Trial By Error: Some Thoughts About an Upcoming Article

ScottTriGuy said:
Great idea.

It can have 2 sections:

BPS attacks on ME patients (vexatious, embedded medical error and abuse, Keith G, etc)

BPS attacks on defenders of ME patients (Dave, Countess, MP Carol, etc)


Maybe a 3rd section:

History of BPS attacks on different patient groups
Click to expand...

I'm not sure whether this is a good way for us to go.

I would rather the focus in any approaches to the media we make was on the positives of David's, Keith G's and others' work in exposing and challenging bad science. If we try get into a tit for tat over who is attacking who the most it could get very messy. If individuals who have been attacked by the media or by the BPS researchers ask us for our support in publicising these attacks, fair enough, but I would be led by what they want to do, not start launching campaigns of our own.

We don't even know yet whether an article will be published, and whether the journalist has done a proper job of researching the full story.
 
Trish said:
I'm not sure whether this is a good way for us to go.

I would rather the focus in any approaches to the media we make was on the positives of David's, Keith G's and others' work in exposing and challenging bad science. If we try get into a tit for tat over who is attacking who the most it could get very messy. If individuals who have been attacked by the media or by the BPS researchers ask us for our support in publicising these attacks, fair enough, but I would be led by what they want to do, not start launching campaigns of our own.

We don't even know yet whether an article will be published, and whether the journalist has done a proper job of researching the full story.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
If we try get into a tit for tat over who is attacking who the most it could get very messy.
Click to expand...

It would achieve what the BPS people want: that the press talks about anything other than BPS science being a fraud. I'm sure they don't mind articles about academics trading insults and accusations.
 
Trish said:
I'm not sure whether this is a good way for us to go.

I would rather the focus in any approaches to the media we make was on the positives of David's, Keith G's and others' work in exposing and challenging bad science. If we try get into a tit for tat over who is attacking who the most it could get very messy. If individuals who have been attacked by the media or by the BPS researchers ask us for our support in publicising these attacks, fair enough, but I would be led by what they want to do, not start launching campaigns of our own.

We don't even know yet whether an article will be published, and whether the journalist has done a proper job of researching the full story.
Click to expand...


I'm only suggesting collecting the examples in one spot for potential reference. I am not saying they should be used offensively.
 
Hutan said:
“He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.” – Sun Tzu from The Art of War
:)

Edit - sorry, I thought there had been a reference to Sun Tzu on this thread. Must have been on another one. Or something. Clearly I'm not up making a post, let alone fighting.
Click to expand...
There was, i had mentioned it.
And that quote is completely correct, i could name several examples from recent news but it would bring politics into the thread so i will refrain.
I completely agree that any response to alternative fact articles should be very carefully measured and we should be ready to put malfeasance in the spotlight when necessary.
 
Trish said:
Dr Keith Geraghty who researches and publishes on ME in peer reviewed journals including articles pointing out the flaws in the PACE trial has made public the complaints made to his University about his work by the PACE researchers here.
Click to expand...

Wow, I never read that before. It is just shocking. What was the outcome of the complaints to his university?

As for Holgate, it just about says it all!
 
Trish said:
I would rather the focus in any approaches to the media we make was on the positives of David's, Keith G's and others' work in exposing and challenging bad science.
Click to expand...
I think it also might be worthwhile to highlight that most PACE critics welcome relevant and sound science by psychologists or biomedical researchers alike. At the same time, it is widely accepted among PACE critics that bad biomedical research deserves equally rigorous criticism as bad psychological science.

Also, most PACE critics realize and accept failed replication even if it disproves highly promising biomedical research, be it on the illness' causes or treatment.
 
large donner said:
Wow, I never read that before. It is just shocking. What was the outcome of the complaints to his university?

As for Holgate, it just about says it all!
Click to expand...
Oh this makes me sad reading that, and Keith's experience there. This was 2016. I'm in the patient advisory group for the CMRC (since December 2016), and we are (now!) much valued by Prof Stephen Holgate. I am also a big fan of Keith's work.

Anyone listening to the latest Gary Burgess podcast will have heard Dr Charles Shepherd mention the CRMC at least twice. Charles is at all the meetings & it's a real collection of members from all over the country, from scientists, to charities, to expert patients. https://www.meassociation.org.uk/themeshow/

I'll message Keith & see if we can get this turned around. I'm fully behind the CMRC's efforts to get massive funding for a biomedical research platform, and we should all be pulling together now, not fighting. None of us want anything more to do with the BPS approach. And no one I know in the CMRC would ever describe PACE as a "Great, great trial" ....

Obviously..... as if it needed saying... the change of vice chair in the CMRC in the past year has been ..... most...... helpful ..... ;)
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
I do not remember that Stephen Holgate had anything to do with Keith's harassment - which I understand fortunately got no traction.
Click to expand...


Keiths own words which I was referring to in my previous post relating to the conduct of Holgate...........

https://forums.phoenixrising.me/index.php?threads/petition-opposing-mega.47466/page-44#post-786584

my dealings with the CMRC

I just want to recount to you all what joining CMRC meant. I contacted Prof. Holgate to join the CMRC - in good faith thinking it was a new beginning in ME/CFS research, with myself being a junior UK-based ME/CFS researcher. My first emails to Prof. Holgate were ignored. I actually sent three emails over months that were all ignored. I then had to contact the University of Southampton Press office to get Prof. Holgate's direct line. I eventually got to send his secretary an email and she forwarded to him and he eventually got in touch with me. I intially asked could I have a chat on the phone - he said no, he asked me to travel to see him, now thats roughly an 8 hour car journey and meeting time just to have a talk, I could easily do in 25-30 mins by phone.

I was sent forms to complete to join the CMRC. Months went past and I heard nothing back. I phoned his secretary to ask whats happening to my application - she told me that my application had gone to Esther Crawley in Bristol for screening -- I was like "what". It then turned out that my application for membership had to be approved by the CMRC at their next meeting - this happened, and I was informed I needed to supply factual evidence of CFS/ME publciations in the last year - at the time I was only beginning to publish in this field.

To cut a long story short I think it took over 1/.5 years to join the CMRC. Since I have joined I've not once been asked to attend a single meeting. Recently, Prof. Holgate organised a meeting of researchers he and Crawley picked to come to Bristol to discuss MEGA - they obviously didnt invite me -- after all who am I, only one of the few active ME/CFS researchers in the UK and unlike the very respected George Davy Smith who has told the CMRC conference two years in a row that he knows nothing much about ME/CFS - I would argue, I do.

Now lets move on to the even better story. In late 2014 I officially applied for access to the PACE trial data set from the PACE team. At first I was ignored (see a trend here) - I then contacted Prof. Holgate to ask him if he could ask fellow CMRC board member, Prof. White, if I could have access *given this was meant to be a collaborative, Any ways - my request was denied, with absolutely no reason given *such is the social etiquette of these so-called famous scientists. I went back to Holgate who advised me to make a complaint to the MRC. I considered this but later decided not to . however ........

within weeks, a complaint was made to my home institution, the University of Manchester - from Prof. Peter White, stating I was acting in a highly unprofessional manner. (he had not contacted me)
wait for the best bit --- when I asked the nature of the complaint I was supplied with screenshots of my posts on Phoenix Rising (as an individual) and copies of emails. I looked at these emails and realised that they were not emails I had to sent to Prof. White or anyone one else - they were emails I had previously written to Prof. Holgate telling him how upset and proplexed I felt about the PACE trial and the way patients have been treated (including copying in some statements from patients about their anger)
.....so essentially, Prof. Holgate had shared my personal emails with White and I assume the whole PACE club.
.....yes, Prof. Holgate shared my emails complaining about the PACE trial, with the PACE trial author/authors

other PACE club members have recently made a similar complaint to my University about a recent PACE-gate editorial I wrote in the Journal of Health Psychology.

What faith could I have in Prof. Holgate or Esther Crawley, given my personal experience of the CMRC? Imagine any other researcher had to endure what I had to? - yet Prof. Holgate recently went to support Esther Crawley give a talk to journalists at the Science Media Centre in London to promote FITNET. Its not a collaborative in my experience - thats a misnomer, it appears to be a PR and body to seek funding (primarily for Esther Crawley it would appear from the outside), via MEGA, which she will control and lead from Bristol.

Given the outrageous statements Crawley made last week of radio BBC Bristol, that PACE was a "great great trial" and that critics were a "tiny minority" and that rates of CFS among kids is 2% and that CBT-GET (FITNET) can bring about a 63-67% recovery rate - I have no faith in her as an informed and knowledgeable ME/CFS researcher.

thats my story and perception of the CMRC
 
Last edited:
This is a shame. I think that UK medical profession has quite paternalistic approach stilland we the children supposed to be seen not heard. It’s a worry that this could be spun in a way which will elicit sympathy for them, the scientists, hostility to us the vexatious patients and I hope it doesn’t impact David Tuller adversely.
 
Cinders66 said:
This is a shame. I think that UK medical profession has quite paternalistic approach stilland we the children supposed to be seen not heard. It’s a worry that this could be spun in a way which will elicit sympathy for them, the scientists, hostility to us the vexatious patients and I hope it doesn’t impact David Tuller adversely.
Click to expand...
That is the point, they are the experts we should defer to and they can never make mistakes
If they do they will be protected because if their mistakes become known...
 
Last edited:
I'm hoping for the best for what, if any, article comes of this - but I'm brushing up on my Latin just in case.
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I was contacted by a journalist in early September last year, following a tweet I posted in March, where I expressed the view that "I am really looking forward to Michael Sharpe's professional demise and his much-deserved public humiliation."


The journalist said that the article was going to be about the fierce battle between CFS/M.E. patients and researchers and would probably not come out until the end of the year.
In light of my tweet, the journalist asked me what my views were about people who made death threats against researchers !!! They also wanted to know whether I thought that Sharpe was a bad person (or something like that) and whether I would like to meet him - to which I responded with words to the effect of "Why would I want to do that?"
I subsequently made notes about the near hour-long telephone conversation and have kept a record.
 
Last edited:
Sorry I am so clueless as I don't reside in U. K. What is Holgate's roll now and who is the present chair of the MRC... I gather the current chair is focused on biomedical research.. Is that correct?
 
Paul Watton said:
The journalist said that the article was going to be about the fierce battle between CFS/M.E. patients and researchers and would probably not come out until the end of the year.
Click to expand...

I trust you enlightened him to the nature of the “fierce battle” - ie not patients vs researchers, but rather one group of researchers vs another group of researchers, scientists and informed patients! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom