Rethinking the treatment of CFS — a reanalysis and evaluation of findings from a recent major trial of GET and CBT (2018) Wilshire et al.

Trish said:
He really should listen to himself.
Click to expand...
But it does illustrate the problem rather well. He absolutely believes he is right which leads back to that wonderful quote from Richard Feynman: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." I do think they have fooled themselves. That is a difficult position to shift due to closed minds being hard to open or something.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
Well, when I first formed an opinion on PACE it was because Peter White couldn't be bothered to produce any facts. I formed the opinion that this was a man with no understanding of human nature who thought he could blather his way out of answering legitimate criticism.
Click to expand...

Your first impressions were correct! Likewise, Sharpe seems absolutely incapable of imagining that he could ever be wrong. That's the biggest danger of these BPS 'scientists'. They lack empathy and self-awareness.
 
Arnie Pye said:
ROC?
Click to expand...

Plot of sensitivity vs specificity for a given threshold for a given (quantitative) instrument. The greatest "area under the curve" gives you the optimal accuracy for that instrument for that data set - and then you try to replicate that result on other data sets to see whether that threshold (or set of thresholds for a set of instruments) is valid.
 
Thanks, @Stewart and @large donner. People have sent me some excerpts from the trial seeing committee meetings, and I'm pretty shocked at the level of general cluelessness and also the degree of bias that was evident at all stages, in choice of measures, etc.

There are other people who are better placed than me to address issues like COIs and misrepresentations to the public and such like. But I'm interested in what those documents tell us about how the researchers made important research decisions - like omitting actometer data because the results may not have been pleasing to them.
 
JemPD said:
...i notice nothing from the guardian which is a worry
Click to expand...

I might be able to enlighten you there. (Maybe it will interest @dave30th too)

Anthony Salz

Anthony Salz is an Executive Vice-Chairman of Rothschild. He joined Rothschild in 2006 after more than 30 years with the international law firm Freshfields, 10 as the Senior Partner.

He was Vice Chairman of the BBC from 2004 to 2006. He is a Trustee of the Royal Opera House, The Scott Trust (owner of the Guardian and the Observer), the Tate Foundation, SHINE: Support and Help IN Education, the Paul Hamlyn Foundation, the Conran Foundation and the Media Standards Trust. He is Chair of The Eden Trust (owner of the Eden Project in Cornwall) and is a member of the Advisory Panel for Swiss Re. He is a governor of the Wellington Academy, a maintained secondary school in Wiltshire.
Click to expand...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/michael-gove-appoints-4-new-board-members

The listing should say The Scott Trust Ltd, but it's bad form to point out to Guardian readers that the paper is owned by a private (profit seeking) company.

The Guardian is not owned by a trust at all. In 2008, “the trust was replaced with a limited company” that was accordingly re-named “The Scott Trust Limited.” Though not a trust at all, but simply a profit-making company, it is still referred to frequently as ‘The Scott Trust,’ promulgating the widely-held but mistaken belief in the Guardian’s inherently benign ownership structure.
Click to expand...



All very cosy sometimes the British Establishment. ;)
 
That's just how the Establishment works.

John Scarlett (Former Chief, British Secret Intelligence Service) is listed as one of the Swiss Re advisors: http://institute.swissre.com/about/advisors/

Says: "He is a Director of Times Newspaper Holdings"

We still got the Whipple article. I think that all these sorts of interconnections do play a role in making it more difficult to challenge authority in the UK, but I also get the impression that it tends to be soft corruption of people passing self-serving myths amongst themselves at dinner parties, rather than anything like being able to say 'this persons connections led to story being squashed'.

The Guardian's health editor clearly has her own views on patients' concerns anyway. This piece was from 2010: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/may/13/me-chronic-fatigue-syndrome

eg: "Listen to some – or read the internet – and you would think there is a massive organised conspiracy going on, led by the psychiatric community, but in conjunction with insurance companies and even government, to prove ME has no physical cause. (There are genuinely distressing stories about the failure of the Department for Work and Pensions to recognise that people with ME/CFS can be incapable of work, depriving them of sickness benefit.)"
 
Sometimes it really is a conspiracy, in some form or other (and they take many forms).

Really disappointed in The Guardian. Their handling of this issue flies in the face of the way they tend to approach most other issues. For example, the Australian version has an economics writer (Greg Jericho) who is just superb, especially in his use and presentation of hard stats.

But on ME, the dear old Graudian is just disgraceful. I'd prefer they simply didn't publish anything on it at all. It would be an improvement.
 
Sean said:
Really disappointed in The Guardian. Their handling of this issue flies in the face of the way they tend to approach most other issues.
Click to expand...

I am not so sure that it does. I tend to agree with @Esther12's analysis here. Although I read the Guardian I often despair at the naivety of their views on issues that need a complex analysis. Very often they make no mention of news stories that do not quite fit in with their black and white approach. They also completely fail to see that much of the time they are pushing an old fashioned capitalist line about ''the need for growth' and such like.

I had not seen the Boseley article before and it is enlightening about the state of affairs in 2010. Much of the article is sympathetic and reasonable. The bit that E12 quoted sticks out like a sore thumb because we know a bit more about the background than she does. I would bet that in the run up to the article she chatted to Ben G because she knew he knew Wessely, or maybe Wessely had already got chummy with the Guardian team. And if you have it from the horses mouth that this conspiracy theory is ridiculous why look further?

But this is the bit they have clearly got stuck on. It has been slotted into their touchy-feely nice to everyone agenda that the psychiatrists are at least trying to help these poor people and should not be attacked. Judge Simon said so. But things have change a bit with the Information Officer saying not so. And a nice peer reviewed paper saying that certain people have been peddling fairy tales.

Harm can often come from 'good intentions'.

I have made another note in my notebook.
 
Esther12 said:
We still got the Whipple article. I think that all these sorts of interconnections do play a role in making it more difficult to challenge authority in the UK, but I also get the impression that it tends to be soft corruption of people passing self-serving myths amongst themselves at dinner parties, rather than anything like being able to say 'this persons connections led to story being squashed'.
Click to expand...

I'm going from memory, but from a former journalist who described the process of self-censorship went something like this.
  • Stage 1. The journalist finds a story, and full of enthusiasm, writes it up and takes it to the editor. The editor quietly explains that the newspaper owner is unsure about publishing the story, and as it involves an old friend or acquaintance of his, and might cause some discomfort or embarrassment, or potential legal challenge, and would cost a lot of money to make the story watertight, the story is quietly left unpublished.
  • Stage 2. The journalist finds a story, and before writing it up takes the idea to the editor. Unfortunately due to lack of resources, time or other reasonable sounding excuses, (wouldn't like to upset the advertisers too much, they pay the wages of all these hard working colleagues) the story is not written.
  • Stage 3. The journalist finds a story, but doesn't take it to the editor, and the story is not written.
  • Stage 4. The journalist stops finding stories.
I've read similar accounts from many journalists. It's a process of soft censorship. You might only encounter stage 1 of the process once, or witness it from another. They soon notice a pattern and internalise it, even if they don't do it deliberately.

This is why groups lobby the editor if they are unhappy with certain coverage (or rumours of coverage). They might go on a charm offensive and flatter the editor to manipulate them, the overt threats are less rarely used.

A notable thing is that it is usually after retirement and reflection, some journalists become aware of process and mention it.

Notice the difference in coverage for ME issues produced by 'local' BBC outlets in contrast to the national organisation? The local organisations are further away and less likely to receive a quiet word from above until too late. The national editor is charmed, helped, rewarded by praise by the SMC.
 
Luther Blissett said:
I'm going from memory, but from a former journalist who described the process of self-censorship went something like this.
  • Stage 1. The journalist finds a story, and full of enthusiasm, writes it up and takes it to the editor. The editor quietly explains that the newspaper owner is unsure about publishing the story, and as it involves an old friend or acquaintance of his, and might cause some discomfort or embarrassment, or potential legal challenge, and would cost a lot of money to make the story watertight, the story is quietly left unpublished.
  • Stage 2. The journalist finds a story, and before writing it up takes the idea to the editor. Unfortunately due to lack of resources, time or other reasonable sounding excuses, (wouldn't like to upset the advertisers too much, they pay the wages of all these hard working colleagues) the story is not written.
  • Stage 3. The journalist finds a story, but doesn't take it to the editor, and the story is not written.
  • Stage 4. The journalist stops finding stories.
I've read similar accounts from many journalists. It's a process of soft censorship. You might only encounter stage 1 of the process once, or witness it from another. They soon notice a pattern and internalise it, even if they don't do it deliberately.

This is why groups lobby the editor if they are unhappy with certain coverage (or rumours of coverage). They might go on a charm offensive and flatter the editor to manipulate them, the overt threats are less rarely used.

A notable thing is that it is usually after retirement and reflection, some journalists become aware of process and mention it.

Notice the difference in coverage for ME issues produced by 'local' BBC outlets in contrast to the national organisation? The local organisations are further away and less likely to receive a quiet word from above until too late. The national editor is charmed, helped, rewarded by praise by the SMC.
Click to expand...

This is all true. Also, the UK is particularly strict on things like libel (it's the libel capital of the world), and that scares many journalists (who earn a pittance).
 
Interesting but not surprising stuff in the last few posts re the Guardian & the Estabilshment.

@Luther Blissett when i said i was worried not to have had anything from the Guradian yet, i meant that i'd be relieved if all they did was stay silent. Based on previous behaviour, I was nervous that they would print something (maybe in the wk end papers) based on the SMC's "fact"sheet, instead of the reanalysis paper. Relieved that they didnt, although perhaps shouldnt speak too soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom