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

I think its a bad idea for any of us to contact her, its just reinforces the narrative to her that we oppose anything we don't like.
However i can see @dave30th writing an article in response, a reporter responding to an article he is quoted in would probably have more impact and his sources are unimpeachable and his backing points in an article will be more thorough then most of us could manage.

 

I didn’t suggest anything of the kind. Someone asked who wrote the piece, as they didn’t want to click the link. I answered.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1105812350186283009

 

Sorry if i implied you did, i meant in general we should not do so

 

Agree.

 

Yes, this. Thank goodness they are finding it hard to recruit new researchers - and yes, funny how Kelland didn't know about, or chose not to acknowledge,
the ever-increasing number of biomedical scientists that have been coming into ME research (at least in the States).

Looks like it becomes clear now why Sharpe was baiting ME sufferers on Twitter last year - to collect replies for his 'abuse folder' that the article says he keeps, so that they could be used for this article which he surely knew was in the works.

 

It’s misleading because it quotes the Americans version of the definition multi system, biological etc as if that is how these psychiatrists psychologists are defining it in their papers. When you have to call on per fink

 

Kimberley Goldsmith to the rescue...

https://twitter.com/user/status/1105799655370248192

 

Somewhat heartening that the protesters outside Columbia University made his trip to NY worse than anything he's experienced before. So it's not all in vain.

ETA: To clarify, it's good that he does indeed take note of when people are protesting against his actions. It's up to him whether he deems that to be the worst thing he's ever experienced. Maybe that's his conscience.

 

I actually disagree. I think a perfectly polite, emotionless fact pointing email is just fine. If not their claims that we are silencing them in this propaganda piece is in effect effectively silencing us.

 

I understand what your saying but when someone believes lies telling them they are believing lies usually reinforces the abhorrent belief (makes them defensive). It would be nice if the antidote to reality denial was facts but if it were politics would die a quick death.

 

Bristol and Bath.

 

done; sorry I posted the original link....

 

Interestingly, nothing on the SMC website (yet) about this.

 

No worries, thanks

 

There should be a Yelp page for ME/CFS researchers, a category on Yelp specifically for ME/CFS researchers. Then what would some of these "scientists" do?

It would not be framed so easily, this sort of narrative of on-line activist vs beleagered scientist, etc. It would be consumers of research findings expressing their opinion.

 

I agree with @Cinders66; I think contacting Reuters with a polite email disputing things we can back up with data (ie. Cochrane ) might be the way to go. I doubt it will get anywhere but we can always try.

Edit : pressed post too soon!

 

A great many pwME who suffer as a consequence of MS' work, will not have been treated by him.

MS is pedantically correct, albeit:

• Obfuscating he believes the biological condition to be deconditioning.
• Perpetuation of a condition due to "social and psychological factors" is still saying it is a psychological problem.

Very selective in their contacts it would seem. Another variation on omitting findings you do not want to find.

Now why might that be ... ? Oh yes, because it is a biological condition perpetuated by biological mechanisms, not psychological.

Any whose fault is that toxicity down to?

Yet SW would never consider if the people who have died would necessarily have, if the BPS approach to ME had been to engage in good honest science.

But it's not just about evidence, it's about the quality of the evidence. Crap-evidence-backed treatments should and must be discredited, else ... patients are the losers.

And neither were Woodward or Bernstein ever president of the USA.

Conveniently overlooking the great many scientists who agree with those arguments. (Boy, they are shooting themselves in their collective feet throughout this article. So much to work with here!).

What a pile of BSP-journalistic BS. I wonder what the CDC might think about being accused of basing their decision on activist bias. This sort of sleight of language in this article is actually a godsend, because it highlights how totally lacking in science their arguments are ... just desperation-driven rhetoric.

Ah, so NICE is also being driven by lobbyists.

Ah, a breath of almost-fresh air.

If researchers withdraw from doing rubbish research and make way for good researchers, that's OK with me.

Probably are misdiagnosed, but does not mean we would accuse them of not being ill in the first place. And not that their recovery is fake, but a recovery from something other than real ME.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1105819089895743488