'Problems with PACE' now part of the UK ME/CFS media narrative?

[Sasha]

A positive article was published in the Daily Mail online site yesterday about the Newcastle cellular biogenetics research:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5058807/People-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-exhausted.html

Interestingly, it included a sidebar devoted entirely to the PACE controversy:

SCIENTISTS ANGRY AT 'FLAWED' TRIAL
The study findings come after angry scientists threw cheap insults at each other regarding the 'flawed' results of a landmark £5 million British study on chronic fatigue syndrome.

One medical journal dedicated its entire August edition to ripping apart the 'unreliable' PACE trial, which was funded by taxpayers.

In response, three editors at the Journal of Health Psychology, who are all scientists, have resigned. One said the journal displayed 'unacceptable one-sidedness'.

An upset co-editor of the journal hit back and told him to 'f*** off' for his 'attempted bullying', leaked emails obtained by The Times show.

He also called him a 'disgusting old fart neoliberal hypocrite' - despite once considering him a 'hero' and referring to him as a 'Trotskyite' in his younger days.​

I wondered if this indicates a turn in the tide in terms of UK media coverage - that instead of loads of articles in which PACE is presented unquestioningly, now every story about ME/CFS will include a PACE-kicking section whether the research relates to PACE or not.

 

[Cheshire]

I wondered if this indicates a turn in the tide in terms of UK media coverage - that instead of loads of articles in which PACE is presented unquestioningly, now every story about ME/CFS will include a PACE-kicking section whether the research relates to PACE or not.

I was wondering the same thing after reading a Canadian article. https://www.s4me.info/index.php?thr...re-interesting-than-its-title.858/#post-14486

It seems more and more people are aware of the problems around ME. The well-oiled narrative set up by BPS proponents is loosing ground and is progressively replaced by a new story revealing the dust hidden under the carpet.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

I had lunch with a couple of enlightened journalists who write health articles for major dailies yesterday.
I think the flawed nature of PACE is now recognised at least by those taking a serious interest. Also the mention of SMC produced guffaws of an encouraging kind. They were not aware of Unrest or the SMILE debacle but we discussed those and the problem of method quality in psychiatric research. We also got on to issues of corruption - not suggested by me.

It is a pity that the BBC seems to have stalled in terms of doing any sort of commentary on PACE. I think it may be problematic that some of the heads to roll are rather high up.

 

[guest001]

I had lunch with a couple of enlightened journalists who write health articles for major dailies yesterday.
I think the flawed nature of PACE is now recognised at least by those taking a serious interest. Also the mention of SMC produced guffaws of an encouraging kind. They were not aware of Unrest or the SMILE debacle but we discussed those and the problem of method quality in psychiatric research. We also got on to issues of corruption - not suggested by me.

It is a pity that the BBC seems to have stalled in terms of doing any sort of commentary on PACE. I think it may be problematic that some of the heads to roll are rather high up.

Hasn't stopped them with Westminster Sexual Harassment claims.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

Hasn't stopped them with Westminster Sexual Harassment claims.

Ah, but I think the harassment claims were fed to them on purpose. I gather that Leadsome came up with the bit against the defence secretary because he had arranged to have her sacked. It's all a bit like The Death of Stalin.

 

[guest001]

Ah, but I think the harassment claims were fed to them on purpose. I gather that Leadsome came up with the bit against the defence secretary because he had arranged to have her sacked. It's all a bit like The Death of Stalin.

Maybe we could take a leaf out of her book?

 

[Hoopoe]

How do you end up having lunch with journalists?

What is the, ahem, strategy?

 

[Estherbot]

I will have to send a copy of the sidebar to Imperial Lord Wessely via social media.

James Coyne will pleased the press has adopted his epithet of George Davey-Smith.

 

[Woolie]

Its nice to see the mud that the BPSers raked up over the JHP special issue is now kind of sticking to them.

Otherwise, I don't see a whole lot to be grateful for there. Its just gossip and doesn't even explain what the PACE trial was about, let alone what the concerns are about it.

 

[Solstice]

Its nice to see the mud that the BPSers raked up over the JHP special issue is now kind of sticking to them.

Otherwise, I don't see a whole lot to be grateful for there. Its just gossip and doesn't even explain what the PACE trial was about, let alone what the concerns are about it.

Doubt it matters much to the general public. Pace-controversy+biological findings is double win imo. When it comes to convincing professionals we have to come up with more facts, but those are available in abundance.

 

[TiredSam]

What I find encouraging is who gets to be called the scientists.

Until recently it was portrayed as PACE scientists against anti-science protesters.

In the Daily Mail article it is now portrayed as ME research scientists against dismissive skeptics who think it's psychological.

So the BPS brigade have lost the "scientist" label to the real scientists, they are now just skeptics. That's about half-way to what they should really be called.

 

[Esther12]

Even if it's not the sort of detailed analysis we'd ideally like, a side bar like that is still a number of steps forward from where we were a few years ago. I think that even if not many journalists are willing to dig into all the details themselves, more and more of them must be noticing that the PACE people don't look comfortable trying to defend their own work.

 

[guest001]

What I find encouraging is who gets to be called the scientists.

Until recently it was portrayed as PACE scientists against anti-science protesters.

In the Daily Mail article it is now portrayed as ME research scientists against dismissive skeptics who think it's psychological.

So the BPS brigade have lost the "scientist" label to the real scientists, they are now just skeptics. That's about half-way to what they should really be called.

Well noticed!