- Messages
- 36
Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
2. The Bad Science discussion forum cannot be reached from outside of that forum. Accordingly, the Postings would not have come up if anyone had used a search engine to search for your client or the treatments she offers.
In publishing views on a website, a doctor is probably acting as an author, not a doctor. That's what one of the GMC's own Expert Witnesses apparently said. [ref: IOP Transcripts of Myhill v GMC - can't remember where and I am not going to look! If you want to verify it is on the GMC website somewhere!]. Therefore websites may not be within the regulatory powers of the GMC.
Something which seems to have passed most people by in all this!
Compelling evidence? Not what the law says though. The law says Bolam which is something very different. You may be right but it is very unlikely, I think, that we will ever get there.
I hope she wins after all he put her through, but personally think the owner of the Bad Science forum should also take responsibility for the things she was called there.
I
There's so much bullshit and quackery around CFS that I've never really considered the possibility of taking someone to court over any of it. It's just the norm. I wonder what would happen if someone tried to sue Esther Crawley for that paper she wrote for NHS commissioners that claimed PACE showed a 30-40% recovery rate for CBT/GET? If you follow the citations, it's clearly bullshit, but no-one really seems to care because it's only CFS, and everyone knows that doesn't matter. It would be fun to see her try and justify the claim under cross-examination. If I had the money, it would be worth doing just for that!
Just to clarify that in the case of Phoenix Rising, since we are now a non-profit, any legal responsibility as 'owner' of the forums (and the website) now lies with the organisation and the board of directors, not with Cort as an individual.
We take our responsibility in relation to defamatory comment and personal attacks very seriously, we have clear written rules on those matters, and the moderators investigate and, where appropriate, remove such content when it is reported to us. We do not need the fear of legal sanction to prompt us to do this, we do it because we believe it is the right thing to do, and because we want to create and maintain a respectful environment for our members. It is very difficult to catch everything on a large forum, but I believe that forum owners have a responsibility to make their best efforts, and a responsibility for the nature and tone of the forums they manage, whether that be a legal responsibility or simply a moral one.
This is different from an academic debate around the merits of different treatments and methodologies. I agree with Esther that such debate shouldn't be cause for legal action. But perhaps there is a point where it goes beyond debate as it starts to harm individuals?
Did Myhill have questionable or unfounded information on her website?
IIRC the GMC's response to Myhill increased into arguable excess and was later reversed back to "conditions",
Quackery can be broadly defined as "anything involving overpromotion in the field of health." This definition would include questionable ideas as well as questionable products and services, regardless of the sincerity of their promoters.
Quackery can be broadly defined as "anything involving overpromotion in the field of health." This definition would include questionable ideas as well as questionable products and services, regardless of the sincerity of their promoters.