#MEAction: A response to Dr Mark Porter’s article about ME in The Times

R

Robert 1973

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
https://www.meaction.net/2019/03/25/a-response-to-dr-mark-porters-article-about-me-in-the-times/
Last week, Dr. Mark Porter wrote an article in The Times under the headline, “Treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome is a complicated matter.” The following comments are intended as constructive criticism of that article, with the hope that they will help to further understanding of the issues he raised.

Although I have focussed on my concerns, it should not be overlooked that there were also some positive aspects to Dr. Porter’s article, such as his appreciation of the need to conduct appropriate tests to ensure that other diagnoses have not been overlooked, and his recognition (albeit guarded) that pacing is the best management strategy for people with ME. I also felt that Dr. Porter’s article was well-intended, despite its faults, which is why I have taken the time to respond.
Click to expand...

I actually started writing the article as a post on S4ME but as it got longer I decided to submit it as an article for #MEAction.

If you feel I’ve overlooked anything I should have mentioned, or got anything wrong, please leave comments under the article, which I hope Dr Porter will read.

@Dx Revision Watch I belatedly realised that I hadn’t mentioned the point you’ve raised eslewhere about the benefits of getting a diagnosis for children at school etc. Please feel free to add something about this as a comment.
 


"But am leaving chat now as day job to do.", what an arrogant comment. I used to have a day job, but medical 'professionals' conflating CF with ME enabled me in ruining what health I did have left by overexerting myself.

ETA: replaced my rule breaches with more suitable language.
 
Last edited:
Robert 1973 said:
If someone could add a comment below the Times article with a link to my article that would be very helpful.

Meanwhile...

Click to expand...

His next response. Ugh. "have a day job". I guess correcting mistakes in his own reporting is just a hobby and misleading medical information could not possibly be important, or whatever.

A little knowledge... as always. He seems confident enough in his knowledge to publish an article about it, but being accurate isn't terribly important. I guess that it's fitting that this is basically the most positive piece of coverage so far, mediocre but at least not flat-out insulting.
 
Why bother doing this article at all knowing how badly newspapers get things? Also why hasn't he commented on Sharpes attack on patients and whether he was talking about ME CF CFS Hepatitis or anything else how can he not address the PACE trial fiasco that is at the centre of this engineered hit piece by the BPS crowd.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, healthy people do have to stop tweeting to go and do day jobs, so I wouldn't take offence at it. His newspaper articles are a sideline.
As to 'have you read my article' type comments, I've come to think that quite a few people don't read things properly before commenting on things, as btl comments for online articles often demonstrate. He's probably used to that as any columnist will be, and that may have happened with this article. (I'm not referring to anyone here, or Rob's response.)

However, that doesn't explain away the issues with his piece.
 
Dreadful state of affair when members of the general public are fed a story about chronic fatigue and fail to understand that it was never about chronic fatigue syndrome. How can doctor/journalists be protected from such ignorance?
 
"Ive already got a very lucrative day job and the celebrity commentary moonlighting I do isn't even my own words cos the editor changes it all, which doesn't matter even though the editor isn't a doctor, doesn't fact check or have any journalistic integrity and likes stories to be run from a sensationalist viewpoint, I am admitting to knowing this but still continue to do such work cos its double bubble, two paychecks, Whoopee!!"

If he is so worried about the way editors change articles why doesn't he just publish his own articles online on his own FB page, blog or other?

Let me guess, he wouldn't get remunerated for that.

Its just laughable after such an admission that David Tuller taking complete responsibility for his own statements, was the one who got criticised for making a living from fact checking, citing, sourcing information, obtaining data, scrutinising the data whilst holding both sides of an argument to account, offering equal comment from all parties.
 
Last edited:
Well. this is ironic! "outcome switching"......or "moving the goal posts'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0003jhq

p0572n3k.jpg

Inside Health
Moving the goalposts in research,.......??????


or being a busy bee covering both sides of a known problem.........shame about Ben G though....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom