Paul Garner on Long Covid and ME/CFS - BMJ articles and other media.

Esther12 said:
would people be equally condemning of the BMJ for publishing Garner if his new anecdote driven blog was about how he'd been harmed by doctors putting a positive spin on GET and now (for some reason) thinks he will never recover?
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't condemn the BMJ for publishing an opinion piece. That would only seem justifiable if they had refused to publish responses, and they haven't. Last night I saw that one response had been deleted, presumably because it was abusive or off-topic, but a number of strongly worded, highly critical responses, some written by fellow health professionals, have been published.

It's about the fact that someone who, despite being in a very good position to know better, nevertheless decided to submit the article. Lots of people have written personal, emotional, poorly-informed pieces online, especially at times of illness and stress. The difference is that they used social support forums, not their professional journals.
 
The responses that were posted and then deleted that I'm aware of were because of an error that made a key sentence say the opposite of what was intended, and a reply pointing that out.
Any posts that were unacceptable because of abuse or irrelevance wouldn't have made it through the moderation process, so we wouldn't be aware of them.
 
Kitty said:
It's about the fact that someone who, despite being in a very good position to know better, nevertheless decided to submit the article.
Click to expand...

I am not sure that decided to submit the article necessarily gives the right impression of events.
I strongly suspect that he was more or less invited to do so, maybe having mentioned his recovery to chums who are also chums with the editorial staff. That is usually how journal's work.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
I am not sure that decided to submit the article necessarily gives the right impression of events.
I strongly suspect that he was more or less invited to do so, maybe having mentioned his recovery to chums who are also chums with the editorial staff. That is usually how journal's work.
Click to expand...

Interesting, and is there usually some kind of checking of the content of opinion pieces or can people just say what they want (within reason) with little oversight?

And to people get paid to write editorials?
 
chrisb said:
Just a moment. He has learnt about the importance of gentle exercise. I thought he was engaging in military style exercises with his mates in Sefton Park. The message seems to be mixed.
Click to expand...

ME/CFS-patients who would exercise like he did but who would get worse would be blamed for boom and bust behaviour. (resp. all-or-nothing-behaviour because of an alleged perfectionist personality)

His exercise style sounds much more like Lightning Process and not so much like classic GET (first establishing a baseline than gradually increasing exercise)
 
Daisymay said:
Interesting, and is there usually some kind of checking of the content of opinion pieces or can people just say what they want (within reason) with little oversight?
Click to expand...

From the guidelines for writing BMJ opinion pieces.
https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj-opinion
BMJ Opinion provides comment and opinion written by The BMJ's international community of readers, authors, and editors.

We welcome submissions for consideration. Your article should be clear, compelling, and appeal to our international readership of doctors and other health professionals. The best pieces make a single topical point. They are well argued with new insights. The word limit is 800 words.

BMJ Opinion is read by doctors and healthcare professionals. We bear this in mind when considering whether to accept an article. It has to be about medicine, healthcare, publishing, or an issue that will interest doctors.
...
Click to expand...

And from the editor of BMJ Opinion when I tried submitting my 'beware snake oil sellers' article:

Thanks very much for submitting this to BMJ Opinion. I read your piece with interest, however I'm afraid that on this occasion we won't be taking your article forward for publication. We are publishing extensively on covid-19 and I am afraid that due to the high volume of submissions on this topic, we are not able to pursue them all for publication.

[... suggestion I submit as a rapid response to Greenhalgh's article, which I did...]

I hope this news won't be too disappointing or deter you from considering us in the future. Most BMJ opinion pieces are commissioned so competition among unsolicited submissions is very fierce.
Click to expand...

So the answer is that most BMJ opinon pieces are commissioned.
 
Gerada says: “I don’t know what the pathophysiology is but I certainly had problems with my muscles.”

There seems to be an inconsistency here. If she subscribes to the CBT/GET models, why does she appear to rule out the possibility that she was suffering from unhelpful illness beliefs? There is no evidence that she had any ongoing pathology and she can’t possibly have become significantly “deconditioned” in 7 days, so, if the BPS model is correct, it must have been her beliefs that were perpetuating her symptoms and preventing her from being able exercise at her normal level. I wonder if her BPS friends would interpret her claim that she’d rather have cut her legs off than experience the muscle pain as evidence of “catastrophizing”?

On the other hand, if she believes she had some ongoing unidentified pathology, as she appears to, why is she so certain that there are not similar unidentified pathologies which prevent other people from being able to do far less and/or increase their level of activity? It’s logically inconsistent, as with so much of their thinking.
 
Last edited:
A problem with getting through the point that PG is not discussing science and with regard to C Gerada's point that exercise is always good is Boris Johnson.

Having had covid he now also has a personal trainer and bikes to work. Reinforcement at the highest level. I'm sure they (BPS) feel they can say just about anything they like with impunity. Just about. It seems they can create zealots that can go too far in self contradiction even for them.
 
Daisymay said:
Interesting, and is there usually some kind of checking of the content of opinion pieces or can people just say what they want (within reason) with little oversight?

And to people get paid to write editorials?
Click to expand...

There will be careful checking but since the editor will have known what was likely to come the checking may not bhquite the sort of checking others might perform!

I don't think people get paid for this sort of thing. There are plenty of self-important people happy to provide opinions. As Trich points out there are even more non-self-important people in the wings.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
There will be careful checking but since the editor will have known what was likely to come the checking may not bhquite the sort of checking others might perform!

I don't think people get paid for this sort of thing. There are plenty of self-important people happy to provide opinions. As Trish points out there are even more non-self-important people in the wings.
Click to expand...

This is my experience when I've written opinion posts for some US journals when I know an editor. I check in with the editor if they're interested first and then the piece is edited in-house but not sent out for peer review. That is likely the case here. I wouldn't think money would enter into it at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom