S4ME letter to NICE and Replies, re: "three members of the ME/CFS Guideline Committee have a conflict of interest"

[Adrian]

Perhaps less trigonometry and more analytics in mathematics education would help.

I think concepts of proof are not taught at school level maths any more. I remember being talked the notion of proof in geometry but also learning things like inductive proof mechanisms. But I think the issues are wider than that and probably never taught as they are ones around questioning the evidence and distinguishing between facts and inference on them. Perhaps I've just spent too long in environments where people question and analyse everything to be disappointed when that doesn't happen elsewhere.

 

[Diluted-biscuit]

I think concepts of proof are not taught at school level maths any more. I remember being talked the notion of proof in geometry but also learning things like inductive proof mechanisms. But I think the issues are wider than that and probably never taught as they are ones around questioning the evidence and distinguishing between facts and inference on them. Perhaps I've just spent too long in environments where people question and analyse everything to be disappointed when that doesn't happen elsewhere.

I think just more general critical thinking and research skills are desperately needed in schools. It’s infuriating to watch people just accept things.

 

[Wonko]

It was a long time ago but I'm fairly sure that mathematical proofs were part of the O level syllabus, and followed up at A level.

I do remember, several years later (15 or so) being slightly stunned at how low the level of maths was at degree level, and how much emphasis was put on maths packages to solve problems.

I also remember experimental method, notes, reports etc being core to the practical sciences, even at O level. I don't remember it being primarily recipes, it was more about teaching people how to do experiments, draw conclusions, and be able to justify them, not about any particular end product.

Things, from the sounds of it, may have changed, but assuming everyone of my age or older didn't get a basic grounding in how to think, how to solve problems, might not be factually accurate.

 

[Trish]

It was a long time ago but I'm fairly sure that mathematical proofs were part of the O level syllabus, and followed up at A level.

I think it changed significantly in the switch from O level to GCSE.

 

[Esther12]

"the majority of members have not publicly expressed a view or published articles on the condition"

Great - some are makng money from providing CBT/GET without having ever publicly expressed a view on the problems with the research underlying claims about the efficacy of CBT and GET. Are those at NICE foolish enough to think that this is reassuring, or do they just think that we're idiots?

Pretty much everything we've seen from NICE makes the system look broken and stacked to serve the interests of the medical Establishment rather than patients.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

"the majority of members have not publicly expressed a view or published articles on the condition"

I am fairly sure that this is not true. I also think it is probably an inappropriate measure, since expressing a public view is not evidence of conflict of interest.

 

[Snowdrop]

It was a long time ago but I'm fairly sure that mathematical proofs were part of the O level syllabus, and followed up at A level.

I do remember, several years later (15 or so) being slightly stunned at how low the level of maths was at degree level, and how much emphasis was put on maths packages to solve problems.

I also remember experimental method, notes, reports etc being core to the practical sciences, even at O level. I don't remember it being primarily recipes, it was more about teaching people how to do experiments, draw conclusions, and be able to justify them, not about any particular end product.

Things, from the sounds of it, may have changed, but assuming everyone of my age or older didn't get a basic grounding in how to think, how to solve problems, might not be factually accurate.

I think then the problems might be more nuanced than this. (Here I'm stretching my capacity to think) but it may be something along the lines of how to think about the use of statistics. From reading here this seems not as clear cut as I would have imagined.

Also, with this sort of research that we are critiquing there is no real science taking place. I think this needs to be unlearned that this is science. Questionnaires might (if they are done to a high standard) indicate a direction for research? Bias seems to not be a concept (and critical thinking is needed for that and good Q's)

I think there is room for improvement for many countries to better excel at science in the social science arena. I'm sure there are other issues.

Also, on the flip side I'd say schools could use a study subject on discerning propaganda. This will also help critical thinking and parsing what is being stated as all data is interpreted as to meaning.

I don't have an opinion on the hard science stuff.

PS just noticed as usual I'm responding to something going off topic.

 

[ME/CFS Skeptic]

Disappointing response from NICE. A bit strange too, because it's all beside the point that our letter made. Our letter wasn't about the partiality of the GDG members and appointments but about how NICE would apply conflicts of interest.

We basically asked: "Three members of the GDG conducted GET/CBT trials, delivered these treatments or sold books about it. The NICE rules seem to say that such a conflict of interest should be resolved with a partial exclusion. Is that how you are going to resolve this issue?"

I don't see anything that looks like a response to this question. They basically say: "Yeah, yeah.. we're doing our best - leave us be."