• 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 (FM), 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.

Horrifying article in Sunday Times

MeSci

ME/CFS since 1995; activity level 6?
Messages
8,231
Location
Cornwall, UK
It's just my take on it, and I might be way off, but my thoughts on it are as follows...

Governments don't like any types of 'outbreaks', or other such unpredictable events, and they quickly move to put a lid on potentially escalating public relations disasters. Outbreaks or other such unpredictable events can quickly escalate into public alarm and panic, and very bad public relations disasters for governments. Governments don't like 'unknowns' and they like to keep a lid on alarming 'events', including health scares (unless the public 'alarm' helps them in facilitating their desired policies.)

So governments look towards people who can give them quick, simple but reassuring and convincing answers.
When a simple answer has been found (e.g. a health scare is due to 'hysteria'), then the media (and therefore the general public) are satisfied, because they have a story that they can run with, and then the whole story can closed with the simple answer of 'hysteria' etc.

This is exactly what happened after a serious water poisoning incident near where I lived - a small town called Camelford in Cornwall. It was only this year that I found out who was the chief orchestrator of the 'all in the mind' explanation for people's consequent illness. I will give you only one guess...

When you have guessed, and if you have the stomach for it, you can read the said person's account of this incident of mass hysteria (which must have been very powerful hysteria as it also killed animals and turned people's hair green) here:

http://theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/ME-CFS_docs/The Legend of Camelford.pdf?oo=0

A group called MEActionUK have collated info on the incidents and illnesses for which this person has proposed these theories.
 

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
When you have guessed, and if you have the stomach for it, you can read the said person's account of this incident of mass hysteria (which must have been very powerful hysteria as it also killed animals and turned people's hair green) here:

From my blog: http://forums.phoenixrising.me/index.php?entries/greenwashing.1258/


The Denial Process

This is my interpretation of the process, following on from Walker. Step one, limit the scope of investigation and the number of patients examined. Step two, deny chemical causation. Step three, claim hysteria as a cause. Of course there is no objective test to confirm hysteria, and so it cannot be refuted directly. Then follow with lobbying to support this process.

1. Limit The Scope. Limit the scope of the enquiry. Look at only a handful of hundreds of patients. Limit the questions being asked. Limit the research being considered. Limit the argument to irrelevant trivialities. Misdefine and redefine as much as possible.

2. Deny Causation. Deny any biomedical claims of causation. Deliberately confuse claims with nonsensical claims. Use lack of data about the incident to promote doubt.

3. Claim hysteria. Invoke unproven and unprovable claims of hysteria, mass hysteria, functional syndromes or the equivalent. Refer to older unproven claims as though they substantiate the current claim.

4. Lobby for the hysteria viewpoint. Lobby against the biomedical viewpoint. Primarily use pursuasive and political rhetoric rather than primarily use evidence and reason to support the claim. Lobby for no further investigation, therefore ensuring that more data in support of biomedical causation will be harder to obtain. Invoke irrelevant claims as part of the political process, such as claiming that victims are conspiring to distort the science, or that the victims are under the influence of a cult that believes chemicals cause disease.

The book goes on to describe two major chemical incidents, the role of insurance companies, and of course how many industries fund public relations groups in relation to these matters. The two chemical incidents discussed are Camelford and Love Canal.
 

SilverbladeTE

Senior Member
Messages
3,043
Location
Somewhere near Glasgow, Scotland
And what happened afterwards to the people of Camelford was exposed, in court as an actual conspiracy!
But now what do we get? MORE CONSPIRACY to silence it.
I *loathe and despise* the UK system, it's perverse, evil and happily sacrifices people for profit.
And Wessely is one of it's tools
.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-22200035

Camelford water poisoning: Long-term health effects 'unlikely'

_59070333_camelford_still.jpg
The aluminium sulphate was tipped in the wrong tank by a relief delivery driver at the unmanned plant
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories

A water poisoning incident in Cornwall is "unlikely" to have caused long-term health effects, a report has said.
Camelford's water supply was poisoned in July 1988 when aluminium sulphate was tipped into the wrong tank at the Lowermoor treatment works.
Last year a coroner said it may have contributed to the death of a local woman Carole Cross.
The town's former Liberal Democrat MP said the report was a "bitter disappointment".
The report said exposure to the chemicals was unlikely to cause "delayed or persistent harm".
It has been published by the Lowermoor subgroup of the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) and claims to be the most comprehensive of its type.
The committee, which advises the chief medical officer at the Department of Health, also concluded that exposure to the chemicals was "unlikely" to cause future ill health.
Twenty tonnes of aluminium sulphate - used to treat cloudy water - was mistakenly tipped into the wrong tank at the unmanned plant by a relief delivery driver and the chemical went straight into the town's mains supply.
At the time of the incident, the then South West Water Authority insisted the water was safe to drink and suggested the "foul" taste of the water could be disguised by mixing it with orange juice.
_67085915_67085914.jpg

Residents were told orange juice could disguise the "foul" taste of the tap water
'Bitter disappointment'
But people quickly began reporting a range of health issues, including stomach cramps, rashes, diarrhoea, mouth ulcers and aching joints and some residents said their hair turned green from copper residues.
The only person to lose his job after the poisoning was John Lewis, a water authority manager.
Carole Cross, who died in 2004 at the age of 59, was living in the area with her environmental scientist husband, Dr Doug Cross, when the water was poisoned.
A post-mortem examination found abnormally high levels of aluminium in her brain.
Last year West Somerset Coroner Michael Rose said there was a very real possibility the water poisoning contributed to her death, but "only a slight possibility" it caused her death.
Mr Rose is shortly to resume an inquest into the death of Richard Gibbons, who also claimed to have been affected by the water poisoning.
Mr Gibbons, who lived at nearby Tintagel, died in May 2010, aged 60.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

I walked out in disgust because I could now allow my reputation as a scientist to be linked to this report”​
End QuoteDr Doug Cross
The coroner told BBC News he could not comment on the COT report, while Mr Gibbons' son-in-law Phil Reed, said he would need time to "properly digest" the report before the family could respond.
Dr Cross, who resigned from the Lowermoor subgroup at the end of last year, described the report as "useless".
"I walked out in disgust because I could now allow my reputation as a scientist to be linked to this report," he said.
"It's useless. They haven't looked at medical records or carried out clinical evaluations on the people in Camelford.
'No conclusive link'
"The only good thing to come out of it is they've collected a lot of information from people as to how they felt at the time - but in scientific terms it's almost worthless."
Dr Cross said he is currently helping about seven families who have lost someone who was living in the affected area.
"There's plenty of research that already links aluminium to dementia - we don't particularly need more research... what we need is action," he added.
Lord Tyler, Liberal Democrat MP for North Cornwall from 1992 to 2005, said: "After nearly 25 years, this is a bitter disappointment.
"Many local people will justifiably find it difficult to see how this group can conclude that exposure to the aluminium has caused no delayed or persistent harm, when the coroner's conclusions in the recent case of Mrs Cross were so different."
COT set up the Lowermoor subgroup in 2001 at the request of the government to advise on whether exposure to the aluminium sulphate had resulted in "delayed or persistent health effects" and whether additional research was necessary.
Its report found "no conclusive link" between the water poisoning incident and the chronic symptoms and diseases reported.
However, it said further research was needed in a number of areas, including the effect of contaminants on neurological health, the effects on the development of children born to women who were pregnant at the time of the incident and the effects on children who were less than a year old in 1988.
 

SilverbladeTE

Senior Member
Messages
3,043
Location
Somewhere near Glasgow, Scotland
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Ang...tory-18754932-detail/story.html#axzz2SjPrgpTZ



  • Submission 1 - 20 April 2013

    From Peter Smith, Former Local Representative (Resigned) Committee of Toxicity Lowermoor Inquiry 2002 - 2012

    Dear Sir

    LOWERMOOR WATER POISONING 1988 – WHISTLEBLOWERS NEEDED

    The South West should count itself extremely fortunate to still have a newspaper that carries out proper investigative journalism, as demonstrated by the work of your Chief Reporter Andy Greenwood and the measured and balanced Editorials that have come out over the many years that the WMN has been involved in seeking the truth about the UK's worst water poisoning scandal.

    It was also a pleasure to read the balanced words of Camelford Mayor Rob Rotchell.

    As you are aware my colleague Doug Cross and I have been campaigning right from the very beginning in 1988, have gathered much of the data that should have been gathered by our government, have been involved in organising 'citizen post mortems', the first of which was Doug's wife Carole.

    Had we not done this, the whitewash and cover-up would have been successfully accomplished.

    Why can we confidently use the term cover-up?

    Simply because, within days of the incident, ever since Camelford GP Dr Richard Newman and Doug Cross requested the attendance of the Poisons Unit to come down to Cornwall to examine the population THIS REQUEST WAS BLOCKED AT THE VERY HIGHEST LEVEL. Not only was the Poisons Unit prevented from carrying out its statutory responsibility to fulfil its Duty of Care to the 10,000 locals and 10,000 UK and international tourists staying here at the time but Dr Virginia Murray, Head of the Poisons Unit was ordered to have no contact whatsoever with the people of Cornwall. This is not only incredible but callously inhuman.

    We are not lawyers so we can only express our opinion as citizens, but it would appear to us that this could verge on near-criminal conspiracy especially if a direct link to the poisoning and damage to these populations can be arrived at "... beyond reasonable doubt ...".

    In October 2012, Cross and I felt that professionally and ethically we had reached the limits of what we could achieve by having served on the Committee of Toxicity's Lowermoor Subgroup (chaired by Prof Frank Woods) lest we be seen to be part of the cover-up. We therefore resigned.

    Let us make no bones about this, certain unknown (now senior) civil servants at the Dept of Health (DoH) are hell-bent on damage-limitation, protecting their behaviour and that of other colleagues and politicians because they have signally failed to carry out their Duty of Care to those of us exposed to this toxic cocktail.

    The 'independance' of the Lowermoor subgroup is a myth because it ultimately reports back to the Dept of Health, which provided the secretariat. Hardly hands-off.

    The Terms of Reference were not only carefully written by the DoH, but in fact were altered at the very last minute in 2001/2 and the most potentially-damaging to the DoH (to examine their handling of the whole affair) was removed.

    Thankfully the brave and independent-minded North Somerset Coroner Michael Rose actually exposed some of this in Carole Cross's inquest.

    Given the complexity of this whole affair, you will excuse me if I continue to fill in the background so that even those people who think that we should 'shut up and let it go' will understand why we continue to work towards justice not only for local residents, but also for the 10,000 visitors to Cornwall in the Summer of 1988, many of whom do not even know that they were exposed. Also we know and care about many locals; and remember, Doug Cross and his wife were residents, too.

    Peter Smith”
    Click to rate Rating 1
    Report

  • by DougCross
    Saturday, April 20 2013, 11:27AM
    “Since I was a member of the panel responsible for this controversial Report, I can give you a little insight into its real purpose. Many of you will suppose that the study (not 'research') aimed to find our exactly if and how exposure to that appalling water affected us. If so, you are wrong. The main preoccupation of those behind this charade was to defuse a dangerously threatening investigation of the chaotic incompetence of a medical sector that was dangerously out of control. The Dept of Health ensured that the incident was firmly locked down - unfortunately it reckoned without informed local expertise!

    This deliberate obstruction has a long and disreputable history. At my wife's inquest last year, South West Water Authority's Chairman told the Coroner that it was he decided not to inform the public. But in contrast, the deliberate obstruction of any detailed digging into the role of the medical sector in this sordid affair has never been exposed to public view. For a quarter of a century the Department of Health has done everything possible to prevent the collection of medical evidence on the actual condition of those members of the public most severely affected. The rest of us were brutally pronounced - twice - as mere hysterics, by the notorious Clayton Committee.

    The panel interviewed many local people who reported symptoms of ill-health, so the Report seems to give a reliable account of how people were affected. But that is a dangerous illusion. The panel worked under an intolerable constraint - it it was ordered not to examine any medical records, even when consent was offered. So few of the often harrowing anecdotal tales of woe, suffering and hardship have actually been confirmed by qualified medical practitioners. Nor were we allowed to ask for clinical examinations of these people, again despite eager agreement from those we interviewed.

    Few people are aware that the Dept of Health banned the National Poisons Unit from sending an emergency Incident Control Team to North Cornwall immediately after the incident. Consequently, apart from data that Peter Smith and I collected at the time, there is no forensic evidence on which any detailed conclusions about what real damage this incident caused can be established. We have watched as a string of experts of all kinds came to give evidence to the panel. Some were authoritative and informed; others were pathetically incompetent and even of questionable integrity and impartiality. We have watched in dismay as this exercise in public relations has been used to manufacture a meaningless and politically comfortable 'Risk Assessment'.

    Perhaps as a sop to the public, it then recommends 'research' - but on a wildly arbitrary and limited basis. Twenty thousand people, of all ages and medical conditions, were exposed to potentially lethal chemicals 25 years ago. Some - like my wife - were far older than the unborn and infants that this Report now identified as targets for this new 'research', but have died in circumstances that are far from 'normal'. So let's be quite clear - the Report has not decided if the incident had adverse long-term health effects. It has attempted to measure the risk of something that is, by its very nature, uncertain and unquantifiable. If the medical sector refuses to look only in carefully restricted and inadequate directions, it is scientifically meaningless and disreputable to suggest that it is possible to measure the 'risks' that resulted. To permit this incident to occur in the first place was an appalling act of negligence. But to then refuse to collect all possible evidence on how it affected the public goes far beyond the boundaries of ethical and humane behaviour on the part of the very medical on whom we rely for the protection of our health and welfare.”


Read more: http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Anger-report-Camelford-water-poison-scandal/story-18754932-detail/story.html#ixzz2SjQekYip
Follow us: @thisiscornwall on Twitter | thisiscornwall on Facebook
 

SilverbladeTE

Senior Member
Messages
3,043
Location
Somewhere near Glasgow, Scotland
I'll give folk who may not be familiar with the sick perversity of the UK's "system" some more stuff ot think on, and how it uses people like Wessely, or groups like ATOS, to do their dirty work and take any blame

UK service personnel told Sarin (nerve gas was "common cold cure" and poisoned, one died)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/sep/28/military.antonybarnett

Gruinard island, poisoned with anthrax during WW2 experiments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruinard_Island

Coulport, where the UK stores it's hydrogen bombs, 25 miles from Scotland's largest city, it's services now PRIVATIZED ot a consortium
anyone like the idea of living downwind from 160 hydrogen bombs in a depot that's being privatized? (minus the usual 40 installed in active submarine so usually 120 or so)
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/safety-warning-on-coulport-sale.14249631

Sellafield world's worst nuclear mess bar Mayak and maybe Fukushima
those ASSHOLES, dumped two TONS of uranium oxide into the Irish sea over the years
they FALSIFIED safety certificates of Japanese nuclear materials

and have over 100 tons of Plutonium stored on site
etc etc...stuff they've done is insane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield

Current..abuse scandal, they KNEW about such 24 years ago and covered it up.

court cases quoted in newspapers from that time PROVE this and it is NOT about "entertainers", talking Whitehall and Westminster
since kids may somehow read this page won't post that stuff, really foul

Town my Dad lived in during WW2 got bombed flat by the Germans, to this day our government still lies about how many really died, why? It was 70 years ago


I could go on at great length. This is "cover up country", makes me want to puke :(


 
Messages
13,774
I've not been able to keep up with this thread, but I just wanted to add re Wessely's Camelford work that he never uses the H-word. His work is cited (approvingly) by some other academics as showing symptoms in Camelford as being a result of hysteria, but Wessely himself never clearly asserts that he thinks this is the case. He does his usual thing of implying without saying. (This is from memory, rather than something I've checked recently, but I think that the above is accurate)
 

Nielk

Senior Member
Messages
6,970
because others will, and they need to see what we have to say about it. Otherwise there is a danger that it will work as unchallenged propaganda.

I feel that we are playing into his hands by giving him so much attention. Have all our comments made any difference in the past?
 

Bob

Senior Member
Messages
16,455
Location
England (south coast)
Why are we giving ignorance so much attention?
because others will, and they need to see what we have to say about it. Otherwise there is a danger that it will work as unchallenged propaganda.

I feel that we are playing into his hands by giving him so much attention. Have all our comments made any difference in the past?

I understand both points of view here. I don't think there's a 'correct' approach to the situation, in terms of how to respond, or whether there should be any response. People just have to do what they are comfortable with. But I do think that challenging 'factual' information is always helpful, if done accurately and succinctly.
 

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
I've not been able to keep up with this thread, but I just wanted to add re Wessely's Camelford work that he never uses the H-word. His work is cited (approvingly) by some other academics as showing symptoms in Camelford as being a result of hysteria, but Wessely himself never clearly asserts that he thinks this is the case. He does his usual thing of implying without saying. (This is from memory, rather than something I've checked recently, but I think that the above is accurate)

Implying without saying is a stock in trade of psychosomatic research. They sometimes do this by redefining words that have a more benign or different meaning, so that a casual reader will easily misinterpret the comments. The PACE trial did this with "normal" and "recovery".
 

Nielk

Senior Member
Messages
6,970
Funny how these nasty articles often quickly lead to group therapy. :)

A good rant feels good once in awhile.

Group therapy is good. If it makes you feel better to get your frustrations out here, I'm all for it. Adversely, if it only fuels anger and frustration, I would suggest a more productive way to spend energy and brain power.

Since there are so many knowledgeable people on this thread, I would like to ask for a favor to help me out. I plan on giving oral testimony at the May 22, CFSAC. Jennie Spotilla wrote an article here listing several recommendations to the CFSAC. Which one or two would you pick as the most urgent to talk about?
 

MeSci

ME/CFS since 1995; activity level 6?
Messages
8,231
Location
Cornwall, UK
I've not been able to keep up with this thread, but I just wanted to add re Wessely's Camelford work that he never uses the H-word. His work is cited (approvingly) by some other academics as showing symptoms in Camelford as being a result of hysteria, but Wessely himself never clearly asserts that he thinks this is the case. He does his usual thing of implying without saying. (This is from memory, rather than something I've checked recently, but I think that the above is accurate)

He doesn't need to use that specific word. This very weird site lists former terms for 'Functional and dissociative neurological symptoms':

http://www.neurosymptoms.org/#/in-the-mind/4533053408
 

Jarod

Senior Member
Messages
784
Location
planet earth
Group therapy is good. If it makes you feel better to get your frustrations out here, I'm all for it. Adversely, if it only fuels anger and frustration, I would suggest a more productive way to spend energy and brain power.

Hi Neilk,

That kind of what I meant. Get the frustrations out. Rant a little about the "dark knights" if you will. It helps to know others understand the dysfunction once in awhile.

However, we shouldn't dwell on this thereby allowing the media and psychiatrists to keep the human family divided with some Machiavellian alternate reality.
 
Messages
5,238
Location
Sofa, UK
I agree with Nielk really. Negative publicity like this appalling article (which does rather smack of desperation) makes us angry, it makes us want to rant and react, and so it creates the very problems the article purports to be highlighting. In that sense it's a vicious cycle.

There can be value in sharing our frustration, and there's a place for challenging the negative press, but if you let yourself get caught up in that you're letting them set your agenda instead of setting the agenda yourself. That just plays into their hands. Don't play their game.

Better to rise above all that and be part of setting a positive agenda yourself. That's a more effective way to fight back: people tend to appreciate positive messages and positive ideas far more than negative ones.

Right now, we have a major fundraising campaign (MEandYou) for Rituximab trials, the FDA and CFSAC are inviting feedback from patients, and ME Day is approaching this weekend: a great opportunity to raise funds for research and raise awareness. Write to your local newspaper; highlight organizations like ME Research UK, or the Open Medicine Institute, or another organization raising funds for biomedical ME/CFS research. Never forget, when campaigning on awareness, to suggest to people where they might usefully donate. Focusing on contributing to those efforts seems to me like a much better use of limited energy.

As the Chinese proverb has it, it's better to light a candle than curse the darkness.
 

Sasha

Fine, thank you
Messages
17,863
Location
UK
Never forget, when campaigning on awareness, to suggest to people where they might usefully donate.

Very good post. I'd add, if you see opportunities to comment on online coverage of ME at any time (including in Awareness Week), mention those charities (tell people to google for them if you can't post a link). There are a lot of PWME who aren't aware of research charities or forums like ours where they can get information about them and they and their families might join in the effort if they were.
 
Messages
10,157
For me, I find it valuable to be able to vent the frustration I feel with newspaper articles like this. Likely because anybody I know off the internet just isn't interested. I have an agenda of not sitting on my frustrations and I do feel it's important to say something for that reason alone because not saying anything sucks more energy out of me in the long run than taking a few minutes to write a post.

I am okay with a little venting on the one hand and a whole lot of advocacy on the other. :)
 
Messages
10,157
....

Since there are so many knowledgeable people on this thread, I would like to ask for a favor to help me out. I plan on giving oral testimony at the May 22, CFSAC. Jennie Spotilla wrote an article here listing several recommendations to the CFSAC. Which one or two would you pick as the most urgent to talk about?

Nielk -- You might get more input about this if you start a new thread. :)
 
The basic mistake that Michael Hanlon makes in his piece is this. Sufferers of ME and CFS are not, as he seems to think, worried about the shame or stigma of having a psychological condition. We are not worried about what people will think if they discover that our illness is mental.

The reason that this is so damaging is that is stops us getting better. If we are treated as having a psychological condition, when we don't in fact have one, then we are not going to improve.

We want to get better. And when the medical establishment misunderstands the nature of the illness so profoundly, then this ultimate goal, a full, healthy life, becomes almost impossible. That's the key to the anger, it's not difficult to understand.

More at my blog...http://thedamnchronicsituation.blogspot.ie/2013/05/the-sunday-times-article.html