The Hans Eysenck affair: Time to correct the scientific record (2019) David F Marks

I'm not entirely sure if Sharpe's concern is over the fraud or rather over him being exposed as a fraud and how unfair it is to "science", something he should expect sometime in the future for basically the same reason.

I'm going with the 2nd one. They are ideological cousins, after all.

 

Anthony Pelosi and Louis Appleby raised concerns about this research in BMJ back in 1992. Louis Appleby has just posted their original paper on Twitter, along with the following tweet. Sounds all too familiar.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1182935804697567232


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1881824/pdf/bmj00073-0045.pdf

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1182986294428930053


Links to https://www.coyneoftherealm.com/201...-shoved-a-hans-eysenck-scandal-under-the-rug/

 

Wessely's quotes:

"Dramatic breakthrough" it was not. I wonder how similar Sharpe's current research is to that, seems to borrow from the same mindset.

Either you believe or you don't. Says it all. Science is not something you believe in or not. It's literally the WHOLE POINT of science, to separate belief and opinion from objective reality. And he dares call us anti-science.

The whole "fighting spirit" and war language of illness is particularly devious. What a horrible message, incredibly insulting.

 

https://davidfmarks.com/2019/10/13/...asons-on-the-day-the-guardian-slates-eysenck/

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1183342205081141248

 

https://cosmosmagazine.com/society/is-this-one-of-the-worst-scientific-scandals-of-all-time

 

Put it another way:

and it's like I'm seeing double.

The discussion over this fraud HAS to include the fact that his ideas persist, they were simply reoriented away from cancer and onto more easily-abused populations. It's the exact same thinking as the psychomagic model of ME and generally speaking the MUS/FND/WTF garbage bin of "those patients".

 

https://retractionwatch.com/2019/10...ignificant-underestimate-says-his-biographer/

 

Was Eysenck right after all? A reassessment of the effects of psychotherapy for adult depression
2018

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...t-depression/AD6D7EDCBA894C295E67503570BF8957

slight twist(?)

eta: found a list of all his publications here
Hans Jurgen Eysenck - Publications
https://neurotree.org/beta/publications.php?pid=7664&searchstring=&showfilter=all

 

Occupying a position on every side of the fence so that you'll always be right about something is a strategy I've seen before somewhere ...

 

King’s College London’s enquiry into Hans J Eysenck’s ‘Unsafe’ publications must be properly completed

Open access, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1359105319887791

 

What do people think of this part?

Wouldn't any UK body be very likely to made up of those with a desire to cover-up problems with the work of their friends and colleagues? The more I've seen of the personal networks within UK academia the more doubtful I've become that an official body like this would do more good than harm.

 

This is a good point.

 

I agree that a National Research Integrity Ombudsman sounds exactly the sort of under-carpet sweeping job that is not wanted. The HRA ought to be in this position anyway and it seems to sweep merrily.

 

Journal retracts 30-year-old paper by controversial psychologist Hans Eysenck

I am longing to see this for another trial...

https://retractionwatch.com/2020/01...r-by-controversial-psychologist-hans-eysenck/

 

From the abstract of retracted paper:

"The review committee found a lack of confidence."

Wonder if they will ever publish how the committee reached this decision.

 

Or if there will be some examination of how it got published in the first place and what it means for every other behavioral research paper that follows similar methodology (i.e. all of them). Especially considering the bar keeps getting lowered to avoid having to do so, as evidenced by BMJ, PLOS, Lancet and Cochrane ignoring their own standards, with the latter currently opting to drop them firmly below ground.

The entire body of research is suspect and needs to be paused and reexamined. Unlikely to happen yet but it not happening now only to later be inevitable will make it all look that much worse. It may just be the most overhyped and least reliable body of evidence in all of science.

One small step for science, but there are thousands more to take.

 

Code:

https://twitter.com/newhealthpsych/status/1227566448287068160

https://twitter.com/user/status/1227566448287068160

 

https://retractionwatch.com/2020/02...rs-by-hans-eysenck-flag-18-some-60-years-old/