Adding a link to this as it includes more detail of the authors:
Post in thread 'United Kingdom: News from BACME - British Association of Clinicians in ME/CFS'
https://www.s4me.info/threads/unite...tion-of-clinicians-in-me-cfs.7900/post-433535
I think it is worth noting (even though Newton and Stuart have other papers in the area of HPA axis etc) that they are listed as supervisors here and this seems to be a paper/project that includes undergraduate medical students. The individual roles of each of the authors is listed re: which tasks they did, if you click on their names you see a list of their tasks (writing, data curation etc).
I note that 'conceptualisation' is listed for all of the authors
except for Julia Newton, but includes Dr Stuart Watson:
https://www.ncl.ac.uk/medical-sciences/people/profile/stuartwatson.html who is a consultant psychiatrist and senior lecturer currently at Newcastle
Am I assuming that that term means the 'coming up with the concept' aspect ?
I don't know the context ie whether it is something assessed (group project for course) that has been worked up or internship/placements etc. but supervising would indicate something different to it being 'their paper' .. or would it? To me it doesn't indicate it is even necessarily one of 'their theories' but could be that these individuals had a project task to eg look at literature and work through discussing a model and its limitations etc.
The funding statement says MRC:
Funding: The funders of the study were the UK Medical Research Council, who the authors can confirm had no role in the delivery of the study or the interpretation of the results. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.
That it has been presented as if it is someone 'suggesting
this is what ME/CFS is' I think seems inaccurate ie it is taken out of context by BACME proposing this is even the culmination of
anyone's (other than BACME wanting it) saying 'the research points here'. I suspect hence why they just nicked a one-liner to quote rather than even really discussed or flagged anyone to the paper they claim as a reference and that their model is somehow backed up by.
