-
New Forum Software Installed (Still a few issues but reopening the forum) More details.
"The motivations behind science denial", 2019, McLintic (CFS mentioned)
- Thread starter Tom Kindlon
- Start date
-
- Tags
- tba
Such a shame they have us so wrong. So clever and convenient of course for our adversaries to be able to lump us in with the loons, the flat earners and the dangerous. We are actually like climate activists fighting AGAINST the resistance and vested interest and for good science.
the wessely Sharpe white CFS CBT model is wrong not just “controversial”, their science and supposed outcomes/Conclusions are flawed, manipulated and Harmful not just “Unfavourable “, we don’t have pet areas or beliefs we have lives and families we are fighting for . I would also contend that the actual level of real harassment has been exaggerated..
it’s very unfortunate, I bet the writer of this has actual very limited knowledge of what “CFS” is, or the true debate around it , it’s just convenient to throw in as an example.
The sad thing is I personally don’t believe those who started this rumour actually do believe we are just anti science=anti psychiatry, I don’t think they Are as bewildered and sad at our continued hostility as they claim, I think that they Are just in damage limitation mode, at our expense, which if true is actually a serious crime against humanity really. This is why they never truly engage in the debate.
Arnie Pye
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
The author of this piece strikes me as being the kind of person who will say, on his pet subject, "the science is settled".
The "science was settled" for many years on the subject of cholesterol and nutrition - high cholesterol was going to kill us, statins were wonder drugs, eating saturated fat was going to kill us, sugar was fine, we all had to eat up to 11 or 12 servings of carbohydrates, preferably grains, per day to be well, and protein was bad for us. I don't think many serious scientists still think all these things.
The "science was settled" for many years on the subject of cholesterol and nutrition - high cholesterol was going to kill us, statins were wonder drugs, eating saturated fat was going to kill us, sugar was fine, we all had to eat up to 11 or 12 servings of carbohydrates, preferably grains, per day to be well, and protein was bad for us. I don't think many serious scientists still think all these things.
rvallee
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I don't understand why Horton receives zero criticism for his role in this. Especially as he is doing the exact same thing with PACE. He said the same thing: a vocal activist minority who just don't "like" the results, nevermind that the real results of PACE show failure and the main point of criticism is pretending otherwise.
Anyway. Hindsight. 20/20.
Ravn
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Appears to be an anaesthesiologist with a certain "world view". He writes:
https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/rea...019/2019/vol-132-no-1504-25-october-2019/8027
Curiously none of the references he gives mention ME or CFS in the title. So on what science does he base his view of ME/CFS?
https://icuadelaide.com.au/files/understanding_statistics_v2009_mclintic.pdf
He's written a booklet called 'Understanding Statistics'.
More:
He's written a booklet called 'Understanding Statistics'.
"STUDY DESIGN
2.Specify target population - Inclusion / Exclusion criteria
4. Requirement for control group if intervention study
7. Prevent bias
Response bias: If patient or observer or analyst knows allocation they can affect outcome. Avoid with blinding and allocation concealment
9. Statistical analysis plan
Outline the statistical analysis strategy in protocol. Avoid data dredging
Key components of EBM
Ask an answerable question
Track down best evidence
Appraise / validate evidence critically
Implement results in clinical practice Evaluate performance"
So, he knows all the theory, he just hasn't bothered to apply it.2.Specify target population - Inclusion / Exclusion criteria
4. Requirement for control group if intervention study
7. Prevent bias
Response bias: If patient or observer or analyst knows allocation they can affect outcome. Avoid with blinding and allocation concealment
9. Statistical analysis plan
Outline the statistical analysis strategy in protocol. Avoid data dredging
Key components of EBM
Ask an answerable question
Track down best evidence
Appraise / validate evidence critically
Implement results in clinical practice Evaluate performance"
More:
ERRORS IN RESEARCH
1. Reading up on the field
Only reading articles that agree with experimenters view
1. Reading up on the field
Only reading articles that agree with experimenters view
Last edited:
rvallee
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Some people do recreational anger. The "special report" on "harassed" scientists was fodder for this type.
Ironically, did not bother doing any research and just repeated fake news, engaging in science denial in the process. Oh, if irony were a currency we would all be richer than Jesus and Croesus put together.
rvallee
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Why ruin a good 2 minutes of hate with facts?https://icuadelaide.com.au/files/understanding_statistics_v2009_mclintic.pdf
He's written a booklet called 'Understanding Statistics'.
"STUDY DESIGNSo, he knows all the theory, he just hasn't bothered to apply it.
2.Specify target population - Inclusion / Exclusion criteria
4. Requirement for control group if intervention study
7. Prevent bias
Response bias: If patient or observer or analyst knows allocation they can affect outcome. Avoid with blinding and allocation concealment
9. Statistical analysis plan
Outline the statistical analysis strategy in protocol. Avoid data dredging
Key components of EBM
Ask an answerable question
Track down best evidence
Appraise / validate evidence critically
Implement results in clinical practice Evaluate performance"
More:
ERRORS IN RESEARCH
1. Reading up on the field
Only reading articles that agree with experimenters view
Esther12
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Appears to be an anaesthesiologist with a certain "world view". He writes:
https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/rea...019/2019/vol-132-no-1504-25-october-2019/8027
Curiously none of the references he gives mention ME or CFS in the title. So on what science does he base his view of ME/CFS?
Quite a few references from Lewandowsky, who has done his bit promoting lazy prejudices on this topic.
Looking for those old references turned up this 2013 blog, which rather misrepresents attempts to get information about PACE:
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lskymannSubter.html
Snow Leopard
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Seems to be a case of guilt by association?
Has anyone actually read the commentary? I don't have access.
Has anyone actually read the commentary? I don't have access.
Ravn
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Since he's not a psych maybe we can forgive him for not recognising cognitive dissonance when he feels it
. There are others who don't have even that excuse...No access either. All comments based on the publicly available abstract and reference list.
rvallee
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
What a lazy argument. Science is never settled. That's what makes it successful. And there is no need to demand access to data when it is openly shared, especially when it is mandated by contractual obligations and public funding.
The PACE authors made it difficult because they had something to hide. If anything, it's a perfect example for why it's necessary to openly share scientific data and demand it when it is arbitrarily refused precisely because the researchers have something to hide. What's not normal is when published papers present arguments not backed by data they are based on, which is what happened here, confirmed even.
theJOYdecision
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Would a quiet email to the corresponding author be appropriate? To ask what science denial they are referring to in regards the CFS and perhaps direct them to some resource that leaves them better informed regarding the bad science that has been so damaging.
Brain not working very well today.
Brain not working very well today.
Snowdrop
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Just IMO, I don't think we are dealing with rational thinking or behaviour from the people who still insist on spouting nonsense on this subject. There is ample opportunity and means to properly evaluate and understand this issue around what PwME are saying regarding the PACE trial and their experience of this illness. What they are all lacking is the motivation to do so.
In this case lack of motivation is the crime. Or at least it should be.
I think it might just be that he hasn't looked into things very much with respect to ME/CFS yet. (Of course, ideally, people would pause to consider whether the maligning of a whole group of sick people is warranted by the facts before publishing a scientific paper.)
His mind might be open enough to consider evidence presented in a polite email.
His mind might be open enough to consider evidence presented in a polite email.
Ravn
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
It's hard to say without knowing the man how such an email would be taken.
If he's just been ignorant and careless about fact-checking he might just be open to reconsidering his point of view on ME/CFS.
On the other hand, if he happens to be mates with one of the usual suspects and has his mind firmly made up, then any email - no matter how polite - will be taken as further proof of our supposed harassing of scientists.
Is it worth taking the risk? That might depend on how bad the actual article is. Has anyone been able to access the whole article yet?