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

In response to a tweet that says
Are there differences between Chronic Fatigue Syndrome & #LongCovid ? They sound very similar Perhaps respective patient groups should come together to collectively advocate for these debilitating post-viral conditions to be taken seriously?
Click to expand...

Paul Garner replies
Michelle-absolutely! #LongCovid is a post viral fatigue syndrome. The symptoms are real and people need help to recover!
Click to expand...

Original tweet
Click to expand...


which I think highlights his lack of understanding. For starters, LC includes people who have organ damage, so how they can be said to have a fatigue syndrome I don't know.
 
With his history, I just read it as something psychosomatic doctors like to say

"Of course your symptoms are real."

At first as a naive patient you think you're being taken seriously but what it means is

"they are there but not of physical origin."
 
The BMJ’s editor in chief has now rejected my complaint about PG’s blog:
BMJ said:
Thank you for your response.

I understand that this blog has been found to be deeply offensive by some members of the ME/CFS community, which was not our intention. This is one patient's view of their own treatment journey. Although the author is also a medical professional, he is not writing in that capacity.

As I stated before, Opinion pieces are personal views not medical advice and clearly framed as such.

Your complaint has been escalated to the Editor in Chief and this remains our decision.

The Editor in Chief's decision is final, therefore you have exhausted our internal complaints process. Should you wish to take your complaint to COPE, then you can contact them here https://publicationethics.org/facilitation-and-integrity-subcommittee

Kind regards

Cat Chatfield
Research Integrity Editor, BMJ
Click to expand...

I’m not minded to escalate it to COPE as its website states: “The primary role of the Facilitation and Integrity Subcommittee is not to adjudicate complaints, but instead to facilitate the resolution of disputes in a manner that is consistent with COPE's mission.” I can’t see that getting me very far but I may reconsider.


Meanwhile, as predicted, the BBC is taking the maximum time to make a decision on my complaint about CG’s long covid interview. They sent me an automated email on 5 February apologising for not replying in 2 weeks as they do with most complaints. No word since. I will chase it up if I don’t hear soon. I guess they may be waiting to be told by the relevant important people on what grounds they should reject it.
 
Wonko said:
In view of who he is it will be read in that capacity tho - which is kinda the point, as the BMJ person knows.
Click to expand...
Yes. This was my reply to their initial rejection of my complaint, to which the above was their repsonse:

“Dear Cat,

Thank you for your reply. You may not be surprised to learn that I disagree with your decision. The blog clearly went far beyond one person’s reflections on their individual patient experience.

First, Paul Garner is not just any patient. As stated below his BMJ articles, he is a professor of infectious diseases at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Director of the Centre for Evidence Synthesis in Global Health and Co-ordinating Editor of the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group.

Second, he addresses his blog to his “fellow covid-19 long haulers” – in other words, he is giving advice to patients as a medical professional, in a medical journal.

Third, part of his implicit advice to people with long covid is not to listen to people who are unwell with ME/CFS. That is not only bad advice, it is also deeply offensive to people with ME/CFS.

Fourth, he is promoting treatment approaches for which there is no reliable evidence of efficacy and for which there is strong evidence of harm.

Fifth, he directly contradicts what he wrote in his previous blogs.

All the above raise serious questions not only about his judgment but also about the BMJ’s editorial standards.

Before I decide whether to refer this matter to COPE, please can you answer the following questions.

In general, does the BMJ consider it acceptable for people writing Opinion articles to:

1) Make assertions, including opinions which might reasonably be interpreted as medical advice, which directly contradict assertions they have made in previous Opinion articles in the same series?

2) Encourage patients to try treatment approaches for which there is no reliable evidence of efficacy and strong evidence of harm (as determined by the CDC and NICE)?

3) Insult or offend people on the basis of their illness or disability?

Please can you also let me know if your decision is considered definitive by the editor in chief? If not, please let me know the process for escalating my complaint.

Thank you,

Robert Saunders”
 
This was posted on another forum I'm on tonight:

Paul Garner has been talking about long covid again on bbc look north this evening at 10:30pm. Stating how being in a good mood and not dwelling on negative symptoms helps someone get better etc!! Why are news broadcasters even speaking to this bloke? He’s a joke! He’s never had LC or me/cfs in his life.
Click to expand...
 
Robert 1973 said:
I’m not minded to escalate it to COPE as its website states: “The primary role of the Facilitation and Integrity Subcommittee is not to adjudicate complaints, but instead to facilitate the resolution of disputes in a manner that is consistent with COPE's mission.” I can’t see that getting me very far but I may reconsider.
Click to expand...

My understanding, and how it worked with BMJ in the case of Professor Crawley's school absence study, was that COPE was a venue for its members to pose their dilemmas and seek input/responses--not as a place accepting complaints from outsiders.
 
Robert 1973 said:
The BMJ’s editor in chief has now rejected my complaint about PG’s blog:
Click to expand...

The BMJ has a history of attacking ME patients so this really isn't surprising.
Robert 1973 said:
In general, does the BMJ consider it acceptable for people writing Opinion articles to:

1) Make assertions, including opinions which might reasonably be interpreted as medical advice, which directly contradict assertions they have made in previous Opinion articles in the same series?

2) Encourage patients to try treatment approaches for which there is no reliable evidence of efficacy and strong evidence of harm (as determined by the CDC and NICE)?

3) Insult or offend people on the basis of their illness or disability?
Click to expand...

If they give an honest reply they would say they believe it is perfectly ok to offend people on the basis of them having ME and standards of evidence don't apply to them. But I suspect they will just think that and not say it out loud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom