoton said:
That's the second time (at least) that an official body has ruled that the BPSers are, shall we say, a tad hysterical over-sensitive to criticism. Any reasonable person is likely to agree, and if those who support the psychosocial view of ME would come and debate then, while we might not convince them, it would be revealing for others.
Click to expand...
That is a good point, having written evidence that they are trying to peddle lies can be a very useful thing.
 
Maybe I am naive, but I still do believe that most academics (that are not personally invested in a certain theory) will always be open to look at the data and at what science and research is actually telling us. So I'd welcome prof. Gundersen to have a look at the data together with us and sort this out. I'd also really like to encourage him to visit an ME-conference and meet with researchers and patients personally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom