Today Wessely authors an article in the Spectator about ME extremists

It would be unwise to underestimate him, look at his history, he's come from nothing (re ME), produced no evidence (a vague theory doesnt count as evidence) but taken over the field of ME, advises governements, private companies and controls the media (at least in the UK) on matters ME. He and his associates have come close to taking over ME policy in the western world. No matter what he says, what contractictions or bare faced lies come out of his mouth he's believed, printed, published and financed.

This man is a professional elite class manipulator, apparentl with powefu backing, it would be unwise to count him out until he's been certified dead, disected, made into catfood, disributed across the world, eaten by several million cats, and the cats have all been buried. And that wasnt a threat, that was a measure of how far I think his influence and the ability of his "idea's" to be reserected if the "need" arises. In a horror movie never count the monster out until the above has occured or your asking for a sequel. As someone who'd been liviing in a horror movie for some time now I was it to end, with no sequels.

 

Would you have a link to that quote from Dr Shepherd at all? And are you able to explain what he might have meant?

 

Hi Firestormm, at the risk of projecting my own opinion on this issue, I think what he meant is that the Oxford criteria selects a large cohort of people with psychiatric issues and not many ME patients. So it is more likely that any threats, should they be able to be substantiated (no evidence yet), are from the misdiagnosed psychiatric patients.

My own opinion is that while we are misdiagnosed frequently under the biopsychosocial models, so are psychiatric patients. It is probable that all groups diagnosed by these models are being treated ineffectively, and as a result some are going to get angry. Everybody deserves a proper diagnosis and better treatment.

Bye, Alex

 

Spectator letter lengths for last two weeks

Looks like I'll have to shorten my letter - drat.

Hopefully, others will be writing letters to the Spectator in reply.

Letters go to: letters@spectator.co.uk (letters @ spectator.co.uk)

Found the Spectator letters on the site.

Spectator Letter word lengths for last two weeks - I've combined them to increase the sample size (from http://www.spectator.co.uk/politics/all/7189868/letters.thtml and http://www.spectator.co.uk/politics/all/7174733/letters.thtml )
The word counts include counting bits like "letters, August 20":

42, 45, 46, 112, 113, 122, 140, 158, 187, 238, 272, 289

So 12 letters or average of 6 per week.

Range: 42-289 words

Median length: 131 words

0-100 words: 3 (25%)
101-200 words: 6 (50%)
201-300 words: 3 (25%)
301+ words: 0

Commenting on pieces from the last edition: 8 (67%)
Commenting on pieces from the second last edition: 2 (17%)
Commenting on pieces from the third last edition: 1 (8%)
Perhaps no specific edition: 1 (rioters) (8%)

So again, best to get them in reasonably soon so they can be considered for next week's edition.

 

Hard to tell Alex without it being read in context though isn't it?

'Dr Charles Shepherd of the MEA writes on his facebook page of the recent media articles of Wessely etc claiming harassment from ME sufferers:

"My own view is that most of the people who do this have a mental health or personality problem rather than having ME/CFS."'

He could be referring to those who write the articles!

 

He made similar comments in the Hawkes article.

Speculative psycho-analysing of unknowns ALLEGED to have committed crimes does not constitute a suitable, professional, effective response from the Medical Advisor of a patient organisation.

Nor does the '50-100' quantification of alleged 'harassers'.

 

http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=123002717799066&id=171411469583186

 

This horror was on the Daily Telegraph website earlier and is apparently to be published on Monday:

 

That's an odd one from a Doc who is usually a patient avocate - but he is of course a Psychiatrist - so the old nut trundles on. He doesn't get the point - it's not our "concern" about any stigma attached to mental health problems but that ME was and is considered in any way falling into "mental health" in the first place. Treatments now come from Docs well outside "mental health" - the Psychos should learn to leave well alone things they do not understand whilst others in other specialities do.

The observation of SW that "yes we do have a bad image" is grounded in experience (twice in my own case and very bad experiences) They would be better advised to ask themselves why instead of resorting to a "mud slinging" campaign. I think it is time to bring all together on the history now and present the other side of the story in this blatant attempt to keep psychiatry in the frame of (? all) diseases when there are specialists in the various fields.

 

Thanks Min

 

Thanks from me too Min. I've been looking for this but it kept disappearing.

Perhaps the biggest irony of the latest media drivel is that the comment sections are not full of ranting loonies intent on death to all M.E. researchers - thus contradicting the whole campaign.

 

Indeed. Once again Shepherd lets us down. It's about time that guy realised that you can't sit on the fence forever, especially when you're dealing with arrogant self-serving individuals who are unwilling to compromise or engage in meaningful honest debate. He should either man-up and join the fight or retire.

One of the reasons why ME patients in the UK face particular difficulties is because for years the only organisation representing us was the useless MEA. And essentially Charles Shepherd is the MEA.

However, he's largely an irrelevance these days. Thanks to the internet us "activists" can now take the fight directly to the enemy without having to deal with ineffectual middlemen like Shepherd.

 

You are surely not disputing that Charles Shepherd has personal experience on which to base his 'quantification' - A Personal Statement from Dr Charles Shepherd http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/Dr_Shepherd_Statement.htm

Unlike 'you' activists (a description so inappropriate as to render the term 'activist' meaningless) Charles Shepherd is appointed by a representative body of a member organisation - the MEA has to do no more than fulfill its obligations to its members and comply with Charity Law, something which it appears to do with continuing effect. That there are those who are not MEA members, who are dissatisfied with the MEA and/or the MEA's medical advisor, is irrelevant, other than that intemperate attacks on either the MEA or Charles Shepherd, by non members, only serves to alienate further those people affected by M.E/CFS who view self appointed 'activists' as unrepresentative, manuipulative and harmful to the general interests of people affected by M.E/CFS.

IVI

 

And so it seems Pro Hooper was harassed by CS - see Concepts of Accountability. We suffer whilst the medical establishment should really put itself in order and accept research findings (international) far more advanced than our own in all matters ME.I don't doubt that there people here doing marvellous work by being "active"- not met any extremists amongst them whatever that means - if hold to their more knowledgeable position then yes.

http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/Documents_of_importance.htm

 

Ok, thank you for bringing that up, IVI. I have tried not to get too personal about Charles Shepherd and his ACTUAL harassment of me, preferring to keep to specific issues around representation only, because of the 'emergency' situation this community is in with regard to the negative PR campaign Wessely et al are waging against it. But as you seem to wish to bring this out in the open, so be it.

So- I can tell you that what Shepherd says there is false. I have NEVER harassed Shepherd. I have publicly and legitimately critiqued various of his actions over the years. As we now know - legitimate objection and critique has been falsely conflated with alleged crimes in order to smear advocates in this recent negative PR campaign. Shepherd is actually doing the same thing in that statement.

In fact, Shepherd has harassed and intimidated me by email a number of times. He tried to get me sacked from my position as a university lecturer, without success, by telling untruths. He has complained to the British nurse registration about me in an attempt to get me struck off (my registration has lapsed because I am no longer a practising nurse, being an academic now). He once wrote me about 5-6 emails in one night- threatening me with the police, to the point I went to the police myself in order to assist with enquiries and demonstrate my innocence. He was implicated in an email campaign to attack both myself and Jane Bryant (the 'Hushman' campaign).

I can support ALL the above assertions with actual evidence. If you, or Charles Shepherd, or possible astroturfers or agent provocateurs, wish to continue down this line, I will be happy to publicise that evidence.

But let's address your assertions about advocacy and representation. Charles Shepherd, the MEA, AfME, other charities have not protected this community against an onslaught of slanderous allegations in the past 6 weeks or more. Not only do they currently appear incompetent, there appears to be some collusion - often to police the patient population and supporters by ad hominem and intimidation. It is clear though, in the current crisis, that more and more patients and their supporters have lost faith and patience with these organisations: have realised that they have no option but to self-advocate, and some - many- of the excellent responses we have seen from ordinary patients and their supporters to this current smear campaign puts the charities to shame. The inability (or reluctance) of Shepherd to protect his flock means the flock are doing without him.

 

I hope everyone in the UK upset by the ongoing hate campaign against us will consider giving whatever they can afford (if they haven't already) , however little, to IiME's proposed Centre for Biomedical ME Research and Treatment,it seems to be the our hope for the future in my country

http://www.everyclick.com/letsdoitforme/info

 

Yes Min - already donated - they and ME Research UK the best we have. Hoping too the MRC research is all biomedical this time and no psyches like the days of yore !

 

Latest Spectator is up. But no sign of the letters page so far. Also, [STRIKE]last week's letter page is not showing up on search results now either[/STRIKE] (I saw it there last week and it still is there http://www.spectator.co.uk/politics/all/7189868/letters.thtml). [STRIKE]Hope this isn't a sign that they're taking down the letters page for a while[/STRIKE]. Perhaps if somebody sees a copy somewhere/is out and could check, they'd see if there are any letters.

 

And just a point:
I used to carry a knife, a penknife, before such became practically banned by the lunatic system we have in the UK (grrr! Banning" things" NEVER bloody works, idiots!)
It was not carried as a weapon, for goodness sake, ti was just a freakin' tool I used a lot!
So, to say "someone was found with a knife" well that could mean anything becuse of the draconian laws...penknife, plastic knife? or was it someone found carrying a worktool they'd forgotten to place elsewhere?
or was it an actual person going after Wessely with intent to commit a crime, if so, that should be on record and easily verifiable.

 

2 letters published in Spectator

Well done to Anna (who I know) and K. (who Im not aware that I know)