New Atmosphere, New Vision: Gibson and Whittemore Kick Off Invest in ME Conference 2016
Mark Berry reports on Dr. Gibson's introduction and Dr. Whittemore's keynote speech, at the 11th Invest in ME International ME Conference in London.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Dr MyHill's License in Jeopardy

Discussion in 'Action Alerts and Advocacy' started by Cort, Apr 9, 2010.

  1. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

    can you give me the risk benefit ratio of any vaccine nnk and nnh values.

    There is evidence that lung cancer surgery improves the quantity of life.Do you have any idea by how much.Do you have any idea at all of the increase in morbidity.Stop repeating a mantra and think.Would you be happy with the quality of life it offers?

    The evidence re routine mamograms is that they can increase the risk of breast cancer in high risk younger women.Regular palpation is the recommended option
  2. natasa778

    natasa778 Senior Member

    Gerwyn, you now stand a high chance of being branded an anti-vaxx nutter.

    Risks, what risks? There are no risks. Well, maybe some. But EVERYONE knows vaccines save lives. So stop talking about risks. Shut up and put up, you are putting us at risk.

    Analysis of nnk and nnh values and risk-benefit ration of vaccines are for antivaxx lunatics, quacks, and mad people who want us to die of vaccine preventable disease. So don't analyse!! Don't even think about analysing. Don't even think about risks.

    Woo woo. Quack.
  3. Mark

    Mark Former CEO

    Sofa, UK
    Fourecks, since I haven't responded in detail to your critique of my 'facts', partly because of the problems I've had with trying to nest the quote (you have that feature on BS but we don't, I think) I can't criticise you for not answering my question re: this post, but I am still curious about who is this "Ed" you mention.

    It looks to me like you left this in by mistake and that it indicates that your posts here are run past an editor, which gives you rather an unfair advantage over me, but more seriously leaves me wondering what your purpose is here. Who is/are Fourecks? Bad Journalists?

    Regarding the specific (duplicated) 'fact-fail', it was not one, I said the case was brought in response to the internet complaint, which it was, and the pre-existing complaint by the doctors was then added to the case (and suddenly became a life-and-death matter somewhere along the way). Regardless of which it is hardly surprising if we are less well-informed about such details than you are, since you (the BS forum) were so closely involved in instigating the case and had a large team exploring it before we even knew of it, very much unlike us, and since these matters are apparently your hobby while for us they are a weary and painful necessity.

    And regarding your media coverage point, I can't see how you can say that honestly, because obviously the timing of the case restricted both the news coverage and our capacity to organise a response, and the disgracefully short notice period is what you should be blaming for the reaction your forum has criticised. Next time you go to war on somebody with less resources behind them than you, you really ought to be more mindful as scientific observer that you are affecting the phenomenon you are attempting to observe.

    I expect you (BS) do that a lot: march in on somebody and accuse them of something, wind them up to distraction and cause them great distress, and then make observations about them based on what you have just done to them, which enables you to characterise them unfairly. So the opinions you form about the people you attack are really just your observations about how people behave when under attack. Thus, as 'Bad Science', you go somewhere and look for bad science to 'have fun' with it and so you will of course be more likely to think you see bad science but, actually, unless you treat the objects of your scrutiny with extreme sensitivity and caution and fair-mindedness, you will impair the ability of your target to function effectively and you will see people behaving in ways that confirm your assumptions about them.

    You wind people up, watch them explode, and laugh about how the fact they're exploding proves your theory that they were weak in the first place, and in your minds that justifies your actions. It is just childish bullying, really, plain and simple, and if you have any interest whatsoever in seeking the truth, rather than 'having fun', then from that point of view what you do, and the way you do it, is itself bad science. Thus it is quite fair, actually, that your forum is seen by our forum as bad science, bad scientists, and BS. So it would seem that if science is to seek the truth effectively, then the morality, compassion, sensitivity and balance of the researcher turn out to be rather more important than generally assumed. Here, by way of contrast, we are very much indeed concerned in seeking the truth about ME/CFS, because it affects us greatly, and we are also very compassionate and sensitive because of our shared experience of unrecognised suffering. So armed with these qualities, and with not a few qualifications, we do very good science indeed here, as members know.

    Worryingly, you are affecting yourselves adversely as well, when you bully good people: each time you do it, and enjoy it, and win, you will get more bullish about the activity, and more sure that what you are doing is a good idea. This is actually not good or healthy for you yourselves, any more than it is for your victims. Be very careful that pursuing this sort of activity is not turning you into monsters, because that's how most of you look in this case, both from here and from outside (note that I have objectively tested this latter point successfully).

    Regarding your post criticising mine, Fourecks, I'll admit you scored a hit or two and I'm actually, believe it or not, always grateful to be corrected, so thank you for what I have learned from you - but I would far prefer it to be done politely and respectfully, because teaching is also more effective in this way.

    The vast majority of your critique was, however, from my point of view irrelevant to my post, because of the assumptions you made about its purpose. You analysed my post against 1) how many are facts, and 2) how many are relevant to the case. You assumed that the post was intended to be a list of facts about the allegations brought against Dr Myhill, which it was not - quite consciously. The post was an incomplete attempt to list what I saw as the most important points in the wider story of what was going on. It began to draft the moral case to the wider public, and to put the case in context so that all concerned can be judged fairly - including Bad Science themselves, who can also be judged by what has happened. And as I have already mentioned, you already have been.

    You seem, over there, to insist on focusing on that narrow concern of the case instigated by Jonas (and the x doctors, if you insist, none of us can determine these details), and ignoring our concerns, which is up to you but it's simply not reasonable to insist that we ought to be interested in all that when you know next to nothing about us. Why should you come in and set our agenda? We do have a very different context for this matter than you do, and we view it from a very different perspective. Here we are, quite obviously, concerned about the wider issues relating to ME/CFS. Valid subjects for this thread include our emotional response to events as patients, sharing experiences of Dr Myhill, our advocacy work on and around the issue, etc etc etc, and as you've realised by now I hope, the procedural and contextual issues in this case are at least as interesting to us as the actual case that has been brought. In an ideal world you would be concerned about those things as well and would try to see the big picture rather than just your own narrow current concern.

    In the encounter between our two fora, we have so far spent our time arguing about two completely different questions, and that has caused us to get off on the wrong foot. I think it's a great shame, since we share some common goals in the area of having fun while exposing bad science. I would normally try to help us get past, or round, such issues, but in this case I felt very personally involved in the subject and it upset me enormously, and I think that did blind my judgment somewhat. I am quite content to apologise for my own over-reactions in this matter.

    So now. An apology from you please, Fourecks, for all of the hurt you and your forum have caused ours, and for the suffering you have unwittingly wrought on the ME/CFS patient community, so that we can confirm your humanity. After we have established that, we can perhaps move on to beginning the slow and painful process of patiently explaining to you why despite all the evidence that you have amassed (of which you wrongly believe we are unaware), you are dead wrong about Dr Myhill.
  4. JPV

    JPV ɹǝqɯǝɯ ɹoıuǝs

  5. helsbells

    helsbells Senior Member

  6. Mark

    Mark Former CEO

    Sofa, UK

    Post what links you like helsbells!
  7. fourecks


    It's a joke, shamelessly copied from Private Eye who use it whenever one of their spoof columnists has repeated themselves for the umpteenth time. The only editor is me and there is nothing more to it. :D

    My purpose here is to try to correct and hopefully educate those readers here into doing some critical thinking about why Dr Myhill is in trouble so they don't throw the baby out with the bathwater: at worst Dr Myhill is a dangerous quack, but at best she could be doing something marvellous for those with CFS/ME. But the way she and her supporters are fighting her case seems to be missing the point as to why she's in trouble.

    I'll try and deal with the other bits of your post later and, as you've reasonably requested, in a more respectful tone.
  8. Angela Kennedy

    Angela Kennedy

    Essex, UK
    I'm very sorry, but I cannot let this "correct and hopefully educate into doing some critical thinking" assertion pass unchallenged.

    Firstly, it appears to be a case of BS forumites getting their own house in order on that sort of thing before coming over to another forum to claim authority to be able to do that to others. The BS forum is FULL of awful inaccuracies in claims and assertions, fallacious reasoning, and lack of understanding of vital issues of which ME/CFS advocates have sophisticated knowledge about. Over 200 pages now of head in the sand, fingers in the ears, lalala posturing and unreliable assertions from a hostile, arrogant bunch of anons.

    Furthermore, as victims of some blatant state and medical sanctioned 'wooquackery' ourselves (including those of us like me with children but who are not sufferers ourselves) many of us actually have been engaged in a process of critical thinking for many years.

    In fact, I would go as far as to say that most BSers on the Myhill threads (and possibly others) need an urgent course in critical evaluation and thinking themselves. They seem remarkably lacking in insight into their own lack of skill in this area. I could even recommend a couple of books to help them in this. There is something odd about the way rational analysis is trumped by appeals to authority or just plain ad hominem (whether in insult form or not) or meaningless posturing banter over there.

    What many of 'us' are trying to do here is sift through the bulls**t, including (though not limited to) claims shown to be unreliable on the BS forum, to work out what is going on, and its implications for ME/CFS sufferers. Your position is just one, and it has its (massive) problems in terms of coherence, plausibility, and empirical adequacy, as evidenced just by your posts here. Your claims about people here 'missing the point' shows that YOU are missing important points, many of which have been made to you here.
  9. jace

    jace Off the fence

    Fourecks, I await your more respectful reply to Mark's last post with interest. Both forums are made up of myriad individuals, one cannot tar a poster with such a large brush, and I for one prefer to keep an open mind, and gather information from many sources. I can then check and compare, and reach my own conclusions.

    Thank you for beginning to engage in a positive and polite manner.

    jace x
  10. fourecks


    Because of the timeline of the complaints (ie. Jonas's was second) then it was almost certainly piggy-backed onto the orignal complaint from the group of Doctors. While I agree it might look as though Jonas's complaint made the GMC act quickly I think that is just coincidence; and even without Jonas's complaint I suspect that the "no prescribing" punishment would have been the result.

    I've stated this before, but I too am a little concerned about the time taken for the first complaint to have got to a hearing.

    • The Bad Science forum is not a single, campaigning entity and did not initiate the complaint.
    • The complaint was initiated by a forum member who, after Dr Myhill posted about it, decided (in an informal way) to let us know that s/he had made the complaint.
    • The details about the case are available from Dr Myhill's website and the GMC transcript, you have no reason to be any less informed about the case than myself.
    • It is true that many members of the bad science forum are well versed in weighing up evidence for claims (medical or otherwise) so yes maybe it is quicker for them to sift through the claims on Dr Myhill's website and sort out the wheat from the chaff. But the way it is done is that there is a nerdy demand for evidence and so it is expected that if a forum member says that something is bull then they'll be called to prove it.

    What I said was that I don't think there would have been "substantially more media coverage" had it not been for the election. So while I'm sure the election had an effect I'm not convinced it was a huge one; my reasoning is that the GMC seem to be dealing with very many IOP or fitness-to-practise hearings and I suspect they only get local media coverage at best.

    There was no going to war. Whilst the BS forum members reaction could be considered to be over-the-top by some, it was in response to a large "attack" from new members directed by Dr Myhill's defence campaign. It was never a war, the Bad Science forum discuss Bad Science, and to many of us Dr Myhill's website appeared to be a good example of that.

    What happened in this case is unprecedented in the BS forum history, and remember the BS forum was marched upon, not the one that did the marching.

    Had there not been an "attack" from outside it is likely the criticisms would have been left at the website, but, the general thrust of the influx of posters was along the lines of "if Dr Myhill can't practise then we'll have nowhere to go, we don't care if her other stuff is rubbish or dangerous". This kind of stuff winds up members of BS because it is a fallicious argument. Criminals get tried on the basis of their crimes not on whether they're otherwise good. It is the sentencing, on the other hand, that does depend on their character.

    The BS forum's mantra is evidence or STFU, in fact that's essentially "the" rule. Break it and you'll be called on it (not banned), usually politely at first.

    In most other forums there are many more rules and breaking them usually results in a ban. Banning almost never happen on BS and posts never get deleted (unless they're libelous), this is in contrast to almost all other internet forums.

    But the threats to oust Jonas are not childish bullying? Regardless of whether or not you agree with the ability to complain anonymously to the GMC it is everyone's legal right to do so, and trying to subvert that also looks like bullying.

    Fair enough - I hope I've done that (politefully and respectfully) here.

    The wider issue concerning CFS/ME is interesting, but it wasn't relevant to the specific thread that all the Myhillites started posting on; these people were invited to start a new thread about the wider issues but didn't.

    The thing is the way BSers see Myhill is as someone who is making money selling "cures" with no good evidence behind them to patient groups with an illness that is not well understood. Furthermore many in such patient groups are likely to be desperate for a cure and would (understandably) stand with one leg in a bucket of frogspawn if they thought it might help. Now, I'm not making an assumption that Myhill is acting dishonestly here, she appears to believe what she is doing. But there doesn't seem to be any evidence for the treatments.

    Of course your forum's context is very different hence why BSers got annoyed by the unappreciation of the BS forum's context for the complaint.

    I think BSers share a lot of disquiet about the GMC procedural issues. But BSers were additionally concerned about the conduct of Dr Myhill herself when faced with the hearing. It is now plainly obvious from the transcript that right from the beginning Dr Myhill knew what the substance of all the complaints were but chose instead to play the victim card rather than address the substance of the complaint.

    The BS forum is a loose collection of individuals, it is not an entity, so of course I can't apologise for it.

    I can only apologise for my combative tone here - in future if I can't be polite I won't post here.

    I think it's important to state that absolutely no-one was forced to go to the BS forum.

    I'm also afraid I don't think we're ever going to agree about Dr Myhill.
  11. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

    you are asking OTHER people to exercise critical thinking-Judging by your posts I cant believe you actually know what the term means
  12. Supporters of Dr Myhill

    Supporters of Dr Myhill Guest

    For UK supporters, please consider emailing Jeremy Vine on Radio 2.

    He is interviewing Kay Gilderdale on Tuesday.

    Here is the facebook group standard letter which you may wish to use or adapt:

    Dear Jeremy Vine,

    I write to you as a sufferer of ME (Myalgic Encephalomyelitis) and on behalf of the ‘Panorama ME. Investigation Campaign ’!/group.php?gid=397706469637

    a Facebook Campaign which comprises hundreds of sufferers of this devastating illness, and which includes members of charities: Invest in ME., ME Association and Action for ME. amongst others. The purpose of our organisation is to increase the awareness, via television and the media, of the suffering, stigmatisation, and neglect which the estimated 250,000 sufferers in the UK alone have to endure on a daily basis, and to apply pressure on the Government / MRC to review their policies regarding the paltry sums of money which are invested into the biomedical research of this neurological illness (as recognised by the WHO. icd10).

    We demand that government investment into ME. truly reflects the seriousness of this disease, both to the individual sufferer and to the economy of the UK as a whole, and that there is a change of emphasis from NICE, the MRC, and the DOH from the ‘treatment’ of symptoms with the likes of CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy) and GET (Graded Exercise Therapy) to the discovery and treatment of the cause of the illness, via proper biomedical research.

    Frank N.M Twisk and Michael Maes of the ME-de-patienten Foudation, Limmen, the Netherlands, and Clinical Research Center for Mental Health (CRC-MH) in Antwerp respectively, recently wrote a paper where they claimed that it was unethical to treat patients with ME/CFS with ineffective non-evidence based and potentially harmful 'rehabilitation therapies' such as CBT/GET CBT and GET Ineffective for ME.htm.

    Please see also Can the MRC PACE Trial Be Justified.htm

    But no matter how much evidence is presented to the MRC, DOH and NICE etc. it is always ignored, Magical Medicine.htm#Professor Hooper Letter to MRC2,

    as are the invitations to attend any of scientific annual conferences in ME. where the latest biomedical (privately funded) research is explained.

    A total of 12.1 million has been invested in ME - but not a penny to biomedical research. The MRC have not accepted any funding requests for biomedical research, yet the World Health Organisation recognises ME. as a neurological illness. The MRC have rejected high-quality biomedical research proposals but have agreed to fund research based on psychiatric therapies using flawed diagnostic criteria. The complete neglect of this illness by subsequent UK governments is not only extremely bewildering, especially considering the numbers of deaths which have been caused by the illness,
    (there have been three high profile ME. related deaths recently, Lynn Gilderdale, Annabel Senior and Sophia Mirza, in the case of Sophia, the post mortem showed that she had a diseased spinal cord), but when considering the history of the illness, is possibly sinister.

    The first clinically documented outbreak of ME. was first recorded in 1955 at the Royal Free Hospital, which led to Dr Melvin Ramsay categorizing the illness as an infectious disease. The name provided by Dr Ramsay for this illness reflected his patient’s diverse range of neurological and physical symptoms. Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, translates to mean inflammation of the brain and spinal cord.

    Over 60 ME. outbreaks have been recorded worldwide since 1934. In Lake Tahoe in 1984, 259 persons were affected from an outbreak of ME, of which three to this day are still bed bound . During this outbreak, Drs Paul Cheyney and Daniel Peterson undertook MRI scans of the afflicted patients. The results of their scans showed that the ME. Sufferers had lesions on their brains similar to those which are evident with AIDS patients. Despite these remarkable discoveries, the CDC did not follow up the physician’s work and dismissed the outbreak as hysteria.

    The following year, in 1985 there was another outbreak in Lyndonville NY. This outbreak affected 210 people, 60 of whom were children. The official response from the CDC and New York Health Departments was that once again this was mass hysteria, even though not one of their representatives talked to a single patient. In 1990, Dr David Bell worked with Dr Elaine De Freitas, and Dr Paul Cheyney, and a retro virus was found in material published. A second paper had been accepted by PNAS and contained a photograph of C type retro viral particles from a tissue culture of spinal fluid of one of the children in the Lyndonville outbreak. This paper was suddenly pulled and not published after a couple of flawed negative papers. A complete description of these troubles times is in Osler’s Web by Hilary Johnston. The funding for these studies was pulled and all work abruptly stopped.

    Please see:

    In the years which followed the well publicised ME outbreaks in the US. Governments in the UK and US made moves to muddy the waters. The new benign term used for the illness in the US. Chronic Fatigue Syndrome was introduced to the UK in 1994, which removed any notion that the illness could be contagious, whilst also undermining the seriousness of the condition. The views of the psychiatric lobby on both sides of the Atlantic became undisputed by Health Authorities despite any supportive scientific evidence whilst genuine scientific papers were ignored.

    Scientific and medical findings showed that ME. was not a psychiatric illness but a serious physical illness, similar in some ways to HIV/ AIDS. Unfortunately many millions of ME. patients were mis-diagnosed with having a psychiatric illness and wasted many years taking useless drugs. It is now very obvious that psychiatric drugs cannot cure ME./CFS. Several top doctors, researchers and professors had to revise their definition of ME./ CFS as a result of these new scientific findings. Yet the general public remained in ignorance of what ME./ CFS really was, many still believing it to be a psychiatric illness.

    Please see

    These dismissive attitudes still continue today, however in October 2009, the Whittermore Peterson Institute, Institute for Neuro Immune Disease, which is affiliated with the National Cancer Institute and Cleveland Clinic in Reno Nevada, dropped the bombshell which the scientific community have been crying out for.

    In a peer reviewed paper published in the prestigious Science journal, the WPI detected the retroviral infection XMRV in greater than 95% of the more than 200 ME/CFS, and Fibromylagia patients tested. The current working hypothesis is that XMRV infection of B, T, NK and other cells of the innate immune response causes chronic inflammation and immune deficiency resulting in an inability to mount an effective immune response to opportunistic infections.

    Please see:

    Unfortunately over seven months have passed since the Science journal was published, and the same old spoiling tactics are being undertaken by the Health Authories in the UK and US. The CDC has refused to fund any replication studies, searching for XMRV in ME./CFS patients, and have only commented once on the WPI findings, where they were quoted in saying that the Science publication was not likely to turn out to be anything. This quote was made only weeks after the publication was released.

    In the UK, a Psychiatrist, Simon Wessley, who wishes to have ME. Declassified from a neurological to psychosomatic disorder co wrote the paper with Dr McClure at the Imperial College London which dismissed the presence of XMRV in ME. patients in the UK, and who rushed to get the paper through with only four days of peer review. It has since become apparent that the WPI had detected XMRV in patient samples from both Dr Kerr's and Dr Van Kuppervelds cohorts prior to the completion of their own studies.

    Please see:

    As a prominent British Celebrity, with a considerable media presence, and the presenter of the BBC's most well respected documentary Panorama, and the flagship Jeremy Vine radio programme of the BBC2, we write to you to ask for your support and contribution in our cause of getting the plight of ME. sufferers broadcast to the nation in a special episode of Panorama.

    Please see our online petition to get Panorama to investigate ME.

    We ask that you investigate why health authorities on both sides of the Atlantic refuse to fund biomedical research into this illness, despite the overwhelming body of evidence which proves that ME. is a physical illness with devastating symptoms. We ask that you question why none of the 5000 medical papers produced to date have been read and acted upon by the MRC and DOH (such as the neuro-imaging studies funded by ME research UK and undertaken by Professor Basant Puri, the results of which show clear biochemical and structural brain changes in ME. patients), and to investigate the completely unsuitable process ME. sufferers have to go through in their attempts to receive Employment Support and Allowance from the DWP.

    With the ground breaking discovery of a link between ME. and the retro virus XMRV (Xenotropic Murine Leukemia Virus – Related Virus) undertaken by the Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro- Immune Disease of the US. in October 2009, and the earth shattering implications for the world’s blood supply if ME. is in fact found to be transmissable, the time is now right for a new media investigation into this disease. As well as the WPI research, I list some of the great body of scientific evidence which provides conclusively that there are physical and biological differences between ME. sufferers and healthy people, and that it is not ‘all in the mind’.

    • ME has been classified by the World Health Organisation in the international Classification of Diseases as a neurological disorder since 1969 (WHO ICD-10 G93.3).
    • “Over the past 15 years, scientists have identified numerous biological abnormalities that provide evidence for the reality and seriousness of CFS, even though the cause of CFS and diagnostic tests for it are still unknown. These biological abnormalities have given researchers clues to the cause of the illness. In particular, they have provided evidence that the illness involves both the brain and the immune system.
    (Professor Anthony Komaroff, Harvard Medical School, ME International, The Physical basis of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.) See also, The Biology of CFS in The American Journal of Medicine, 2000, 108: 169-171).
    • “The novel findings in this study are that patients with ME/CFS have significantly elevated levels of F2 isoprostanes alongside other key markers of oxidative stress and that these correlate with various ME/CFS symptoms.” Kennedy and Spence (2005) Oxidative stress levels are raised in CFS and are associated with clinical symptoms. Free Radical Biology and Medicine. 584-589.
    • “Levels of serum acetyl-L-carnitine, immunological abnormalities, DHEA and its sulphate, cortisol, prolactin, ACTH, serum metals, oxidative stress markers, plasma-free trypophan and melatonin have been reported to be changed in ME/CFS.” Sakudo (2006) Spectropscopic diagnosis of CFS by visible and near-infrared spectroscopy in serum samples. Biomedical and Biophysical Research Communications. 345, 1513-1516.
    • “Enterovirus VP1, RNA and non-cytopathic viruses were detected in the stomach biopsy specimens of CFS patients (82%) with chronic abdominal complaints. A significant subset of CFS patients may have a chronic, disseminated non-cytolytic form of enteroviral infection, which could be diagnosed by stomach biopsy.” Chia and Chia (2007). Journal of Clinical Pathology. 61, 43-48.
    From the 8th International Association of CFS Conference, Florida January 2007:
    • “70% of ME/CFS patients have low red blood cell volume” Hurwitz, University of Miami (2007).
    • “The cardiac index of ME/CFS patients is so severe that it falls between the value of patients with myocardial infarction and those in shock.” Dr Paul Cheney, North Carolina, USA.
    • “There are abnormally high levels of inflammatory markers that are significantly correlated with increased arterial stiffness.” Dr Vance Spence, University of Dundee.
    • “ME/CFS patients have reduced blood flow to the brain and exercise exacerbates this reduced flow.” Kuratune, Japan
    • “Increased levels of IL-6 correlate well with C-reactive protein and are proportionate to symptom severity in ME/CFS” Gurbaxani and Vernon, CDC, Atlanta.
    • “In ME/CFS, there are three main abnormalities in gene expression studies: these involve the immune system, mitochondrial function and G-protein signalling. There are 7 genes upregulated in ME/CFS – those associated with apoptosis, pesticides, mitochondrial function, demyelination and viral binding sites.” Kerr, St Georges, London.
    • “Mitochondrial degeneration was obvious in 40 (out of 50) muscle biopsies (from CFS patients) with swelling, vacuolation, myelin fibres and secondary lysosomes. These abnormalities were in obvious contrast to control biopsies, where even mild changes were rarely detected.” Behan, More and Behan (1991). Acta Neuropathology. 83: 61-65.
    • “Studies of pathogenesis (of ME/CFS) have revealed immune system abnormalities and chronic immune activation, dysfunction of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, brain abnormalities, evidence of emotional stress (comprising host aspects) and evidence of exogenous insults, for example, various microbial infections (Epstein-Barr virus, enteroviruses, parvovirus B19, coxiella burnetti and chlamydia pneumoniae), vaccinations and exposure to organophosphate chemicals and other toxins (comprising environmental aspects)” in patients with ME/CFS.” Devanur and Kerr (2006, p.139)
    • Intracellular micro-organisms such as viruses and microbes have been found in ME/CFS patients including entero- and herpes viruses, paroviruses, mycoplasmas, chlamydiae, rickettsiae and borrelia bacteria. The identification of the dysfunctional form of the interferon-induced enzyme L-RNase in ME/CFS patients (Nijs and De Meirleir, 2005; Suhadolnik et al., 1994) provides evidence for am ongoing intracellular pathogen (Hooper, 2006).
    • There have been 47 different epidemics of ME/CFS between 1934 and 1980. Information about which can be found in more than 200 papers summarised in the following paper: Parish T.S., Ohlsen, R.L., Parish, J.G. (1992). A bibliography of ME/CFS Epidemics. In Hyde BM, Goldstein J, Levine P. (Eds)., The Clinical and Scientific Basis of ME/CFS (pp176-186). The Nightingale Research Foundation.

    I would be very grateful if you could provide a personal response to our request and look forward to hearing from you.

    Yours faithfully,
  13. fourecks


    From you, I take that as a compliment. :Retro wink:
  14. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

    yes that would be typical of your ability to misunderstand things
  15. V99


    Do you know why Vine is interviewing Kay Gilderdale?
  16. Supporters of Dr Myhill

    Supporters of Dr Myhill Guest

    I think it's part of the 11 May ME awareneness.

    Where the conversation will go, we will have to wait and see!
  17. endreas

    endreas Guest

    Well well. Is it all about misogyny? Narcissistic scientific egos who cannot cope with a female doctor who dares put her head above the parapet? This quote by "fourecks" says it all. How dare Dr Myhill speak her mind at the GMC hearing, how dare she not back down submissively at the GMC hearing! She is female!

    She is supposed to have "known it all" and not told us patients. That says a lot about "fourecks" himself. He has a big chip on his shoulder about something else and transferred it all onto the Dr Myhill hearing. I would love to know what bothers him so we get a clearer picture of his state of mind.

    This is not all about Dr Myhill's site and her practice. It is also about the bad attitude and bullying against female doctors and bullying in the medical profession.

    Would "fourecks" dare say the same about a male doctor? Of course not. Real cowards, as anyone who has covered their mouths and wandered onto Goldacre's BS site can plainly see.
  18. jace

    jace Off the fence

    Not very evolved, perhaps?
  19. valia

    valia Senior Member

    Killer Doctor Cleared By General Medical Council

    Not even a warning for this good doctor!

    Posted on The One Click Group

    7th May 2010
    Tears as doctor is cleared
    By Simon Hardy
    A Shropshire woman was left in tears after a top surgeon who performed a botched operation which resulted in her daughters death walked away from a General Medical Council hearing.

    Louise Field, 27, died two days after vascular surgeon Dr Michael Ormiston accidentally punctured her lung and pumped gas into her stomach at the BUPA Hospital, Harpenden, Herts.

    Dr Ormiston admitted making inaccurate records after the operation and was slammed by the GMC panel yesterday for significant departures from good medical practice.

    The panel cleared him, however, of serious misconduct and found that his fitness to practise was not impaired.

    The panel also decided against issuing the surgeon with a warning.

    Miss Fields mother Patricia Green, together with her husband Philip, had travelled down to London from Newport for the hearing.

    Mrs Green wept on hearing Dr Ormiston could carry on with an unblemished medical record.

    She said: It makes me so angry and frustrated. But its our daughter we had to do everything we could.

    Dr Ormiston faced a disciplinary hearing, along with anaesthetist Dr Wasfy Yanny, for their management of the operation.

    GMC chairman Brian Alderman told Dr Ormiston yesterday: Given the history and public nature of this case, the panel is of the view that you are now unlikely to lose sight of the standards to which you are expected to adhere as a medical practitioner.

    The panel therefore considers that there would be little benefit to the public if a warning were to be given.

    Trainee accountant Ms Field had chosen to suppress the nerves behind her left and right ribs to cure excessive sweating on March 20, 2002.
  20. jace

    jace Off the fence

    The apparent falsification of records shows that he made a mistake (which happens in the best of families) and then he tried to cover it up (which is not forgivable)

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page