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

Kalliope

Kalliope

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
A Post About Andrew Lloyd

I know folks are eager to hear more about what I’m learning in Australia. I’m finding it challenging to have meetings, prepare for talks, conduct interviews, promote the crowdfunding, keep up with my BMJ Open correspondence, and also write posts about what’s happening here. It will take a bit of time to catch up.

But I do want to provide at least some initial information about the role of Professor Andrew Lloyd of the University of New South Wales. Australian patients know that Professor Lloyd is the country’s most prominent proponent of the CBT/GET paradigm for treatment of what he prefers to call chronic fatigue syndrome.
 
When I ought to have been focussed on adjusting my life around living with a long‐term condition, and receiving psychological counselling aimed at the difficult process of grieving the loss of my old life, I was continually pushing and crashing. At the same time I was telling my wife and family that PACE was the key to my full recovery, as I trusted that the scientific establishment wouldn’t lie to me.

I ignored almost everything else in my life – wife, social engagements, personal projects – to focus on the program because I desperately wanted to recover and figured I could pick all that up again once I did. But my world crashed around me when my wife walked out after realising I wasn’t improving and wasn’t going to. I’m still picking up the pieces of that earth‐shattering change.
Click to expand...
[My bold]

What a tragic mess.
 
I troubled that David Tuller would stoop to making ad hominem attacks on Andrew Lloyd after the professor granted him more than an hour for an interview despite knowing Tuller was "not a fan" and when he apparently engaged in a spirit of "engaged and good-humored jousting partner" [Tuller's characterizations].

Why not stick to the science instead of suggesting that Dr. Lloyd arrogant horses-ass? What is gained from Tuller's insulting Lloyd by saying Lloyd seems "impressed with his own intellectual acumen" and compounding the insult by accusing the professor of "science-splaining?"

Being an ME advocate is not an excuse to behave like an ass-hat. Not for the first time in recent days do I feel embarrassed-by-association by people who decide to attack the person instead of relying on science and reason as their position of argument.

It is a losing strategy.

*Sigh*

Bill
 
Last edited:
Bill said:
I troubled that David Tuller would stoop to making ad hominem attacks on Andrew Lloyd after the professor granted him more than an hour for an interview despite knowing Tuller was "not a fan" and when he apparently engaged in a spirit of "engaged and good-humored jousting partner" [Tuller's characterizations].

Why not stick to the science instead of suggesting that Dr. Lloyd arrogant horses-ass? What is gained from Tuller's insulting Lloyd by saying Lloyd seems "impressed with his own intellectual acumen" and compounding the insult by accusing the professor of "science-splaining?"

Being an ME advocate is not an excuse to behave like an ass-hat. Not for the first time in recent days do I feel embarrassed-by-association by people who decide to attack the person instead of relying on science and reason as their position of argument.

It is a losing strategy.

*Sigh*

Bill
Click to expand...

So all of David Tuller's work has/will come to naught because he made a snarky comment about Lloyd.

Good to know.

Maybe you can volunteer to engage with these researchers.

We wait with baited breath.

ETA: sorry just had to come back and add that DT has done so much for this community and given such hope. I value his engagement. And if he makes a snarky comment well I think it's churlish to complain about an occasional swipe in the midst of all that has been accomplished. Looking for perfection are we?

I guess you'd be perfectly calm. I'd better sign off before I say . . .
 
Last edited:
Hi, Bill--I'm sorry to hear that you're embarrassed by me. I guess one could describe what I wrote an ad hominem attack, but it seems pretty mild to me, at least from my American perspective. I would say that someone who routinely calls himself the "leading light" of anything should be prepared for people to note that it comes across as somewhat arrogant. Given that Lloyd himself told me he was completely unfussed by criticism, I doubt it would bother him in the slightest. I think if you consider yourself the "leading light" of something, it also suggests you're not that prepared to listen to other people because you're pretty convinced of the rightness of your own views. So I think pointing it out likely sheds some light on his approach to the science.
 
dave30th said:
Hi, Bill--I'm sorry to hear that you're embarrassed by me. I guess one could describe what I wrote an ad hominem attack, but it seems pretty mild to me, at least from my American perspective. I would say that someone who routinely calls himself the "leading light" of anything should be prepared for people to note that it comes across as somewhat arrogant. Given that Lloyd himself told me he was completely unfussed by criticism, I doubt it would bother him in the slightest. I think if you consider yourself the "leading light" of something, it also suggests you're not that prepared to listen to other people because you're pretty convinced of the rightness of your own views. So I think pointing it out likely sheds some light on his approach to the science.
Click to expand...

David, from my perspective it is very bad form to disparage a person on a personal level when that person has willingly submitted to an interview, especially when they have granted the interview to one they know is not a fan.

I don’t know of anyone who responds well to insult or character assassignation. All those tactics do is to close dialogue in my estimation.

Bill
 
well, we all have our perspectives. You're right that I could probably have made my point in a softer way, but I really think "character assassination" is a bit strong in this case. In any event, it's hard to spend a few hours listening to people uniformly telling me they've been harmed by what they were told to do at his clinics and not see a link between that and his un-ironic perspective that he's the "leading light" in Australia, so the criticism seems very germane to his work. At this point I don't think "dialogue" is really the answer in the case of people who propose therapies like GET in the face of lots of evidence and patient testimony that it is not only not benign or useless but in many cases causes permanent damage. He has defended PACE in major journals and now says he doesn't remember having done that. So, you know, "dialogue" has its limits.
 
dave30th said:
at least from my American perspective.
Click to expand...

lol I know. I am from the Philly area and what I would have said would have been much more brutal. And I would have said it to his face, taped it, put it on youtube, and thrown a party with me and all my friends watching it and screaming all kinds of insults, taped that, put that up on youtube, throw a block party watching that...well, I guess you get the idea.

dave30th said:
think "character assassination" is a bit strong in this case
Click to expand...

lolololololololololol Well, welcome to America. This is how we roll.
 
Bill said:
Why not stick to the science instead of suggesting that Dr. Lloyd arrogant horses-ass? What is gained from Tuller's insulting Lloyd by saying Lloyd seems "impressed with his own intellectual acumen" and compounding the insult by accusing the professor of "science-splaining?"
Click to expand...

Because it is all true and a good American journalist reports just like this. It's what he has been hired to do. It's not like he punched his lights out.
 
dave30th said:
well, we all have our perspectives. You're right that I could probably have made my point in a softer way, but I really think "character assassination" is a bit strong in this case. In any event, it's hard to spend a few hours listening to people uniformly telling me they've been harmed by what they were told to do at his clinics and not see a link between that and his un-ironic perspective that he's the "leading light" in Australia, so the criticism seems very germane to his work. At this point I don't think "dialogue" is really the answer in the case of people who propose therapies like GET in the face of lots of evidence and patient testimony that it is not only not benign or useless but in many cases causes permanent damage. He has defended PACE in major journals and now says he doesn't remember having done that. So, you know, "dialogue" has its limits.
Click to expand...

If you feel that way (which is understandable), then the honest response as a journalist would be to address the issues head-on with the interviewee, rather than doing a hit job after-the-fact. A journalist doing his or her job could (and should) ask about those who've been harmed by his approach and he could have been confronted with questions about his statements about being a "leading light." And he should have had the opportunity to respond.

That's poor journalism in my estimation and worse advocacy. Sorry, but I think you failed here.

Bill
 
Lloyld says this stuff about himself re "leading light". Can you get more arrogant. Most things are water off a ducks back to him. This was a clever and honest article about Lloyld. How else do you make the guy think about what he is doing. This is not the US or the UK it's AUS and this kind of article in AUS will have more power in my view.

What's sad is that Lloyd is capable of better research as shown in the dubbo studies. Always wondered why he changed tack after those findings. Did they not fit with what he had hoped to find or fit what he beleived to be true.
 
Last edited:
Bill, I understand your point, but here's some context--In approaching him initially, I wrote that I was likely to be critical and offered him a chance to respond to any criticism. He wrote back that he was unfussed by any criticism and therefore didn't respond to it unless it was criticism of his science in the peer-reviewed literature. Calling himself the leading light for this disease is how he framed his role in this domain, so I considered it part of the discussion and fair game for comment. I didn't critique his hair, his appearance, his eating habits or his clothes. We had one post-conversation e-mail exchange, and then he didn't respond to a further e-mail seeking more information and asking him to send me a couple of studies. We will have to disagree.
 
dave30th said:
Bill, I understand your point, but here's some context--In approaching him initially, I wrote that I was likely to be critical and offered him a chance to respond to any criticism. He wrote back that he was unfussed by any criticism and therefore didn't respond to it unless it was criticism of his science in the peer-reviewed literature. Calling himself the leading light for this disease is how he framed his role in this domain, so I considered it part of the discussion and fair game for comment. I didn't critique his hair, his appearance, his eating habits or his clothes. We had one post-conversation e-mail exchange, and then he didn't respond to a further e-mail seeking more information and asking him to send me a couple of studies. We will have to disagree.
Click to expand...

If you think not attacking your subject's hair, clothing, or eating habits somehow excuses ad hominem attacks on his personality, then--yes--we will need to agree to disagree.

For all your charges against him, the guy gave you his time despite his foreknowledge that you intended to be critical. I wish the criticism and questioning had remained grounded in science, reason, logic, and good medical practice and not his personality. So yes, I disagree.

Bill
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom