Personality and fatal diseases: Revisiting a scientific scandal, 2019, Pelosi

Andy

Andy

Retired committee member
Thought some here might find this interesting.
Abstract
During the 1980s and 1990s, Hans J Eysenck conducted a programme of research into the causes, prevention and treatment of fatal diseases in collaboration with one of his protégés, Ronald Grossarth-Maticek. This led to what must be the most astonishing series of findings ever published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature with effect sizes that have never otherwise been encounterered in biomedical research. This article outlines just some of these reported findings and signposts readers to extremely serious scientific and ethical criticisms that were published almost three decades ago. Confidential internal documents that have become available as a result of litigation against tobacco companies provide additional insights into this work. It is suggested that this research programme has led to one of the worst scientific scandals of all time. A call is made for a long overdue formal inquiry.
Click to expand...
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1359105318822045
 
Of greater concern is that this affair has drawn attention away from the real progress has been made in the psychological management of cancer. In a series of careful studies spread over many years, British psychiatrists and psychologists have described the psychological impact of both the diagnosis of cancer and the painful treatments that frequently follow. They’ve shown the effect of coping strategies on the prognosis of breast cancer – those who show either “fighting spirit”, or those who deny that there is any danger, seem to do better.
Click to expand...

Of course, Professor Eysenck, the most influential psychologists of our time, has faced many assaults before (including, unforgettably, physical ones). It would take more than a couple of psychiatrists to ruffle him.

And so it proved. His replies made no concessions to his critics. In essence, his reply was “either you believe these findings, or you don’t”. He was certainly correct on one point. If his results are true, the doctors have been scandalously negligent in ignoring what is the most dramatic breakthrough in the treatment of cancer for many years.
Click to expand...

When Simon Wessely shoved a Hans Eysenck scandal under the rug
 
From Coyne's blog:

The centenary will be also be celebrated with a special commemorative issue of Personality and Individual Differences, one of the journals that he started and edited. I assume many of the articles will praise Eysenck’s accomplishments as the founder of British clinical psychology, his key contribution to establishing cognitive behavior therapy in the UK, and his overall status as one of the most cited psychologists of all time.

If that’s the case, one contribution by UK psychiatrist Anthony Pelosi will stand out like a tuba joining a string ensemble, if it is anything like his past writings. Stay tuned.
Click to expand...

https://jcoynester.wordpress.com/20...-shoved-a-hans-eysenck-scandal-under-the-rug/

No mention of Pelosi in the special edition: https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/personality-and-individual-differences/vol/103

Maybe this is that delayed paper, now in the Journal of Health Psychology?

Personality and Individual Differences did find room for Adam Perkins though:

The welfare trait: Hans Eysenck, personality and social issues
Author links open overlay panel Adam M.Perkins
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.003Get rights and content
Abstract
Inspired by Hans Eysenck's belief that personality research can provide insights on societal problems, this article summarises a theory – the Welfare Trait – which attempts to explain the tendency of the welfare state to erode work motivation. This theory stems from the discovery that exposure to disadvantage during childhood promotes the development of employment-resistant personality characteristics. If true, this discovery matters because it means a welfare state which sets up perverse incentives that cause extra children to be born into disadvantaged households may harm the prospects of the nation by shifting its personality profile towards greater employment-resistance. Although still in need of more refined data, the Welfare Trait theory conforms to Hans Eysenck's belief that psychology in general, and personality psychology in particular, is germane to addressing important issues of widespread social impact. However, as in Eysenck's time, discussion of such ‘controversial’ issues leads to severe criticism and personal vilification, facilitated today by the ease of communication via social media (e.g., Twitter).
Click to expand...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886916307449

Perkins also sees parallels between the criticism of himself and Wessely: https://www.s4me.info/threads/“it-h...e-being-weaponized-article-in-quillette.4476/

Why do these people attract such 'severe' criticism?
 
rvallee said:
Pelosi article said:
Of greater concern is that this affair has drawn attention away from the real progress has been made in the psychological management of cancer. In a series of careful studies spread over many years, British psychiatrists and psychologists have described the psychological impact of both the diagnosis of cancer and the painful treatments that frequently follow. They’ve shown the effect of coping strategies on the prognosis of breast cancer – those who show either “fighting spirit”, or those who deny that there is any danger, seem to do better.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I'm pretty blown away by this article. The author seems very confident in his judgements about Eysenck, yet does not seem to realise that he is buying into a whole other set of BS right there! Serious questions have been raised about the evidence for personality factors having an influence on cancer survival rates. This stuff is what James Coyne cut his career on:

Positive psychology in cancer care: Bad science, exaggerated claims, and unproven medicine
JC Coyne, H Tennen
Annals of behavioral medicine 39 (1), 16-26

Meta-analysis of stress-related factors in cancer
JC Coyne, AV Ranchor, SC Palmer
Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 7 (5), 296

Invited commentary: personality as a causal factor in cancer risk and mortality—time to retire a hypothesis?
AV Ranchor, R Sanderman, JC Coyne
American journal of epidemiology 172 (4), 386-388
​
Maybe focusing on Eysenck's bad practices helps these folks divert the focus of attention from themselves?
 
Woolie said:
I'm pretty blown away by this article. The author seems very confident in his judgements about Eysenck, yet does not seem to realise that he is buying into a whole other set of BS right there! Serious questions have been raised about the evidence for personality factors having an influence on cancer survival rates. This stuff is what James Coyne cut his career on:

Positive psychology in cancer care: Bad science, exaggerated claims, and unproven medicine
JC Coyne, H Tennen
Annals of behavioral medicine 39 (1), 16-26

Meta-analysis of stress-related factors in cancer
JC Coyne, AV Ranchor, SC Palmer
Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 7 (5), 296

Invited commentary: personality as a causal factor in cancer risk and mortality—time to retire a hypothesis?
AV Ranchor, R Sanderman, JC Coyne
American journal of epidemiology 172 (4), 386-388
​
Maybe focusing on Eysenck's bad practices helps these folks divert the focus of attention from themselves?
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, those excerpts were from Wessely's old piece about Eysenck, criticised on Coyne's blog, not the new Pelosi Eysenck article.
 
Last edited:
This reminds me of a documentary on treating cancer I saw in the late 1980's. It may have been the one on interferon that I mentioned in another thread.

There was a middle-aged woman in a hospital bed who had been diagnosed with cancer. In desperation, she was telling her husband that she had heard that her thought patterns could cause cancer. She was trying to convince her husband that maybe psychotherapy could help her. Her husband was patiently trying to explain to her that psychotherapy was not going to do any good at this point, as she had already developed cancer. I'm pretty sure that, by the end of the documentary, it was made plain that her doctors had been unable to save her.

This really stuck in my mind because it was so tragic. I was aware of the idea that thought patterns could cause cancer (for some reason I recall it being attributed to "negativity," instead of "passivity"), but I had no idea of how good (or should I say "how bad") the evidence for this was. Now, of course, the idea that this patient was led to believe that her own thoughts were in some way responsible for her terminal cancer just makes me angry.
 
Esther12 said:
Saw that there was an accompanying editorial from David Marks, and an open letter calling for an independent investigation: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1359105318820931
Click to expand...


With the publication of Dr Pelosi’s paper, we are seeking three correctives:
(1) formal investigations by King’s College London and the BPS;
(2) the retraction or correction of 61 publications including more than 40 journal articles, 10 book chapters and 2 books, each in 3 editions (see Supplementary file for detailed listing); and
(3) the establishment of a National Research Integrity Ombudsperson to investigate allegations.

The need for an independent UK body to promote good governance, management and conduct of academic, scientific and medical research could never be stronger than in the present situation.

The Eysenck affair requires the full attention of the institutions that govern scientific practice. This is not an issue about a single individual’s alleged misconduct, or a single institution, it is about the integrity of science. Without a genuine ability to assure governance, quality and integrity, science is a failure unto itself, to reason and to ethics.
Click to expand...
 
I've just been catching up on reading this thread and some of the articles linked. I'm finding it hard to get my head around who said what and who was right or wrong. Here's my summary - please correct me if I've got in a muddle.

1. Ronald Grossarth-Maticek did some 'research' which produced data suggesting he could, with astonishingly high levels of accuracy:
a) predict on the basis of personality tests who would get cancer and who would get heart disease and who would get neither.
b) prevent cancer with therapy given to healthy people he'd predicted would get cancer.

2. Eysenck did not carry out any of this research himself, but accepted the astonishing data, added his name to it and helped RG-M publish it, giving it the apparent seal of approval. It was published in journals set up by Eysenck.

3. There are ties with the tobacco industry linked to this research, with the aim of diverting attention from tobacco itself being the cause of many cancers and heart disease.

4. Pelosi wrote at the time about the problems with the research and tried to get it investigated.

5. Wessely wrote a newpaper article defending Eysenck and pointing to research by others relating 'fighting spirit' to cancer recovery.

6. Coyne wrote a blog supporting Pelosi's critique of Eysenck and RG-M and pointing out that the 'fighting spirit' researchers had done a larger study showing their original study was wrong, and in fact there is no evidence of personality or positive thinking affecting cancer outcome.

7. Pelosi has raised the subject again with a new article in the JHP with an editorial by Marks.

8. And a final twist - Pelosi, apparently the good guy in this case, is now the bad guy according to a Coyne tweet, in supporting PACE and criticising patient-activist authors.

This series of events spreads over nearly 30 years.

My head hurts!
 
That about sums it up I think Trish. :)

Trish said:
8. And a final twist - Pelosi, apparently the good guy in this case, is now the bad guy according to a Coyne tweet, in supporting PACE and criticising patient-activist authors.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify this bit for everyone, Coyne is claiming that Pelosi is Reviewer 2 (I think it was), the author of the incredibly childish and unprofessional peer review for the BMJ of the Wilshire et al reanalysis of the PACE trial data.
 
Great summary Trish! Though I think it's a little soft on Eysenck. I think he didn't just add his name to the research but actively promoted it. And the tobacco money seems to be linked directly to him instead of the research. Marks for example writes:

"To his eternal shame, the attempts by Hans Eysenck to discredit the wellestablished causal links between tobacco smoking and cancer while in receipt of large sums from the tobacco industry is one of the most shameful deceits committed by any scientist in the 20th century."​
 
RGM is still plying his trade:

From 1990 to 2006, Grossarth-Maticek was Director of the Institute for Preventive Medicine, Political, Economic and Health Psychology in Heidelberg. He then took over the management of the Heidelberg Center for Multidisciplinary Research (ZMF). Since 2007, he has also been Director of the Intergovernmental Program for Multidisciplinary Studies of the European Center for Peace and Development (ECPD), part of the United Nations Peace Organization in Costa Rica.

The Heidelberg Center for Multidisciplinary Research (ZMF) was founded in 2004. Several institutes of various universities, clinical and research institutions cooperate with the ZMF. The aim of the center is to carry out multidisciplinary analyzes and to develop preventive intervention strategies, taking into account different aspects of life that are closely interlinked (eg family history, personality, professional influences, physical and organic factors, lifestyle, religiosity, social issues, Integration).

The results of the monodisciplinary sciences are creatively and innovatively integrated in a multidisciplinary overall concept.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom