I know it's probably an odd thing to reference but I have to be honest what comes to mind for me in the face of all of these articles etc. Is this;
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WereStillRelevantDammit
-
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, 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.
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Right Name, Real Treatments
- Thread starter Aurator
- Start date
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WereStillRelevantDammit
Roy S
former DC ME/CFS lobbyist
- Messages
- 1,376
- Location
- Illinois, USA
There are only 8 comments to Peter White's article. Miriam Tucker's previous Medscape article that White denigrates has 420 comments.
ugh. please note there is another article on Medscape that is almost an exact clone of the Peter White one, just with a softer tone and slightly different spin.
I confess I haven't watched the video as I can guess the approach from the article (particularly the last two paragraphs about CBT/GET), and I'm just not feeling masochistic enough to add this to my day.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/840635
I confess I haven't watched the video as I can guess the approach from the article (particularly the last two paragraphs about CBT/GET), and I'm just not feeling masochistic enough to add this to my day.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/840635
meadowlark
Senior Member
- Messages
- 241
- Location
- Toronto, Canada
In the second article, the doctor (sadly, from John Hopkins) is trying hard to come down on all sides at once, and throws out GET in the spirit of "I dunno, maybe, who knows, might work!--after all, this Simon Wessley guy has studied it!" Which means, of course, that he hasn't read (or believed) the IOM report at all.
Maybe you are right, but I actually think this is the more damaging of the two. It may be clear to everyone on this forum that he hasn't read the biomedical evidence (or the IOM report) before declaring ME/CFS and SEID mysterious, but I don't think that would be apparent to the average reader.
He clearly states that CBT and GET (The Wesseley versions) are what he uses in his office, and adds a little jab against pharmaceutical trials: "There is a lot of discussion about medication trials. But I believe that until we reach a better understanding, this syndrome is very difficult to appreciate". Maybe he is truly befuddled, but I suspect this article may be more calculated than you think.
It's definitely more calculated than we think, monsters like Peter White have come to terms with the fact they are willing to build their professional reputations by preying on marginalized patients suffering from a severe illness that does not yet have established biomarkers. This guy isn't befuddled, he's desperately trying to defend his reputation and life's work, which is ironic, because he will be remembered by history as a despicable monster.
I think Kyla was referring to the Paul G. Auwaerter piece.
Yes, this article: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/840635
I think it is just as damaging (or more so), because the tone is more "reasonable", and yet comes to essentially the same conclusions (without referencing one scrap of evidence, I would add )
Can we start making a list of names of doctors writing these articles and send them a formal invitation to the next Stanford symposium on ME/CFS. 
If they can sit through a presentation of all the recent research findings and still maintain these views than I would officially retire from giving a sh*t. But maybe a few clinicians still have open minds and just aren't familiar with all the current evidence?
If they can sit through a presentation of all the recent research findings and still maintain these views than I would officially retire from giving a sh*t. But maybe a few clinicians still have open minds and just aren't familiar with all the current evidence?
...and obviously I am not referring to Peter White or the rest of the diehard Wessleyians, they wouldn't be convinced of ME/CFS if it stood up and bit them.Can we start making a list of names of doctors writing these articles and send them a formal invitation to the next Stanford symposium on ME/CFS.
If they can sit through a presentation of all the recent research findings and still maintain these views than I would officially retire from giving a sh*t. But maybe a few clinicians still have open minds and just aren't familiar with all the current evidence?
There are now 15 comments and that jerk Dr. James Weber, is commenting again. Is he a troll?
Did anyone find out who he is?
He is once again belittling us and says he finds this topic very entertaining. He asks if anyone has noticed that it is all the "NON-physicians" who comment and seem to know more about this "nebulous" disorder than physicians.
meadowlark
Senior Member
- Messages
- 241
- Location
- Toronto, Canada
I agree with everyone that Dr. Auwaerter was posing in a pernicious way. I wish I had had a sarcasm font (I can never use or read emoticons--I misinterpret them every time.) I was meaning to imply that Dr. A. obviously does not believe the IOM report, and is batting his eyes in faux innocence about his open mind and tolerance. (i.e. "GET sounds pretty great! Simon Wessley is a nice man!")
Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
I hadn't realised he'd posted previously. From the look of his past posts he's not worth responding to.
jimells
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,009
- Location
- northern Maine
Maybe he works for the Science Media Centre. Lots of companies now use paid commenters for manipulation. A favorite is to hire someone to post bad stuff about the competition. There's no reason to think that tactic isn't being used against us.
Not convinced. Science Media Centre isn't a big company financially as far as I know. There are plenty of people who have ignorant attitudes about ME/CFS so think not being paid by SMC is a lot more likely.
daisybell
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,613
- Location
- New Zealand
Dr Weber makes a lot of offensive comments about all sorts of things from what I can see... Not just ME/CFS.
Oh good....I think.
Snowdrop
Rebel without a biscuit
- Messages
- 2,933
That's certainly my preference (not responding). PW knows what we think. There is starting to be information out there for people to access that corrects this view so ignoring him as irrelevant makes sense to me. Let's keep putting out accurate info wherever/whenever we can as the antidote to this drivel. And trolls like 'Dr. W' don't merit a response.
Last edited: