UK: Paul Little

Thanks @Hutan. Been trying to find the spoons to look into who he is because I was wondering why someone from the UK would peer review a NZ CME unit. Maybe that's normal practice but it does look a bit, I don't know, cartel-like?

 

Am I getting confused but I thought in academia people joined groups based on a belief in methodology and research strategies or robustness, not just the dib-dib-dob-dob I swear I believe it's a tendency to be a bit hysterically thinking wrong making them think they are ill and will only ever look at their behaviour as wrong and in the light of 'false beliefs'.

Because er well... that, without the progressing knowledge or wanting the academic literature to land where the chips may despite your best guesses, well it is something else entirely - and is more swearing into something political, religious or other type of action-based organisation isn't it?

And they can claim 'research' they do is 'research' but it isn't even as regulated as the research marketers would do as part of their marketing plans where they'd actually have to be above board and reliable in showing if something was just coerced by design to get a bunch of people who hadn't dropped out saying what they require them to say. And it doesn't seem to be either knowledge, experience with patients or learning from the job as per a specialism.

As you say, this guy doesn't seem to do either - so what actually is COFFI because I think it is worth looking up these technical terms to just see whether they are basically fitting more the definition of 'lobbyist' 'commercial interest group', 'political group', I don't know whether there is somewhere the definitions of these is clarified because it would be interesting as we come across each to use such a framework to define said groups appropriately?

Given what they want taught on their 'courses' in my mind would be categorised as disability bigotry, just plain disability bigotry by pretending you can't see the disability when you can see it and then inferring you as an ignorant with no experience could 'give em some tips on how to be more tenacious' - which to me sounds like the classic idiot watching a wheelchair user struggle with steps and thinking they can offer advice on 'why don't they try wheelie-ing' and telling women to 'smile more' and 'maybe you'd feel better if you didn't think about it' (even when people don't 'think about it'). And that they are as keen to distribute their message to those who don't have the condition, I think this is a distinction that needs to be defined if it isn't already.

Particularly if Sharpe's talk where he intends to take this orthodoxy to most disability and illnesses - having picked on the most vulnerable condition first - perhaps was always the 'belief system' being sold anyway... I think it is worth viewing how different things look in that light (whilst those conditions are still seen as the reality they are) of what these individuals specifically would like to deliver on these courses and their end-game for if they believe in any other treatment or adjustments etc.

 

He was part of the ME expert group too, or at least attended the workshop in 2009 https://webarchive.nationalarchives...ocuments/pdf/cfsme-workshop-participant-list/. The big tent approach

 

Such clinical groupings are not inherently negative. They can also serve to share good practice and promote good research. We are seeking to do the same when encouraging understanding of such as PEM and backing biomedical research into the same.

The problem is when they serve to enforce a belief system, stifling dissent and silencing a whole patient group. The relevant questions about the BPS/psychogenic grouping is not about their links and information sharing, which is inevitable in relatively small clinical fields, but rather about how they became proponents of an ideology rather than problem solvers, why they sought to exclude dissenting colleagues and actively devalue the patient perspective as a deliberate strategy.