Trisha Greenhalgh on ME/CFS and Long Covid

dave30th said:
what is the role of "first opponent" on a dissertation committee? we don't have that person on dissertation committees here. Does that person pose questions and pass judgment on whether the candidates gets the doctorate? Or...?
Click to expand...
This is an interesting account of the opponent system in Sweden: https://scientistseessquirrel.wordp...ystem-my-experience-at-a-swedish-phd-defence/

Edit: It’s completely different to anything I’ve ever heard of with the “opponent” actually presenting the PhD candidate’s thesis.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
I think the Netherlands especially - a thesis is expected to be a collection of a few published papers so that process has already been completed.
Click to expand...

I think that is becoming quite common in a number of countries. I remember a couple of years ago I was working with someone doing a PhD in the UK who was given a choice of styles. I like the idea of someone writing up a longer thesis as part of the process is the realisation of how research could have been carried out better. Whereas too often the paper process is to write enough to get past reviewers.
 
Has anyone pushed back on TG's comments to the effect that "nobody gets long flu"? (!!!) I couldn't bear to try to follow it in real time. This shouldn't be the sort of thing someone in her position can claim and get away with? :( Sadly I saw people agreeing with her.
 
Anyone in a good, diplomatic mood to explain this in a way that can make sense in a few tweets? Or if there's an article summarizing this somewhere...

It appears to be the reason here but frankly it's hard to tell as Greenhalgh is deliberately vague, clearly considers people who disagree with her on substance to be "abusive" and explicitly lumps us with anti-science zealots so maybe this isn't even the reason but it's still important for long haulers to understand that Greenhalgh is a terrible ally to have who will ultimately hurt the cause.

 
rvallee said:
Anyone in a good, diplomatic mood to explain this in a way that can make sense in a few tweets? Or if there's an article summarizing this somewhere...

It appears to be the reason here but frankly it's hard to tell as Greenhalgh is deliberately vague, clearly considers people who disagree with her on substance to be "abusive" and explicitly lumps us with anti-science zealots so maybe this isn't even the reason but it's still important for long haulers to understand that Greenhalgh is a terrible ally to have who will ultimately hurt the cause.

Click to expand...


I was not that diplomatic in replying to related nonsense today from NA (in relation to her defence of TG); she does not seem prepared to listen or engage with anyone who is not being ingratiating, sadly. And for all of the disingenuous claims of TG and others that they have been trolled and "abused", the above tweet by NA seems more trollish than anything I have seen thrown in the other direction.

I hope someone can write something, however; I wish NA would stop engaging in this manner, and playing the victim. Every other tweet of hers is about alleged "bullying" of female scientists, which is how she is playing this whole thing. Distasteful. It's melodramatic, employs truly perverse logic based on distortions, and undercuts some of her more sensible comments about long covid.
 
rvallee said:
Anyone in a good, diplomatic mood to explain this in a way that can make sense in a few tweets? Or if there's an article summarizing this somewhere...

It appears to be the reason here but frankly it's hard to tell as Greenhalgh is deliberately vague, clearly considers people who disagree with her on substance to be "abusive" and explicitly lumps us with anti-science zealots so maybe this isn't even the reason but it's still important for long haulers to understand that Greenhalgh is a terrible ally to have who will ultimately hurt the cause.

Click to expand...

Bottom of the thread
 
Robert 1973 said:
Carefully designed to produce results which are in keeping with the previous studies and investigators’ clinical preconceptions?
Click to expand...

Word has literally come out, including from the recent NIHR report and the numerous programs who attempted this, that exercise rehabilitation has failed massively and most are moving on from that to pacing. Greenhalgh suggested this "RCT" (we all know it wouldn't be properly controlled so not a real RCT) straight from Garner's oddball article. There is no need for that now or at any point.

I hope long haulers who still follow Greenhalgh notice how selectively she responds, always avoiding any awkward questions, never responding to anything of substance, and only promoting the BPS mantras.

That people like Wessely and TG are "thought leaders" in medicine frankly explains everything. These people are politicians, they are terrible at their actual day job. With such mediocre leaders no system can function effectively.
 
Sly Saint said:
ME/CFS Research
@cfs_research
is a Michael Sharpe supporter
Click to expand...
He also supports Phil Parker, Henrik Vogt, everyone on the BPS/LP/'positive thinking cures illness' side of things. I'm blocked by him on Twitter for some unknown reason but can see his posts if I'm not logged in. (Not really worth seeing - always the same 'mind and body are all one' stuff delivered in an authoritative manner.) From what I've heard about him, he does not work as a CFS researcher and has no pertinent qualifications. But he believes he cured himself of CFS by similar methods to LP or the CBT/GET model of CFS, and apparently thinks of himself as a researcher of such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom