Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
Where there are bad people are allowed to thrive, there is a desire for such people to exist. The face of desire is not desire itself. The best place for people like Wessely, Sharpe and White, is across a platform from researchers like Komaroff, Klimas etc, being contradicted, authoritatively and academically in broad daylight.
The evidence around CFS is all so tenuous that who would win any debate would largely depend upon the prejudices of the audience. At this point I'm sceptical of anyone presenting themselves as a CFS expert.
A bit primitive but sort of works so long as you have a unified (fascistic ?) community. But as long as you have other people who may identify with the ‘hated’, or who feel some other bond – familial, collegiate etc, then all you end up with is tribalism. And that’s a really crap place to be if you are on the outside of a tribe whose skills and support you need.
Some 1.4 million people are employed either directly or indirectly by the NHS, the issue of threats of violence and actual violence is a major concern for all of those employees VIOLENCE TOWARDS NHS STAFF . Few of those 1.4 million people, together with their friends and families would not accept Wessely’s report of threats to him at face value. In tribal terms, hating Wessely translates to hating all health workers, personally I think that is a massively dumb position to court, particularly if the only purpose is allowing an M.E/CFS ‘tribe’ to get its collective ‘rocks off’ by rhetorical stringing up of an imputed dictator/abuser/Quisling/traitor/heretic or whatever else permits the summary justice of the tribal mob. Hating is fine, but allowing ‘hate’ to become emblematic of an advocacy position is monumentally stupid, unless of course the object of the advocacy is holy war or the advancement of ethnic cleansing, Helotry or dictatorship – then it works quite well.
I'm sure that you realised this, but as I wasn't very clear I'll be explicit: I was writing on the assumption that a mob mentality was a bad thing.
Also, I recognised that politically, it would probably be more effective to just ignore Wessely. As you say, people tend to be somewhat tribalist, and those with power and authority over us will associate themselves with Wessely far more than with patients. To some, the very notion of patients complaining about how they have been treated will seem absurd, and indistinguishable from being anti-science. People who complain about the police can be seen as anti-law and order.
For myself, I'm just not willing to live life in a way that accounts for the prejudices of those with power and authority, even though failing to do so will be likely to cause me problems. I am only speaking for myself rather than promoting some position for advocacy, but I find that life is more meaningful and enjoyable when I say what I think is true, and engage in open and honest debate with others about it. I think that the approach promoted by Wessely has really harmed how patients are treated: I think that it was always unreasonable, and always immoral. Being open about that is unlikely to help the cause of CFS patients, but trying to pretend otherwise would require some really slippery use of language, which goes against my own desires for my life and my identity (areas where I've already had to make significant sacrifices).
I like to think that I do not just pour out thoughtless and indefensible anger, which would be damaging and mindless; but when I feel that I can defend my views through reasonable and evidence based debate, then I do not like to self-censor for political reasons. (Possibly I'm confusing posting on an internet forum for some sort of valiant struggle for personal freedom, equality and the pursuit of truth. My health is limiting - I need to self aggrandise where I can.)