-
New Forum Software Installed (Still a few issues but reopening the forum) More details.
Criticisms of DecodeME in the media - and responses to the criticisms
- Thread starter InitialConditions
- Start date
-
- Tags
- decodeme
Yes I remember that one well. The South West Paediatric Society and Crawley was to be the speaker. Didn't they apologize after a deluge of 'vexatious' complaints? . I noticed today that parents raising vexatious complaints to doctors is now an FII 'alerting sign' and that any one of the alerting signs triggers PP investigation. It's positively kafkaesque now.
Edit OMG - I've just another look at it.
Last edited:
Kitty
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Wonder if it might be worth a brief email, if you have the energy? Just to say that the naming convention has changed, and it's be great if they could amend their style guide?
Might not work, but it's possible they changed it because they genuinely don't realise. To be fair, there's probably no reason they should know.
rvallee
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
One reason they have to argue this is that all their awful questionnaires keep identifying symptoms and consequences that aren't particular to depression or anxiety. Because they ask generic overlapping questions. Which is their fault in the first place for misusing those, but now they have to deal with the fact that there is no meaningful anxiety or depression in ME/CFS, while their questionnaires keep saying so.
Because their questionnaires are flawed. And they shouldn't be using them as if they mean what they claim it does. Which is the foundation of their ideology.
And it's not limited to psychosomatic ideologues, those flawed questionnaires are standard. So they are facing the reality that their entire constructs are meaningless, because the instruments and data they use to justify them are all flawed. This goes so much beyond just us, it reveals the near complete sham that is psychosomatic ideology. Once you remove all the invalid misdiagnoses, it's possible that there remains a small mass of people who do suffer from something like it, but at most it's many orders of magnitude than what it's been claimed, especially given the wildly inflated expansionist assertions about how "biopsychosocial disorders", however they want to call them, represent up to 1/3 of all medical consults.
Because their questionnaires are flawed. And they shouldn't be using them as if they mean what they claim it does. Which is the foundation of their ideology.
And it's not limited to psychosomatic ideologues, those flawed questionnaires are standard. So they are facing the reality that their entire constructs are meaningless, because the instruments and data they use to justify them are all flawed. This goes so much beyond just us, it reveals the near complete sham that is psychosomatic ideology. Once you remove all the invalid misdiagnoses, it's possible that there remains a small mass of people who do suffer from something like it, but at most it's many orders of magnitude than what it's been claimed, especially given the wildly inflated expansionist assertions about how "biopsychosocial disorders", however they want to call them, represent up to 1/3 of all medical consults.
Yann04
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Nitter link.
Edit: Archive Link as well
Tree
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Glad you got back to your baseline. That must have been very tough.Hi @Tree , thanks, and you. Better, following a 6 month crash after working on my 1st complaint to the DHSC on publication of the consultation responses at the end of last year. No screen time at all. Returned to my baseline severe about a month ago, then the Final Delivery Plan dropped. So here I am for round 2
You are a beast, I am in awe of your vision and work. Hope the complaint will get a good response.
Do they let you know of the edits before they publish? If not, that seems very strange to me to change someone's words in a quote without indicating it and without their approval.
Jonathan Edwards
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
It happens whenever you work with journalists and it also happens when writing reviews and books for scientific journals who have 'house-style' subeditors. It is a nightmare.
Robert 1973
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
They always used to phone to discuss and agree edits but budgets are much tighter now – and turnaround times are shorter – so it almost never happens. It’s just something you have to accept if you submit a letter. I don’t mind them chopping bits out, as long as it doesn’t change the meaning, but it’s frustrating when they change words and/or meaning without consultation.
When I’ve had letters published in journals they have asked for approval of any edits but they have much more time than newspapers. The Lancet took nearly a year to publish one of my letters, whereas newspapers often publish letters online on the day they’re received.
Let's just say it wasn't a walk in the park.
I'm more like one of the Rasta octopus in Shark's Tale - 'dat's not de way ya play dat tune man!' (Big Marley Fan)
I've collected the relevant evidence supporting the complaint that I'm struggling to draft at the moment, due to cognitive issues. It will need checking over with legal eyes before it's ready to submit, as it is a different order of magnitude altogether. It's why I've already got a PHSO Case number.
Tree
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
No I can imagine.
No woman, no cry right.
I’m afraid I do not have knowledge of British law, otherwise I would love to do that. Do we have any other legal minds on this forum?
Robert 1973
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Thanks you to all the pedants who resisted the temptation to point out that neither “which” nor “but” are prepositions. In this context I think “but” is a conjunction and “which” is a relative pronoun. But I’m happy to be corrected.