Kelland knew exactly what she was doing.There never was any intention to investigate or understand. It was about collecting bits to support the narrative of irrational death-threat making patients while stubbornly ignoring any information that contradicts it. Much like PACE was never about testing the treatments, but about convincing the world that CBT/GET work.
Me too. And I'm a big Potter fan too - as audiobooks these days. They are great for sending me to sleep and night.Can't think why Rita Skeeter and her Quick -Quotes Quill makes me think of this thread?...
I think they're not particularly well written, but I enjoy the escapism, characters and stories. And I love Stephen Fry's reading of them.erm...so no one else thinks they are terribly written?
Stephen Fry elevates the poor writing (although they're not terrible; just not brilliant) to real entertainment. Reading the books is a relatively breezy but okay experience; listening to them read is fabulous.I think they're not particularly well written, but I enjoy the escapism, characters and stories. And I love Stephen Fry's reading of them.
The poor writing quality shows up more in her adult fiction. I found her first adult novel unreadably awful.
I noticed a handful of glaring factual mistakes that a basic fact-check and minimal effort would have caught in editing. Being factual was not the point of this PR blitz, so I don't expect a correction until it becomes too embarrassing to leave it published, but that will take a while.Ny blog post from David Tuller: Trial By Error: My Follow-Up Letter to Reuters
Earlier this month, as I have reported, I sent a letter to the Reuters global editor for “ethics and standards” about my concerns relating to last month’s hit piece on ME/CFS patients and me. (I put those words in quotation marks because I have seen little in the reporting and publication of this piece that would meet any legitimate journalistic understanding of “ethics and standards.”) After reviewing the matter, Reuters agreed to add the fact that I hold a current academic position at one of the world’s great universities–a detail that Kate Kelland, the reporter, apparently felt was irrelevant and of no interest to readers.
Yet the story still describes me–falsely–as a “former reporter.” So on Friday, I sent a follow-up letter to Alix Freedman, the editor I’d contacted. As of this posting, the story continues to contain this untrue statement about my professional life.
Articles about the death threats have not been retracted (or even corrected) despite the claims having been debunked, now reduced to some angry (though accurate) tweets that even Sharpe and Wessely walked back quickly, down to "people criticize our work in scientific journals and that's unacceptable".Why would they want outstanding complaints to remain on the record when that comes out?
A few weeks back I saw a random comment on Reddit that there had been assassination attempts against the PACE researchers.
Ha! I think it mentioned a bomb. But memory hazy, I didn't bother replying as it was a pretty hostile thread to begin with.Presumably that would have been the occasion on which someone was found to be in possession of a small knife, for use in aiding the consumption of her packed lunch.
Wessely is a master at leading people to an idea, and flattering them that they reached it independently.Making their accusations by implication and leaving the details (Wessely has to have his mail screeeeened!) to the reader's imagination has been incredibly effective.
I noticed a handful of glaring factual mistakes that a basic fact-check and minimal effort would have caught in editing. Being factual was not the point of this PR blitz, so I don't expect a correction until it becomes too embarrassing to leave it published, but that will take a while.
So they don't care that there is zero substance to the claims? Being told "you're not doing your job properly" is not an excuse to continue not doing your job.The article is used as a reference in a debate in Norway about patients with gender dysphoria. It's used as an excuse to not listen to another patient group either.
Do they have no self-respect? It's "concealed" in plain sight in international medical journals, clinical guidelines and literally the freaking status quo. All of it was bullied through in complete disregard for safety and reliable evidence, on which we had no success in countering despite having the facts on our side.conceal that there is effective treatment for the condition
Look at us, breaking causality and inventing an Internet disease before the Internet even existed.SW (or friend) also made a big thing about ME being a fashionable disease spread by the internet rather than a virus.