1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for CFS here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 18th March 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Occupational Status: A Retrospective Longitudinal Study, 2021, Chalder et al

Discussion in 'Psychosomatic research - ME/CFS and Long Covid' started by Sly Saint, Nov 14, 2021.

  1. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    9,574
    Location:
    UK
  2. MSEsperanza

    MSEsperanza Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,855
    Location:
    betwixt and between
    Thank you @Brian Hughes and @dave30th

    And a first comment on the reply to the reply:

    Brian Hughes, The Science Bit:

    https://thesciencebit.net/2022/05/24/authors-defend-statistical-errors-editor-sees-no-evil/
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2022
    cfsandmore, Kalliope, MEMarge and 3 others like this.
  3. Cheshire

    Cheshire Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,675
    Trial By Error: An Innumerate Response from Chalder to Hughes-Tuller Comments on Bogus Data Analysis
    By @dave30th

    https://www.virology.ws/2022/05/26/...ughes-tuller-comments-on-bogus-data-analysis/
     
  4. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,299
    Location:
    Canada
    Bothsideism, presenting conflicting accounts and material facts of a story without even attempting to determine which claims are true, is a plague in journalism and it's sad to see that the problem has reached medical publishing.

    Now there's starting to be a serious problem with the hierarchy of truths. One of the reasons why medical expertise can be used in a court setting is because science has a higher burden of truth than a judicial trial. Not all truths can be established in a court of law, so judgments are made based on the available evidence and reasonable doubt.

    A testimony from a medical expert has significant weight in a court setting because the scientific process is supposed to be far more stringent than basically any other process in society. However it's now clear that it isn't.

    We can take for example the many medical experts, including some of our BPS overlords, who have financially benefitted from doing just that: giving their expert advice over the concept of "functional somatic" something or another, based on the idea that as experts, they have credibility and would not make baseless claims, their testimony can be discarded but it is considered reliable. Those testimonies were used to deny private insurance coverage and disability benefits but also to remove them later on, through re-assessments.

    Those testimonies are clearly not reliable, not based on evidence and not even based on legitimate expertise. Except they are on the exact same level as any other medical testimony, rely on the same overall processes of certification and scientific research. All because science is supposed to operate on a level where although it does not guarantee perfection, it at least guarantees the absence of false claims, a premise that is clearly false because of psychosomatic ideology, and many other examples in history.

    How can medical evidence truly be considered reliable in itself in a court setting when we see that the process is clearly no better than basic journalism in some places? And of all places, exactly on the main issues where the testimony of a single medical expert can be used as evidence in itself? As we saw basically with the allegations of threats and how a UK tribunal scolded the PACE researchers for making wild accusations, they operate at a lower level of reliability than a tribunal.

    Forensic science has had a lot of hits and misses, procedures that were used in court that were later found to be largely unreliable. This has lead to changes, to downgrading some forensic evidence. Most of the stuff on shows like CSI is junk. But here we see the very same issues with medical expertise, that it is, in fact, not reliable, especially so on the issues where medical evidence has more weight.

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who watches the watchers? Other watchers, of course.
     
    bobbler, Cheshire, Sean and 2 others like this.

Share This Page