David Tuller - Trial By Error: A Post About Andrew Lloyd

Ok, can we calm down here? On a positive note, I'm now on a flight from Melbourne to Adelaide--who knew Qantas has free wifi? What a cool surprise! Anyway, I'm used to criticism so it's not a big deal for me, and I've been called much worse than "asshole." I listen when people criticize me and think about whether I can do it better next time, so I appreciate Bill's concerns and think I have tried to explain my position in a reasonable way. Bill disagrees with my reasoning. I agreed I could have presented the point in a different way but I wrote that "I guess one could call it an ad hominem attack." That's not really agreeing that it's an ad hominem attack--it's saying I can see from your perspective why you might perceive it that way. I disagree that I engaged in "character assassination" or "hurling insults." (I also don't really see much difference between "don't act like an asshole" and "you're an asshole," and replacing "hole" with "hat" doesn't make a difference.)

I explained why I felt his arrogance was relevant. This arrogance, which includes referring to himself as a "leading light" and "science-splaining" to me, goes to the heart of the problem that Jonathan describes--he has backed bad science and now won't cop to it. Instead, he pretends he can't remember whether he even cited PACE. That statement is a real insult--to me and especially to the patient community--because it is so obviously ridiculous. I gave him a mixed review and wrote positive as well as negative things. Lloyd made it very clear to me that he was unphased by criticism outside the scientific literature and that he wouldn't respond to any criticism outside that realm. He knew when I contacted him that I was likely to criticize him and spoke to me anyway. Again, I think my description of our conversation was a fair rendition. He did not respond to my last e-mail seeking more information. I have more to write about it that I will not go into here. So I hope we can table this discussion without further rancor.

 

I can understand @Bill's reaction to, and concerns about, the critical description of Dr Lloyd's demeanour. I can also understand the point of view of people who think it fair game.

I must admit that the material surprised me somewhat, and it didn't sit comfortably with me because it seemed to be setting Dr Lloyd up for an unfavourable reading (though I don't think that was @dave30th's intention), without presenting any of his arguments, and it didn't feel appropriate to be commenting unfavourably on his character before he'd had a chance to speak.

But David is a journalist, and he's reporting on a scientist who is taking a hard-to-justify view in a huge controversy in which you'd expect him to be on the other side. As a reader, I would like to know if anything in Dr Lloyd's behaviour or attitude indicates why this is so. Because if we can understand him and others like him, perhaps it will help us to deal with the extremely serious problem that they present.

So I'm interested in Dr Lloyd's character, I'm used to seeing journalists in interviews include their observations of their subjects' behaviour, and I welcome this information about Dr Lloyd but I'd rather have seen it either after the interview (which is still to appear) or blended in with it. I think that would have made it more clearly appear as reportage rather than an ad hominem attack.

But I realise that there's a lot of material that you have to present, @dave30th, and that these are judgement calls.

So thanks again for the terrific work that you're doing in Australia - and thanks to @Bill for raising what seemed to me a fair concern and one worth talking about.

 

We crossed.

I also hope we can table this discussion without further rancour! We're (almost) all patients here, and we can surely discuss things without insulting and goading each other.

 

I feel this is a dishonest mischaracterization of my confusion. What you actually wrote was:

This was written after you had complained about David Tuller stooping to make ad hominem attacks, not sticking to the science, insulting, and compounding the insult, and before you stated that you felt embarrassed-by-association.

I therefore assumed that you were saying that you considered David Tuller, the ME advocate you were complaining about, to have behaved like an ass-hat.

If I am confused, and your statement about behaving like an ass-hat referred to someone else not mentioned in your post about David Tuller, I apologize unreservedly.

 

I wrote my above post before reading to the end of the thread. I shall table this discussion without further rancour.

EDIT: The above statement is not an admission of having been rancorous.

 

I agree, this is the puzzle. Maybe all of us apportion our intellectual powers unevenly. But sometimes it is surprising.

 

I had never heard of Andrew Lloyd. I didn’t find the article unsympathetic in the slightest.

 

Given you believe Andrew Lloyd is a very good scientist, and noting he has a significantly different opinion to the PACE authors of what underlies ME, I would be really interested to hear your take on the above @Jonathan Edwards.

This is a genuine question please note, not oblique sarcasm in any way.

 

He cites the theory of "central sensitization," as do his recent papers. He acknowledges that this concept is a hypothesis. The purported mechanism through which GET is presumed to work is that it "desensitizes" people to exertion by gradually increasing it.

 

Hmmm ... maybe I could try that with alcohol. Might work up to a point maybe ... but ...

 

This is the Mayo clinics approach also
"Graded exercise. A physical therapist can help determine what exercises are best for you. Inactive people often begin with range-of-motion and stretching exercises for just a few minutes a day. Gradually increasing the intensity of your exercise over time may help reduce your hypersensitivity to exercise, just like allergy shots gradually reduce a person's hypersensitivity to a particular allergen."

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases...gue-syndrome/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20360510

 

I thought he wrote some good musicals...........

 

One suspects that the term "hypersenstivity" may have a number of uses and may not be used consistently.

 

David, before exiting the conversation let me say I appreciate your work in exposing the scientific deficiencies of PACE, GET/CBT and the BPS approach generally. It is rubbish science that deserves to be knocked down and I'm appreciative that we who are ill have allies such as yourself who have the energy to take on the job.

I didn't intend to be guilty of making the same sort of personal remarks that I criticised. I am sorry if in any way you felt personal insult as a result of what I wrote. It was not my intention and I hope we can move forward without feelings of ill will. My objections to the blog post remain.

I wish you a safe and fruitful journey.

And GO BEARS!!!

Bill

 

I agree with the others. Lloyd is using a central sensitisation approach. There are animal experiments that might give some credence to that but I am not over enamoured of animal experiments. The real problem, as everyone is pointing out is that desensitisation with stimulus seems to be totally ungrounded in this context. I have not heard that the rats get better if you keep giving them even more electric shocks. I think the human hypothesis relates to the sort of work that was done in Richard Edwards's department and I don't think it adds up. I am putting all this in my notebook. One day I will let you know what is going to happen to the notebook but not just yet.

Edit: so to clarify there is the central sensitisation theory and there is the desensitisation theory based on elite training muscle physiology and I don't see any convincing link between the two.