This is my letter in the lastest edition of Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-03055-1 I wonder if I should have pushed for stronger language, but sometimes it is necessary to turn down the volume in order to be heard. And I’m pleased to have been able to raise concerns about CBT, GET, PACE and Cochrane, as well as the need for a proper scientific and biomedical approach to research. It feels like a sign of progress that a journal like Nature is willing to publish such a letter. Nature didn’t know about my diagnosis or lack of qualifications when my letter was accepted (due to ME, I don’t have a degree let alone a doctorate). However, when I volunteered the information, the Editor asked if I would be willing to disclose that I have ME. I would have preferred not to, as I didn’t feel it was relevant to the argument, but I didn’t feel strongly about it and agreed to compromise as they acquiesced to several of my requests during the editing process. Thanks to Tom and others on S4ME for their help and feedback prior to submission.
Good job Robert. @Emily Taylor , have you seen this, and that Robert links to a Solve page for further information at the bottom of his letter?
@Robert 1973, thank you. I am very impressed that you managed to say so much so clearly and in so few words.
Thanks, Trish. It took some time and effort to agree on a proof – partly due to concerns about defamation – but the editorial team were exceedingly helpful, and I was heartened by their understanding of the issues.
Don't worry about that. On the one hand we have people with a handful of degrees unable to accept that their errors in lowering the targets would have shamed an A-level student, and on the other, a several of the key figures in analyzing their faults and bringing them to book, like you, do not have degrees. All that matters in science is the quality of your argument. Wouldn't it be nice if medical psychology and psychiatry trled to be somewhat scientific?
