United Kingdom: Science Media Centre (including Fiona Fox)

Jonathan Edwards said:
But very good, @adambeyoncelowe. It should be hard to read that and not see what an idiot Fox has made of herself. No doubt some have the resources in mental acrobatics to not see but you have set the bar pretty high.
Click to expand...

Thank you. It's there now, for the record, so people can quote me if needed. If I can, I'll get it all written up somewhere more formally (I know some of it is in the videos I did with David and #MEAction, but it's helpful to have it all spelled out).

Sly Saint said:
excellent
Click to expand...

Thank you!
 
adambeyoncelowe said:
Here's my review of Fiona Fox's book. Please rate it as helpful if you think it provides extra context: https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/review/1783966173/R1XYSNLD2KQJ38?ref=pf_vv_at_pdctrvw_srp

I added a lot that Fox (and people like Garner) haven't mentioned about the NICE process. I also explain why the evidence was rated very low or low, and why we made the recs we did.

Be warned: it's long!
Click to expand...

That is a fantastic review, and account of the situation very succinct considering how much it covers. Accessible to all too, i shall be referring people to it. Thank you so much
 
adambeyoncelowe said:
Thank you. It's there now, for the record, so people can quote me if needed. If I can, I'll get it all written up somewhere more formally (I know some of it is in the videos I did with David and #MEAction, but it's helpful to have it all spelled out).



Thank you!
Click to expand...
Can I copy it all to the forum? It could be put into the NICE Guideline section of the forum here.
 
I signed into Amazon to up rate the existing reviews, and ended up adding my own:

The author unintentionally reveals her own role in denigrating an entire Patient Community in the chapter on ME/CFS and continues this abuse further by likening these patients and their advocates to the Nazis of the Holocaust.

I advise strongly against reading a book by a supposed promotor of impartial journalism and good science who does the opposite. We do not understand fully the aetiology of ME/CFS but there are identified physiological abnormalities in patient’s immune system and energy metabolism as well as abnormal patterns of gut floral and neurological symptoms. In contrast there are no consistent purely psychiatric/psychological symptoms, but the Science Media Centre under the author has consistently promoted flawed science advocating psychological/behavioural interventions, while almost invariably ignoring the extensive biomedical research in this field. The research and topics that the SMC has chosen to highlight in relation to ME/CFS misrepresents the literature as a whole and until recently the expert opinions they provided came from the same narrow group of the researchers whose work they promote and their close colleagues.
Click to expand...
 
Trish said:
I just spotted this on Amazon:


There is a newer edition of this item:

Beyond the Hype: The Inside Story of Science's Biggest Media Controversies
£9.99
This title will be released on February 9, 2023.
________________

I wonder whether she's axed the ME chapter, having seen the effect of the reviews on the star rating which is now down to 2 stars.
Click to expand...
More likely, this will be for the mass-market paperback. Usually, publishers do hardback or trade paperback (bigger format), then the mass market paperback at a cheaper price. Checking just now, it seems the first edition is indeed a hardback.

I think the reviews should carry over. But if not, we can always repost them.
 
adambeyoncelowe said:
Here's my review of Fiona Fox's book. Please rate it as helpful if you think it provides extra context: https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/review/1783966173/R1XYSNLD2KQJ38?ref=pf_vv_at_pdctrvw_srp

I added a lot that Fox (and people like Garner) haven't mentioned about the NICE process. I also explain why the evidence was rated very low or low, and why we made the recs we did.

Be warned: it's long!
Click to expand...
Thanks, Adam. I added a shorter review, focusing on Fox’s history and emphasising the contrast between her views and those of NICE, the CDC, APPG, Javid etc.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/custome...=cm_cr_getr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1783966173
 
Fiona Fox is on a book promotion circuit. She promoted her book at the Hay Book Festival on Sunday the 5th June https://www.hayfestival.com/p-19079-fiona-fox-talks-to-marcus-du-sautoy.aspx


There is no video of Fox's interview at Hay 2022 on the 'Hay Player' - which shows videos of dozens of the interviews/events at Hay this year
https://www.hayfestival.com/c-209-archive-hay-player.aspx?pagenum=1



And Fiona Fox will speak about her book at the Royal Institution tonight (7/6/2022) with Evan Davis as Chair (Evan Davis is the presenter of PM, the news and current affairs programme on Radio 4, until 2018 he was the main presenter of BBC2’s Newsnight)

https://www.rigb.org/whats-on/beyon...er&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=livestreams



'What's the damage to public understanding when scientists are silenced on the defining issues of our times? Journalist Fiona Fox (CEO of@SMC_London) gives us the inside story on some of science's biggest media controversies'
 
Last edited:
adambeyoncelowe said:
Here's my review of Fiona Fox's book. Please rate it as helpful if you think it provides extra context: https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/review/1783966173/R1XYSNLD2KQJ38?ref=pf_vv_at_pdctrvw_srp

I added a lot that Fox (and people like Garner) haven't mentioned about the NICE process. I also explain why the evidence was rated very low or low, and why we made the recs we did.

Be warned: it's long!
Click to expand...
Solid! Just pure sharpened steel.
Their main argument was that 'what clinicians offer isn't GET anyway, so you can't ban GET or it'll stop them offering their not-GET'. Which is as silly and ignorant as it sounds -- if they totally don't offer GET, it shouldn't matter if we banned GET; it would only matter if they do offer GET and they just want to be allowed to keep doing it exactly as they always have.
Click to expand...
And we are seeing exactly that happening with LC. Clinics are pushing GET and when questioned quickly insist it's not GET, even though they do GET because of trials that used GET, which would be like using a drug because of trials that used a different drug, makes zero sense. It's literally the modality of increasing activity that is critical to the claims, but it shows they don't even care because they insist they're not doing what they're doing but also they do it because there's good evidence for it.

At what point does this qualify as misconduct? Seriously, when does pushing a treatment on false pretenses become unethical? Seems like when they have to insist they're not doing what they're doing, consciousness of guilt, is really far into that point. I don't get it, the complete lack of accountability for something that is clearly dysfunctional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom