Norwegian journal for journalists covers the ME debate

[Solstice]

This is pretty topical right now for people who are on twitter. There's been a lot of controversy over a famous vaccine researcher, Peter Hotez, who is countering disinformation online and ended up prominently targeted by the likes of Joe Rogan, Elon Musk and Robert Kennedy over very explicitly antivaccine BS.

And the "debate me" crowd did exactly that: challenge Hotez to go on Rogan's radio show and debate Robert Kennedy over a bunch of conspiracy theories. And he refuses to do that, because 1) debate is for entertainment and 2) it legitimizes the quacks.

And this is my attitude on the issue of "debating" chronic illness and ME: reality is not up for debate. Debate serves no actual purpose in determining what's true, it is all about removing the advantage of expertise and facts and level it to a bunch of snappy comebacks and soundbites. There have been endless debates about the nature of peptic ulcers. None of it mattered, the only relevant factor to finding out what's true is courageous scientific research.

No, we don't want debates. Obviously. We want respect, expert medical care and research. They want debates. People who don't have facts on their side want debates, certainly above doing actual competent scientific research. Basically they want entertainment and to silence their critics. We want expertise and science. This is not a matter for debate.

Just reminds me of basically any election-cycle anywhere. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, it matters if you can bullshit enough people into backing you. The "debate" around ME has basically been politics, the round table, the back channel bartering with NICE, ZonMw etc. While actual researchers quietly go about their business and post results whether they be positive or negative.

 

[rvallee]

the round table

I had kind of forgotten about it, but no clearer example of how utterly useless debate is with people whose only aim is to continue debating with nothing ever being resolved.

They had a formal debate and people were confused as to what the issues even are, because the underlying arguments can't be voiced as is. They really only want freewheeling debate that can go on indefinitely and where nothing is formal. A TV debate with an audience that can clap and laugh, not an academic one where substance matters.

 

[Solstice]

I had kind of forgotten about it, but no clearer example of how utterly useless debate is with people whose only aim is to continue debating with nothing ever being resolved.

They had a formal debate and people were confused as to what the issues even are, because the underlying arguments can't be voiced as is. They really only want freewheeling debate that can go on indefinitely and where nothing is formal. A TV debate with an audience that can clap and laugh, not an academic one where substance matters.

It is what they are trained in offcourse.