A thought, prompted by this. The day will come, where irrefutable evidence of biological disease will be discovered, and unambiguous biomarker(s) will be identified ... maybe even this year, who knows. At that point the prevailing establishment will plead they did their best given the absence of evidence at the time, and cannot in any way be held to blame for the suffering and harm caused to ME/CFS sufferers. But there must now (and must have for some time) surely be a mass of empirical data giving serious cause for reasonable doubt regarding the safety of existing ME/CFS treatments.
If you are talking about the risk of serious harm, or even death, to people, you cannot sanely argue that you did nothing because you lacked 100% proof. You instead have to work by the principle of reasonable doubt, and if the available empirical data gives cause for reasonable doubt of existing methods, then those methods must surely be urgently addressed.
There must at the very least be a real Health and Safety issue here? Is it possible there could be breaches of Health and Safety law being committed in the UK in this regard? Or if H&S is not itself impacted, could not H&S principles be used as precedents?
I would like the powers-that-be to ponder this: If you find yourself in a court of law sometime (maybe not so far) in the future, answering why you waited for 100% proof that people were being harmed by current treatments before doing anything, rather than considering reasonable doubt as to their safety before doing anything ... are you confident you will be able to exonerate yourself?
