I really do not wish to continue to defend psychosomatic medicine as this is not the thread and I'm not well. I'm focused on the editorial policy of the BMJ. I'm thrilled that so many now realise how the bias has impacted the ME world, and that things have not changed in recent years. In my view, what the BMJ and Lancet do re ME is a scientific scandal. It would not be tolerated by oncologists, gynaecologists, rheumatologists and other specialities. So pleased we're dealing with this issue now. Let's leave psych medicine behind. Don't let that distract from a serious problem.
Sorry if I’m wrong (I’m not wading back through everything) but wasn’t it you who raised the Gupta program and Lightning Process? If you don’t want a thread about the editorial policy of the BMJ to be derailed it’s probably best to stick to the point instead of throwing in references to subjects on which other members feel they should be allowed to question or reply to.
Subjects like the Lightning Process, Gupta program, psychosomatic illness, and personality testing can sometimes lead to forceful expressions of opinion. There have been enough threads on those subjects where you weren’t taking part to demonstrate that the views expressed by some posters on this thread are perfectly typical and nothing to do with you or meant personally.
I can't keep justifying myself.
Not quite sure whether the word “justify” is the most appropriate one to use here. Whatever, claiming to be excused from discussing a matter you raised any further by appealing to status (being a doctor, being a woman entitled to the same perceived easy ride that men get, being ill, being retired) isn’t much of an argument, very many people on here are female, ill, and not working due to illness or retirement. Some are also very well qualified in scientific and other fields. So what? I’ve rarely if ever seen any of those things rolled out as an excuse for refusing to discuss a matter further. They should be irrelevant.
Accusing people who question your statements of “grilling”, venting displaced anger at the BPS brigade, being sexist, doubting your trustworthiness, honesty and competence etc. are non-arguments. Just stick to the subject, I don’t think anyone deserves having those labels thrown at them, it doesn’t serve the debate at all.
I really don’t mean to harp on, but I can’t help noticing that in the same post where you say:
I really do not wish to continue to defend psychosomatic medicine as this is not the thread and I'm not well. I'm focused on the editorial policy of the BMJ.
You also say:
Re role of personality, CBT might help those alleged to have personality traits that work against them.
And that’s the last word anybody is allowed to say on that subject is it?
Sorry if you think I'm having a go, I'm really not. For me PR is a place to exchange information and opinions so how that is done is important. I love some of your posts and think they're a really valuable contribution to the cause. When I disagree with some of your opinions I'd like to be able to post without being accused of grilling, venting or sexism, and if I am I feel entitled to reply to that.