JemPD
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Thanks @Jonathan Edwards, I thought as much but as a layman it's hard to sort the wheat from the chaff! or from the 'complete bullshit' 
-
New Forum Software Installed (Still a few issues but reopening the forum) More details.
Dr Gabrielle Murphy - UK BPS ME/CFS doctor
- Thread starter Sly Saint
- Start date
Sly Saint
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
job advert:
Department:Chronic Fatigue
Location:Royal Free Hospital, London
Salary:£49,077 - £56,632 pa inclusive
https://www.jobs.nhs.uk/showvac/1/2/915439623
Department:Chronic Fatigue
Location:Royal Free Hospital, London
Salary:£49,077 - £56,632 pa inclusive
https://www.jobs.nhs.uk/showvac/1/2/915439623
rvallee
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Do people giving each other awards really qualifies as "award-winning"?
I give you an award. You give me an award. You get award. You get an award. Everybody gets an award. We're all award-winning!
There are many commercial organisations that do similar stuff. Basically fake "business bureaus" that give the illusion of being official but in fact it's all just a marketing thing and people pay to get their award for something like #1 business of their kind in some area.
Most papers in this area of "research" seem to be reviewed only by like-minded members of the mutual admiration society. They give each other awards and commendations, mentor each other and never, ever, criticize another's work.
All done in the old ways of doing science, with confident rhetoric and the skin-deep illusion of seriousness, cherry-picking and outcome-seeking. Every research is ground-breaking, even if it's literally identical to dozens of similar work that has all the same flaws and assumptions.
And it will all end up in the same filing cabinet as phrenology. All of this for nothing. Millions of lives destroyed for an ideological circlejerk.
Last edited:
rvallee
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Continuing on that thought, I don't remember a single piece of serious internal criticism in this area of research. It's all flawless, all a thing of beauty. No one says anything bad about their colleagues' work, it's all useful and beneficial and groundbreaking. Even glaring flaws are OK and never remove anything from the outstanding brilliance of the work.
As far as I can tell this is the exact opposite of how scientists behave. Scientists become very possessive of their own ideas and will find 100 flaws in other people's work before they find something they like. One particular reason is that almost all the research published in this specialty is identical to one another, or close to. It's all slight variations of the same theme. Everyone is playing the same chords in the same key and time signature, the instruments are tuned identically.
So while I don't have personal experience of how intensely scientists typically criticize each others' ideas, it's just too similar to programming and a popular trope in films and television where one programmer glances at a screen of code and just marvels at how brilliant it is. This has never, ever, happened unironically in the entire history of programming. No one has ever looked at someone else's code and bestowed it any more praise than calling it, yes, a piece of garbage, but a functional piece of garbage. Most programmers will call their own code from a few weeks back a piece of flatulent garbage 100:1 over praising it as anything more than modestly functional.
So this is extremely revealing about the inherent flaws in this whole area of research: the self-correcting process of science has been turned off. This has happened many times in the past, many of those within the areas of psychosomatic medicine, always with the same predictable outcome.
All must have prizes! As this was the expressed view of the Dodo let us hope they too are on the point of extinction.
Snowdrop
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
It looks like this person is stepping down creating the opening:
https://www.royalfree.nhs.uk/services/staff-a-z/jaclyn-cook/
Seems to me she may be on to something.
Why is it people need to show off with such long lists of meaningless qualifications:
What on earth is a chartered scientist?
This reads to me as a PE teacher who has done a diploma in pain management. And now she does GET for ME patients. What could possibly go wrong?
Lucibee
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I wondered that too. Apparently you can call yourself a Chartered Scientist if you register with the Science Council: https://sciencecouncil.org/scientis...hich-professional-award-is-right-for-me/csci/
rvallee
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I have appropriately adapted my signature to reflect this commendation, which I accept with pride and... pizza.
ladycatlover
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
This reads to me as a PE teacher who has done a diploma in pain management. And now she does GET for ME patients. What could possibly go wrong?
And oh, the fulsome praise on this page.
And oh, the fulsome praise on this page.
It is puzzling reading testimonials like these. Inevitably I find myself asking what the ones who say they can now run a mile were suffering from. Surely not anything involving genuine PEM - unless the rare cases who happen to be on the road to recovery anyway when they start at the clinic.
I suppose it's not that puzzling really. There are so many possible causes of fatigue many of which are self limiting - sleep problems, PVFS, mild depression, even relapsing/remitting ME.
Oh for a biomarker that could definitively separate those with PEM from others.
daftasabrush
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
@Sly Saint A certain "JB" stepped down as vice chair. Mike Beadsworth was at the meeting and took an active part in it.
Sly Saint
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Sly Saint
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I do have this experience and it is brutal. It starts when you share your ideas and data informally with your colleagues who then proceed to pull it all apart in fine detail until what you thought was a good result now seems like a pile of rubbish. You then do more work (for perhaps months or years) to prove that your results were real and go through the process again, possibly several times, and in more formal settings - seminars, conferences etc - until you finally have something worth submitting to a journal. Then there is a formal peer review, which is another level of scrutiny and criticism. Finally it is published and it is either ignored or rubbished by other scientists.
A lot of medical research is not scientific.
Sly Saint
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I have now done a transcript of this talk. (see here:Dr Gabrielle Murphy - UK BPS ME/CFS doctor)
I picked up on a number of things:
1) the 3 charities who requested/organised the talk were AfME AYME and the Sussex ME Society.
(Hence references to Sonia, Mary-Jane and Colin).
2) as @NelliePledge says in the op, this is along similar lines to Pariante, in fact at the end of the talk she briefly mentions the interferon alpha study, and the Brain Pain one.
3) according to GM psychoneuroimmunology, takes the 'best from the BPS' model; so inspite of all the impressive sounding blurb about science, the BPS model still underpins their approach.
4) as per usual 'it's all about fatigue'......not even necessarily the chronic variety. And she thinks we should just call it Post Viral fatigue and be done with it.
It never ceases to amaze me how these so-called UK ME/CFS 'experts' (who have been seeing patients on a regular basis for some time) really don't seem to have any real understanding of the illness.
I picked up on a number of things:
1) the 3 charities who requested/organised the talk were AfME AYME and the Sussex ME Society.
(Hence references to Sonia, Mary-Jane and Colin).
2) as @NelliePledge says in the op, this is along similar lines to Pariante, in fact at the end of the talk she briefly mentions the interferon alpha study, and the Brain Pain one.
3) according to GM psychoneuroimmunology, takes the 'best from the BPS' model; so inspite of all the impressive sounding blurb about science, the BPS model still underpins their approach.
4) as per usual 'it's all about fatigue'......not even necessarily the chronic variety. And she thinks we should just call it Post Viral fatigue and be done with it.
It never ceases to amaze me how these so-called UK ME/CFS 'experts' (who have been seeing patients on a regular basis for some time) really don't seem to have any real understanding of the illness.
Last edited by a moderator: