Zombie Science in ME/CFS?

[Guest guest]

http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/Zombie_Science_in_MECFS.htm

~jvr

```````

Zombie Science in ME/CFS?

Margaret

15th August 2008

Mental health researchers at The Institute of

Psychiatry (London) are currently undertaking a study

of " social cognition " . The project seeks to find out

whether " the processing of social information " is

affected in people with anorexia nervosa and

whether or not people with anorexia can recognise

complex emotions in other people.

The anorexia group will be compared with healthy

controls and also with people who have " CFS " , the

latter being recruited through outpatient services of

The South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation

Trust.

The project was announced in 2007 just before the

publication of the NICE Guideline on " CFS/ME " .

Recruitment for this " research " will run until the end

of 2008 and the project will be completed in 2009

(http://www.b-eat.co.uk/Supportingbeat/MediaResearch/Socialcognitioninanorexiane\

rvosa).

The study literature states: " The comparison with

CFS will allow (researchers) to gauge whether

any social cognition deficits are unique to

anorexia, or reflect more global symptoms of

psychiatric illness with marked physical

symptoms " .

So there we have it in black and white: according to

researchers at the IoP (the home of stalwart

supporters of CBT and GET for " CFS/ME " Professors

Simon Wessely and Trudie Chalder), " CFS " is " a

psychiatric illness with marked physical

symptoms " .

The background to the project states: " Anorexia

nervosa and chronic fatigue syndrome are

classical psychosomatic disorders where response

to social threat is expressed somatically (e.g.

Hatcher & House, 2003; Kato et al 2006; Schmidt

et al 1997). Other similarities between these

disorders include strong female preponderance

and overlapping personality characteristics, such

as being introverted and avoidant. Aberrant

emotional processing is a strong candidate as a

maintaining factor for these disorders (Schmidt &

Treasure 2006) " .

Is it by chance alone that this " research " coincides

with the publication of the NICE Guideline and that

the only " evidence " upon which the NICE Guideline

Development Group relied is that of the Wessely

School, whose assumption about the nature of

" CFS/ME " is that it is a psychosomatic disorder and

whose model and management recommendations are

based on " fear avoidance " and " deconditioning " ?

It is surely remarkable that the beliefs of the

Wessely School about " CFS/ME " (in which they

unequivocally include " ME/CFS " ) remain uninfluenced

by the ever-mounting biomedical evidence which

proves their beliefs to be seriously misinformed.

A possible explanation has been put forward by

Professor Bruce Charlton, Editor-in-Chief of Medical

Hypotheses; Emeritus Professor of Public Policy at

the University of California and Reader in

Evolutionary Psychiatry at the University of

Newcastle (UK).

Charlton is well-known for his campaign to breathe

new life into academic medicine in order to capture

issues that matter to patients and which would make

a difference to their lives.

In a compelling Editorial (Zombie science: A sinister

consequence of evaluating scientific theories purely

on the basis of enlightened self-interest. Medical

Hypotheses, 26th July 2008) Charlton debunks the

ideal of impartial and objective science. The

following quotations apply with particular resonance

to the current ME/CFS situation in the UK:

" In the real world it looks like most scientists are

quite willing to pursue wrong ideas – so long as they

are rewarded for doing so with a better chance of

achieving more grants, publications and status " .

" This is 'enlightened self-interest' a powerful factor

in scientific evaluation because the primary criterion

of the 'validity' of a theory is whether or not acting

upon it will benefit the career of the scientist;

'enlightened' because the canny career scientist will

be looking ahead a few years in order to prefer that

theory which offers the best prospect of netting the

next grant, tenure, promotion or prestigious job

opportunity " .

" When a new theory is launched, it is unlikely to win

converts unless (they) are rewarded with a greater

chance of generous research funding, the opportunity

to publish in prestigious journals and the hope of

increased status exemplified by admiration and

respect from other scientists " .

" Theories may become popular or even dominant

purely because of their association with immediate

incentives and despite their scientific weaknesses " .

" Even the most conclusive 'hatchet jobs' done on

phoney theories will fail to kill, or even weaken,

them when the phoney theories are backed up with

sufficient economic muscle in the form of funding.

Scientists will gravitate to where the money is so

long as the funding stream is sufficiently deep and

sustained " .

" Classical theory has it that a bogus hypothesis will

be rejected when it fails to predict 'reality', but

(this) can be deferred almost indefinitely by the

elaboration of secondary hypotheses which then

require further testing (and generates more work for

the bogus believers) " .

" That the first theory is phoney, and always was

phoney, is regarded as simplistic, crass (and) a sign

of lack of sophistication " .

" And anyway, there are massive 'sunk costs'

associated with the phoney theory, including the

reputations of numerous scientists who are now

successful and powerful on the back of the phoney

theory, and who now control the peer-review process

(including the allocation of grants, publications and

jobs) " .

" False theories can therefore prove very long-lived " .

" The zombification of science (occurs) when science

based on phoney theories is serving a useful but

non-scientific purpose (so it is) kept going by

continuous transfusions of cash from those whose

interests it serves " .

" For example, if a branch of pseudo-science based

on a phoney theory is valuable for political reasons

(e.g. to justify government policies) then real

science expires and 'zombie science' evolves " .

" (This) can be explained away by yet further phoney

theoretical elaborations, especially when there is

monopolistic control of information " .

" In a nutshell, zombie science is supported because

it is useful propaganda (and) is deployed in arenas

such as political rhetoric, public administration,

management, public relations, marketing and the

mass media generally. Indeed, zombie science often

comes across in the mass media as being more

plausible than real science " .

" Personal careerist benefits seem easily able to

overwhelm the benefits of trying to establish the

'real world' of truth " .

" In current science, there seems to be a greater

possibility that large scale change may be fashion

rather than progress, and such change may be

serving propagandist goals rather than advancing

scientific understanding " .

" Modern science may have a lumbering pace, and its

vast bulk means that once it has begun to move in a

particular direction, trying to deflect its path is like

stopping a charging rhinoceros " .

" Perhaps funders co-operate, co-ordinate and

collude, and therefore should be regarded as a

cartel " .

To halt this raging rhinoceros, Charlton says:

" Individual ambition should ensure a sufficient

supply of debunkers to keep the gardens of science

weeded of bogus theories, and to banish the

zombies of science to the graveyards where they

belong " .

The ME/CFS community can have no doubt that

Charlton has hit the nail on the head.

For how much longer must these desperate people

be sacrificed on the defiled altar of zombie science?

[Guest guest]

Had to share a couple of comments / thoughts about this study; 'zombie

science'... and any others that we either read; agree to be a part of; or let

rule our healthcare.

 

The statements by Professor Bruce Charlton [Editor-in-Chief of Medical

Hypotheses; Emeritus Professor of Public Policy at the University of California

and Reader in Evolutionary Psychiatry at the University of Newcastle (UK)] in

the article ring very true to me as I am currently reading the book:  " Cure

Unknown: Inside the Lyme Epidemic " by Pamela Weintraub.

 

Here is a link to an excerpt from her book published in Psychology Today, under

the title of " The Great Imitator "  http://www.astralgia.com/index.htm

 

Chapter 14 outlines how [Allan] Steere 'updated' his belief about the treatment

of Lyme (i.e. that Burgdorfer was able to disprove Steere's previous notion that

'Lyme Disease' was viral when he both discovered the spirochete AND was able to

meet the 'burden of proofs 4-stages of criteria).

 

For those of you who are unaware, Dr. Steere is one of the author's of the IDSA

'guidelines' in the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme Disease...

 

From the bottom of page 91 - page 93, she does an excellent job at explaining

some of the historical issues / backgrounds of where science became 'zombie

science' and where scientists and researchers lost their way while trying to be

published.

 

" [Carl] Brenner thinks the Yale team had unwittingly violated one of the most

important tenents of science by failing to eliminate experimenter bias and

expectation from their experiments. At first the Yale scientists thought Lyme

was caused by a virus incapable to responding to antibiotics, and reported high

rates of treatment failure with many late manifestations of the disease. Later,

after the spirochete was discovered, response to antibiotics was expected, and

the researchers began reporting treatment success. But the only way they could

manage to find consistent " success " where they had previously reported " failure "

was to literally lower the bar for what they called a cure. "

 

If I am ever able to (again) be able to read through any scientific data, I will

immeidatly turn to the " Methodology " first before deciding whether or not to

read the paper or take at face-value what is published in medical journals. The

rosy glasses are off and the skeptic in me heightened.