Anomalies in the review process and interpretation of the evidence in the NICE guideline for (CFS & ME), 2023, White et al

This might already have been responded to--I haven't read the whole thread. They are completely in bed with the PACE team and the rest--the leading FND experts, Jon Stone and Alan Carson, studied under Prof Sharpe in Edinburgh, as I understand it, and are now close colleagues. The FND people have a huge stake in this debate. This is why I have been trying to point out their constant misinterpretation of prevalence rates and other stunts they have tried to pull with their data. The fields are intimately connected.

 

I took the evening off and went to see an excellent production of The Crucible. The arguments supporting witchcraft in Salem, Massachusetts, in 1692 came across as more reasonable than the stupid notions advanced by this crew of sore losers terrified about having lost their long-standing control of the narrative.

 

clearly they thought these were not "errors" but "anomalies."

 

From Guardian article:

 

Is that the title of Jane Austen's last unpublished novel?

 

Pride and Prejudice.

 

Probably irrelevant, I assumed it would just be brushed aside, but with the admission that the commentary was written in full by White and the rest merely provided a few comments, isn't it a strict norm in academia that only people who worked on a paper, if it qualifies as that, should be named authors?

Otherwise it's just people endorsing the commentary but being named authors anyway. But it's just a rant written by one dude with a few signatories. And a few of them already basically published the same rant already in another journal. Seems not to fall under academic standards and more in op-ed ones.

 

100%

They will not stop. For some of 'them' it is a game. No matter about science, knowledge, decency, reliability, validity or any such thing. It is all about keeping the gravy train on track.

Just change the name they say. No one will notice. CFS or FND. The same to them. Only a few patients will notice and in their eyes they really don't matter.

Overall this is profoundly antisocial, devious and ultimately viciously nasty. Of no benefit to patients at all. An enormous distraction. The results for patients: disbelief, gaslighting, reduced social, practical and financial support. While a few profs and their protégés keep on going. Same old, same old. The MO doesn't shift.

 

My favorite.

 

Could someone DM me the full PDF too please? Thanks! (Edit: received thank you)

 

Does anyone know? I asked Sonya about the talk given by BACME. she advised me she did not attend and I questioned this as she was on the agenda to give a talk so what is going on? The mins have not been released from June so it is a right snake put of a muddle

 

Yes, I knew Andrew had left but had forgotten. I don't think FME was ever intended to be one organization; it was meant to bring all the charities together under one umbrella. Today would be a prime example of how FME could work; you would have FME issuing a statement in response to yesterday's commentary and associated media, which would be co-written by and/or supported by all the charities. I don't know what is going on behind the scenes now, but from my experience with FME via the CMRC PAG it was not fit for purpose, particularly as a modern, dynamic org.

 

Again, I don't want to take this too far off topic, but my post above is about responses to the White commentary and media.