'Dr Crippen' & Lynn

[Min]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/feb/02/dr-crippen-legalising-assisted-suicide

Dr Crippen the anonymous blogger mouths off about M.E. in the biased Guardian again:

"A caring mother who kills her daughter who is suffering from "myalgic encephalomyelitis", a condition that many doctors only recognise as an inappropriately named psychiatric illness, is found not guilty of murder"

but the bit he wrote that was left off the online version is:

"It is incomprehensible that she was found not guilty."


letters to letters@guardian.co.uk but I don't think they'll print any, Wessely's colleague psychiatrist Ben Goodacre works for them & they only ever print negative things about us.

comments can be left on 'Dr Crippen's' blog:

http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/

 

[Elliot]

Goldacre is in league with Wessley?
Awww

 

[Katie]

I was dreading Dr Crippen's take, it's so toxic and awful, I just don't read it anymore. I can't click on the link, I'm sorry. Maybe if XMRV comes good I will, that's the only thing that could ever hope to change his outlook, when his ME patients come back positive and treatments work. Then, and only then.

 

[xanadu]

Goldacre is in league with Wessley?
Awww

http://forums.aboutmecfs.org/showth...enuine-newspaper&p=38673&viewfull=1#post38673

Sorry, Elliot.

 

[Elliot]

Ah jeez :/
I quite liked the guy on his approach to skepticism and anti-quackery. But now my estimation of him has gone wayyyy down. Psh.

 

[thefreeprisoner]

He sounded like a proper scientist to me too, until I found out that he was a psychiatrist.
Now I know why he's qualified to write about 'Bad Science'.

Rachel xx

 

[Esther12]

Ah jeez :/
I quite liked the guy on his approach to skepticism and anti-quackery. But now my estimation of him has gone wayyyy down. Psh.

I find a lot of 'skeptics' are just people who are too lazy to be real rationalists. They like puffing themselves up with attacks on the transparent lunacy of creationism and homeopathy, but aren't willing to do the real work and thinking that's required to understand the more uncertain and difficult issues of the day. The fact that so many people check their horoscopes in the morning makes it difficult to claim that there's no benefit to their writing, but there's still often an undeserved smugness which grates and I think serves to show true rationalism in a negative light.

CFS is a difficult illness to understand, but to a lazy skeptic, they could conclude that until a clear physical cause has been found a psychological cause should be assumed. It's a crazy approach, but seems widespread within the medical community. The sort of claims people are skeptical of are often guided by their own prejudices, as are the default assumptions lazy skeptics make when countervailing evidence is not strong enough. Pisses me off.

 

[MEKoan]

I find a lot of 'skeptics' are just people who are too lazy to be real rationalists. They like puffing themselves up with attacks on the transparent lunacy of creationism and homeopathy, but aren't willing to do the real work and thinking that's required to understand the more uncertain and difficult issues of the day. The fact that so many people check their horoscopes in the morning makes it difficult to claim that there's no benefit to their writing, but there's still often an undeserved smugness which grates and I think serves to show true rationalism in a negative light.

CFS is a difficult illness to understand, but to a lazy skeptic, they could conclude that until a clear physical cause has been found a psychological cause should be assumed. It's a crazy approach, but seems widespread within the medical community. The sort of claims people are skeptical of are often guided by their own prejudices, as are the default assumptions lazy skeptics make when countervailing evidence is not strong enough. Pisses me off.

This is an excellent post, Esther.

Many thanks!

 

[Cazzh]

When knowledge is lacking, many people rely on their own opinions. Opinions then get muddled and become 'fact' in the minds of some. He is going to look awfully silly when a cause of cfs/me is actually found for definite!

 

[natasa778]

I quite liked the guy on his approach to skepticism and anti-quackery.

Elliot, maybe you should rethink your views on skeptics and anti-quacks.

Many of them are plain lazy, as Esther said. Some are downright corporate lobbyists (as in hidden conflicts of interests), some simply have nothing better to do with their pathetic lives and feed off attacking relatively easy targets (many who belong to that category will be individuals with high functioning autism, who live off disability benefits and spend their lives arguing that autism is not a disability, and does not have a biological background - hence they flock to "skeptic" gurus, who on the other hand will be assigning any still-mysterious diseases into genetic-psychological basket without bothering to look into actual science, and any treatment options that addresses medical issues onto the quack category, regardless of actual science behind the approach…).

Most of the skeptics, for all their professed love of science, when approached with requests to discuss any real biological/physiological issues will run away miles. Ben is no different, and many times has been caught not even bothering to read the science that he viciously attacks, or the one that he defends.

 

[Min]

I have written to complain to the Guardian.

 

[Herbiv4]

Hello there,

As you may be aware I have been writing a letter of protest to Alan Rusbridger at The Guardian over the last few days.

You can see the draft version of my letter here - http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/Guardian-Rusbridger-3rd-draft.htm

And the previous draft was uploaded here - http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/Guardian-Rusbridger-2nd-draft.htm

The idea was first raised on my group earlier in this week just gone.

Your letter looks remarkably similar to ours and some of the wording is almost identical.

It would have been great if you'd have given the original authors some credit.

My letter is supported by Professor Malcolm Hooper here in the UK and over 60 individuals including doctors.

Just for the record - we started putting our letter together on the 3rd February 2010 at 3.29pm GMT.

Thanks,

Stephen Ralph www.meactionuk.org.uk



Moderator note: The moderators on the board have had the opportunity to review both letters and found no plagarism to have occured.

 

[sproggle]

Hello there,

As you may be aware I have been writing a letter of protest to Alan Rusbridger at The Guardian over the last few days.

You can see the draft version of my letter here - http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/Guardian-Rusbridger-3rd-draft.htm

And the previous draft was uploaded here - http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/Guardian-Rusbridger-2nd-draft.htm

The idea was first raised on my group earlier in this week just gone.

Your letter looks remarkably similar to ours and some of the wording is almost identical.

It would have been great if you'd have given the original authors some credit.

My letter is supported by Professor Malcolm Hooper here in the UK and over 60 individuals including doctors.

Just for the record - we started putting our letter together on the 3rd February 2010 at 3.29pm GMT.

Thanks,

Stephen Ralph www.meactionuk.org.uk

Hi Stephen,

I'm a bit confused, has someone on this site copied part or all of your letter and sent it in themselves independently of your efforts and as their own?

I have just read your excellent letter and immediately emailed my name and address to the requested address to give my full support.

We're all after the same result, recognition and a better deal for all ME sufferers. Thank you for all your efforts toward our cause. Much credit to you and yours

Jan xx

 

[Adam]

Ditto Sproggle.

I have put my name on the list via the email link provided.

 

[Gerwyn]

Hi Min how did you do that i would like to write also

 

[Min]

Hi Stephen, I'm a bit confused, has someone on this site copied part or all of your letter and sent it in themselves independently of your efforts and as their own?
Jan xx

the moderators have placed note on Mr Ralph's post stating that I did NOT plagarise his letter:


"Moderator note: The moderators on the board have had the opportunity to review both letters and found no plagarism to have occured. "

I hope this is the end of his false accusations as I found them most upsetting. None of my letter was copied from his.