recent GP survey on stress not being an illness

I have thought pretty carefully about what I think of this article. And I will try to say what I believe as best as I can. Forgive me if I don't give justice in my response.

1. The statistics are represented in an untrue and inaccurate way. From a quote (can't quote my source, sorry) : there are 59,000 GPs in the UK. 5000 were in the survey. 752 responded. 442 felt there is overdiagnosis. So even if we look at 442/5000 x100. This is 8.84%. And it is how you spin this figure. Do you say 8.84% say there is overdiagnosis. Or do you say 91.16% thought that there was not. It is just spin. I am happy for a better statistician than me to have a look at this. I do note that I can not find exactly how many over 5000 we are talking about. When you say 'more than' 5000, to me that says 5001 - not 5999.

2. Be very, very careful when doing a survey for the media. And this being an open forum, I do risk certain things. I'm just hoping I don't end up quoted in the papers. Or indeed even being identified.

The thing that people remember are not the statistics, not at what the full article says. It is just one thing: it's the headline. And one GP in 5000 took that headline. That is what people remember. And that is the spin. And you have to think. What are the biases in the media and why do they happen? These are my thoughts:

1. It's about money. The headline sells. The media needs money. Needs readers.

2. It's about who controls media and what is their agenda. Political agenda and financial agenda. Who is behind the stories. Who owns the media.

3. It’s political. I was thinking about the Health Secretary's article in the Guardian. Why did the Guardian publish the article: ?because it sells papers? Why did Mr Streeting choose to write to the Guardian when he ‘leans’ to the Right. Because, he is making a move to challenge the Prime Minister. And I think he will win. I think Keir Starmer thinks that too. So what does Mr Streeting gain from having his piece of spin in the Left-wing Guardian. Because he is thinking of the next election. He wants to appear Statesman-like but also uses manipulative language in his piece. He has his ‘eyes on the prize’.

If you work in the media or know who I am, I ask you not to out me on this. But I guess you would have your own agenda too.

Kind regards, Mrs Snooks.

I have thought pretty carefully about what I think of this article. And I will try to say what I believe as best as I can. Forgive me if I don't give justice in my response.

1. The statistics are represented in an untrue and inaccurate way. From a quote (can't quote my source, sorry) : there are 59,000 GPs in the UK. 5000 were in the survey. 752 responded. 442 felt there is overdiagnosis. So even if we look at 442/5000 x100. This is 8.84%. And it is how you spin this figure. Do you say 8.84% say there is overdiagnosis. Or do you say 91.16% thought that there was not. It is just spin. I am happy for a better statistician than me to have a look at this. I do note that I can not find exactly how many over 5000 we are talking about. When you say 'more than' 5000, to me that says 5001 - not 5999.

2. Be very, very careful when doing a survey for the media. And this being an open forum, I do risk certain things. I'm just hoping I don't end up quoted in the papers. Or indeed even being identified.

The thing that people remember are not the statistics, not at what the full article says. It is just one thing: it's the headline. And one GP in 5000 took that headline. That is what people remember. And that is the spin. And you have to think. What are the biases in the media and why do they happen? These are my thoughts:

1. It's about money. The headline sells. The media needs money. Needs readers.

2. It's about who controls media and what is their agenda. Political agenda and financial agenda. Who is behind the stories. Who owns the media.

3. It’s political. I was thinking about the Health Secretary's article in the Guardian. Why did the Guardian publish the article: ?because it sells papers? Why did Mr Streeting choose to write to the Guardian when he ‘leans’ to the Right. Because, he is making a move to challenge the Prime Minister. And I think he will win. I think Keir Starmer thinks that too. So what does Mr Streeting gain from having his piece of spin in the Left-wing Guardian. Because he is thinking of the next election. He wants to appear Statesman-like but also uses manipulative language in his piece. He has his ‘eyes on the prize’.

If you work in the media or know who I am, I ask you not to out me on this. But I guess you would have your own agenda too.

Kind regards, Mrs Snooks.

Your points are well made mrs.snooks 

1 - 1 Agreed, "there are lies, damned lies and statistcis" I once attended a meeting where the professional body's advisor on use of statistics began their talk with us with "first decide what it is you want to show..."  Needless to say my response was forthright and appeared profoundly confusing to many of the people in the meeting.  (and these people had all received a graduate/post graduate science qualifications...)

1- 2 I admit to being very frightened in and by society and I think it comes in no small measure from being autistic.  Thanks for the "heads up" about who we might trust.  Please continue to be as brave as you are able to and (notwithstanding the be careful who one trusts bit!) I and others believe you and support you.

2- 1 yep, money, perhaps not even readers these days as enough money can keep parts of the media running even with few readers and able to be quoted by other wider parts of the media  - Private Eye magazine has had a running joke about the sale of The Telegraph - that someone has actually bought a copy...  

2 -2 yep - and what/who are they in it for..

2-3 yep - what drives these people isn't some heart-felt social agenda anymore - makes me deeply suspicious too