Special Report - Online activists are silencing us, scientists say Reuters March 2019

From the tweets in support of the article, it's obvious that the researchers in objective science need to get on Twitter!!!!. It's also obvious that the supporters of the article don't know the full facts.

 

This was a reference to the fact that Kelland is a modern languages, rather than science, graduate. Given the failure to interview a certain scientist about the issue this might be significant.

 

google search for
"Special Report - Online activists are silencing us, scientists say Reuters"

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=fw6KXIy-GqHejwSD6ZCQBQ&q=Special+Report+-+Online+activists+are+silencing+us,+scientists+say+Reuters&btnK=Google+Search&oq=Special+Report+-+Online+activists+are+silencing+us,+scientists+say+Reuters&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3168.3168..5128...0.0..0.86.86.1......0....2j1..gws-wiz.....0.GU9ocFSnYIs

 

Another approach would be to respond to tweets taking the article at face value, straightforwardly pointing out that there are legitimate issues with the quality of the science and linking to perhaps Hilda Bastiens blog, the JHP Pace edition, Tuller's work...

edit grammar

 

S4ME.info - this thread- is currently 4th on that search result

 

Or reply on the article itself, which does not constitute a 'share'.

 

I do believe @david30 is being trolled on FB re,
Online activists are silencing us, scientists say Reuters March 2019

and I had had my wrists slapped on Faceache! .........(I made a comment about reuters journalist.)

To my suggestion, think a good tactic would be to deflect the ME issue per se and focus on this journalists' track record? https://www.gmwatch.org/.../18746-monsanto-fed-reuters...

I received this, from a Trevor Butterworth,,,,,,,,"This is a terrible tactic. Stick to specifics. Plus - there is legitimate criticism of IARC on this issue. Don’t get sidetracked into ad feminam arguments when you don’t know the other issue as well as your own."

As to, "Don’t get sidetracked into ad feminam arguments"............!!!

So, who is dear Trevor?
Executive Director, Sense About Science USA; have written for FT, WSJ, New Yorker.com, etc

 

Yep, and he's on our 'side', or at least the side of good science, which is where we are at the moment. And I agree with him, counter the false arguments in the article, don't descend into attempted muck-racking about the journo.

 

So the article finally gets published, then Goldsmith tweets about it, then Wessely and Sharpe quickly retweet her tweet about it...

https://twitter.com/user/status/1105986577430392833

 

I agree with Trevor Butterworth that this isn't a good tactic. If your are not sure that a source is reliable, better don't use it.

This is just the gender specific use of "ad hominem" -- it means better stick to factual arguments instead of targeting/ tracking persons. What's wrong with that?

It's tricky sometimes: Sense About Science USA is not to be confused with Sense About Science (UK). Trevor is an ally and throrough critic of the PACE trial.
And The New Yorker is not to be confused with the New York Post.

(edited for clarity/ typos)

 

I agree as well. I think it's very useful to know that similar concerns have been made about Kate Kelland's reporting on other issues - not least because it shows that we shouldn't expect her bosses at Reuters to take any complaints we make seriously - but we should stick to the issues, rather than trying to discredit her. 'Playing the man and not the ball' is what the SMC do all the time - this article is yet another example of it - but we mustn't sink to their level.

 

Well...yes....up to a point. Evidence is selected and presented in particular ways, and factors relating to the person doing the selecting or presenting affect the choices made. It is therefor necessary to know what factors might be influencing those choices to determine the weight to be given to the evidence.

 

As a reminder, this is the editorial from Sense About Science USA about PACE from 2016, https://senseaboutscienceusa.org/editorial-on-pace/

It's also one of the references in our PACE briefing document.

 

Is it looking like, other than the New York Times, this article is not being picked up by other media outlets?

Obviously there are still the weekend papers, but previous spin articles from SMC pet journalists have been picked up much quicker. Does that mean that this group are losing their control of the narrative or that journalists are now seeing this for what it is?

 

Google showed me results only for the New York Post (not the New York Times) , the St. Louis Post-Dispatch , and Metro (US).

 

Thank you for the correction, I googled as well, but included New York in my search terms to ID the article I knew about and still got the name wrong. Interesting that it is being picked up in the States were the flaws in this research have been officially recognised, but not so far in the countries where the most eminent PACE appologists are located.

 

Spoon fed propaganda.


As an aside the author may or may not even realize she was being used.

 

Thanks to all for your views, including Tevor who has just written about the Reuters article which he has describes,".... believe me, this is a terrible piece....."

(my emphasis)

Trevor,
"Repeating an allegation by an activist group with its own agenda in order to buttress a complaint strays into attacking the woman rather than the facts. You know what this journalist missed in the Reuters piece on ME/CFS, you probably, in all likelihood, don't know the other issue that well. Stick to what you know are the facts. Scientists not involved in the ME/CFS issue get uneasy when a very specific complaint is diluted by adding all sorts of other scientific issues. I understand the temptation—believe me, this is a terrible piece. But to be effective, criticism needs to be focused and fact based."..........

However, on a personal note, I am also involved in the Pesticide/health issue and my entire family and I are personally affected by impacts from over spraying etc.on the subject of pesticides and food.
I have firmly tracked the issue of altered gene expression with regard to ME and pesticides too.

I admit I am no scientist, any more than Kate K is!....., but do have a reasonably good academic background, qualifications and some common sense and healthy skepticism.
And I do follow the science and the law on these issues. So, to defend myself I say this,

I have sat through several High Court Judicial Reviews/Court of Appeal over the years on these matters of pesticides and human health adverse impacts.

I have followed Pesticide harm to human health for 40 years and have been to many specialist events and conferences, most recently to the parliamentary debate on the Agriculture Bill and the November 2018 lecture by Royal Society of Medicine epidemiology and public health events on the subject of pesticides and food in order to listen dispassionately to all the arguments.

I even met with and gave evidence to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution investigation into Agricultural pesticide use and human health in 2004.

SO, I am no 'one trick pony' and am highly suspicious of Monsanto........

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...nT3UCiXhhP8ofiSesVwHh6Jb7W78xO74pHUdJuyTC8QNg

FYI

The vital Caroline Lucas amendment to the UK Agriculture Bill for prohibition of agricultural pesticides near residents’ homes, schools, nurseries, hospitals, etc. is mentioned by me in the Guardian today (second letter down).

"A stark warning has again been issued by scientists over the catastrophic damage that intensive chemical farming and the use of agricultural pesticides is doing to wildlife, insects, nature and the environment. Not only that but these highly toxic agrochemicals are already known to be causing devastating damage to the health and lives of rural residents and communities around the world, as pesticides have been associated with a catalogue of chronic health conditions including neurological diseases, various cancers, respiratory problems and others.

Pesticides are poisons and should never have been used in the production of food in the first place, and certainly not for spraying where people live and breathe, especially babies, children, pregnant women, the elderly, and people already ill and/or disabled. A vital amendment to the agriculture bill has recently been tabled by Caroline Lucas for the prohibition of agricultural pesticides near residents’ homes, schools, nurseries, and hospitals, among other areas. Now is the time for MPs – especially those in rural constituencies – to also sign up to and support this crucial amendment.


Read more
Removing toxic chemicals completely from food production would protect not only the health of rural residents and communities, as well as other members of the public, but also the environment, wildlife, pollinators, and other species that – as the new global scientific review has rightly identified – are being wiped out from the continued use of such toxic chemicals.
Georgina Downs
UK Pesticides Campaign, Chichester, West Sussex

Now is the time for MPs - especially those in rural constituencies - to also sign up to and support it!! Pls share."

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1105979157043994624


(have mentioned this before but could someone ask Coyne to use #PACEtrial (all one word))

 

I'm with Trevor on this. There is legitimate criticism of IARC on this and many other issues.

Straying into anti-ag/anti-pharma areas is why we get labelled as anti-science and the assumptions that we are all anti-vaxx, alt-med-munching loons. And, tbf, that's what I thought too before I got to know you all. Don't make me change my mind!