Dr MyHill's License in Jeopardy
- Thread starter Cort
- Start date
- Messages
- 35
Good post Gerwyn.
- Messages
- 35
- Messages
- 3
- Location
- Perth Western Australia
For those who are concerned to preserve/have access to her website info I recently (thanks to another poster) became aware of a free software program that allows you to copy an entire website & access it on your own computer.
Here is the link http://www.httrack.com/page/2/en/index.html
It's quick (took me 20 mins to download the program and copy the website) & easy to do.
Apologies if this has already been posted elsewhere in this forum.
Here is the link http://www.httrack.com/page/2/en/index.html
It's quick (took me 20 mins to download the program and copy the website) & easy to do.
Apologies if this has already been posted elsewhere in this forum.
K
Knackered
Guest
I don't agree with some of her methods when using the broad term of CFS, she advocates B12 injections in "CFS" patients because states she sometimes B12 deficiencies cannot be detected using traditional methods, the symptom of a B12 deficiency is "tiredness"; I'm not tired. I assume perhaps she thinks some "CFS" patients have CF due to vitamin deficiencies, which is fair enough, but I don't want to be lumped in there too. Lots of people were at her protest with M.E banners.
I don't think she should have had a licence revoked though, I believe some of her methods would work for some people. I hope she gets her licence back.
Adam
Senior Member
- Messages
- 495
- Location
- Sheffield UK
Ditto. Apart from the anger and frustration which I have in check (no, the anger/frustration is not harming me by containing it, more, I have subdued it).
BTW, anyone else have a similar experience to this?
I hold this picture in my mind of the Bad Science crew, or the 'outsiders' as some have dubbed them, as something akin to the 'Others' in Lost.
Pass me the remote luv.
carolwxyz99
Senior Member
- Messages
- 114
The Wales Today news is on BBC iplayer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00s7sgh/BBC_Wales_Today_29_04_2010/
It starts around 13 minutes 45 seconds
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00s7sgh/BBC_Wales_Today_29_04_2010/
It starts around 13 minutes 45 seconds
K
kandro
Guest
I have been having to use an electric wheelchair for 14 years with the CFS illness and you would have thought in our modern scientific society they would have identified the physical malfunction that we are all experiencing by now. And worse is to publicly crucify anyone who actually goes out on a limb to try to help some of the thousands of people crippled by this illness. The message is clear.....abandon these people just give them a few anti depressants & send them away....and if you do anything else WE WILL DESTROY YOU. Perahps if the medical proffession had actually researched & found the root of this physical problem Sarah Myhill would not be in this position. The only difference between Sarah Myhill & other doctors is she cant send these severely physically debilitated people away with nothing because she has a heart, a conscience, and a sense of duty. Why do you think her patients like her so much?
The people running our society are more interested in putting time into making MORE health & safety regulations than researching something actually worthwhile.
The people running our society are more interested in putting time into making MORE health & safety regulations than researching something actually worthwhile.
G
Gerwyn
Guest
hi Knackered B12 shots are one of the recommended treatments for mito dysfunction
K
Knackered
Guest
Caused by a retrovirus?
C
CheeseOnToast
Guest
I won't be engaging here any longer. I received a couple of very thoughtful private messages which set out in a calm and rational way why attempting to engage on this issue may be counterproductive. So I'll leave y'all to it and correspond with anyone who wants to correspond by private message.
I will, however, respond to the following idiocy because it's a poorly veiled threat:
Gerwyn, you are a fool...
MODERATOR NOTE (Mark):
The previous sentence, the earlier use of the word 'idiocy', and the phrase "Grow up", are in my opinion the first breach of forum rules that I have seen on this thread.
"Rule 1: While we honor passionate and informed discussion we will not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks or purposeless inflammatory posts."
This attack is, in my opinion, not "so egregiously offensive that it cannot be allowed to remain to upset other members" so I am not deleting it. Instead I am warning CheeseOnToast, as a new member, that this is the point at which the line was crossed. The subsequent discussion between Gerwyn and CheeseOnToast may contain further breaches of Rule 1 by both parties, but I believe in such cases it is important to identify the first offence.
CheeseOnToast: Please consult the forum rules before posting further, and take care not to breach this rule again. Please bear in mind that here we aim for a much more respectful tone than is the norm on the Bad Science forum. The debate about this legal issue is relevant to this thread and may be of interest to members, but it must be conducted in a polite and respectful tone.
Regarding Gerwyn's original post, to which CheeseOnToast responded, that post perhaps came close to breaching Rule 1:
"It is not permitted to advocate, encourage or condone physical violence, threats of violence, or harassment against anyone, whether members of this forum or not."
However, in my opinion Gerwyn's wording was sufficiently "veiled" as to neither advocate, encourage or condone anything, and is therefore not in breach of Rule 1.
...What on Earth makes you think a court would just hand you someone's identity? You can't just go into a courtroom and ask for some stranger's personal details like going into a bakers and asking for a cake. Absolutely preposterous.
The court would have to decide that:
A) There was good reason for you to know the person's details. Do you think, honestly, that a court would see this debacle as "good reasons"? An individual has made an entirely legal complaint, through the correct official channels. Just because you do not like the nature of the complaint is not a reason for a court to divulge personal information.
B) They would have to be satisfied that, once you were in possession of the person's details, you were going to do something constructive with them. What exactly, pray tell, would you be doing with them? All I see here is veiled threats to stalk and harass.
If you took this to a court, Gerwyn, the judge would simply tell you where to go - after he/she had stopped laughing his/her face off. Getting the complainants' details through official means is wild and crazy fantasy. Indeed, the complainant would probably have a better case for having your details revealed because you, with your "I wouldn't like to be in his shoes" threats, are actually the one behaving in a possibly illegal manner.
Half-baked threats like this do you or your interests no favours.
Grow up.
I will, however, respond to the following idiocy because it's a poorly veiled threat:
Gerwyn, you are a fool...
MODERATOR NOTE (Mark):
The previous sentence, the earlier use of the word 'idiocy', and the phrase "Grow up", are in my opinion the first breach of forum rules that I have seen on this thread.
"Rule 1: While we honor passionate and informed discussion we will not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks or purposeless inflammatory posts."
This attack is, in my opinion, not "so egregiously offensive that it cannot be allowed to remain to upset other members" so I am not deleting it. Instead I am warning CheeseOnToast, as a new member, that this is the point at which the line was crossed. The subsequent discussion between Gerwyn and CheeseOnToast may contain further breaches of Rule 1 by both parties, but I believe in such cases it is important to identify the first offence.
CheeseOnToast: Please consult the forum rules before posting further, and take care not to breach this rule again. Please bear in mind that here we aim for a much more respectful tone than is the norm on the Bad Science forum. The debate about this legal issue is relevant to this thread and may be of interest to members, but it must be conducted in a polite and respectful tone.
Regarding Gerwyn's original post, to which CheeseOnToast responded, that post perhaps came close to breaching Rule 1:
"It is not permitted to advocate, encourage or condone physical violence, threats of violence, or harassment against anyone, whether members of this forum or not."
However, in my opinion Gerwyn's wording was sufficiently "veiled" as to neither advocate, encourage or condone anything, and is therefore not in breach of Rule 1.
...What on Earth makes you think a court would just hand you someone's identity? You can't just go into a courtroom and ask for some stranger's personal details like going into a bakers and asking for a cake. Absolutely preposterous.
The court would have to decide that:
A) There was good reason for you to know the person's details. Do you think, honestly, that a court would see this debacle as "good reasons"? An individual has made an entirely legal complaint, through the correct official channels. Just because you do not like the nature of the complaint is not a reason for a court to divulge personal information.
B) They would have to be satisfied that, once you were in possession of the person's details, you were going to do something constructive with them. What exactly, pray tell, would you be doing with them? All I see here is veiled threats to stalk and harass.
If you took this to a court, Gerwyn, the judge would simply tell you where to go - after he/she had stopped laughing his/her face off. Getting the complainants' details through official means is wild and crazy fantasy. Indeed, the complainant would probably have a better case for having your details revealed because you, with your "I wouldn't like to be in his shoes" threats, are actually the one behaving in a possibly illegal manner.
Half-baked threats like this do you or your interests no favours.
Grow up.
So true. What those rats don't realise is that Dr Myhill is not really The problem. As Jim Carrey said in relation to vaccine-injury denialism, but can be applied here too "We (the parents speaking out) are not the problem. The problem is The Problem".
And The Problem is not going away.
The internet has impovered people somehow, they know it, they feel threatened and their attacks are going to get worse, more desparate. If XMRV story pans out, and especially if it is linked to autism (with much bigger things at stake for high priests of medicine and health care than CFS/ME), tons of elephant shit are going to hit the fan. They feel it. These are the strikes of a dying empire. My concern is they just might take us all down with them.
I totally agree that the only way to fight them by agressive counter-attack. Knives out. GMC is not about justice, science, or patient and peer testimonies. They could not care less.
I also agree this is not really a consipiracy, most parties involved (including BS folks) are acting out of deep inner fears and insecurities. Conformism at it purest.
Countrygirl
Senior Member
- Messages
- 5,638
- Location
- UK
Cheeseontoast,
I appreciate that you disagree with Gerwyn, but please do not stoop to using derogatory names when disagreeing with someone else on this forum. Gerwyn is a highly valued member of this community and is entitled to his opinion, even if you disagree with it.
I do hope a mod deletes the offending comment.
I appreciate that you disagree with Gerwyn, but please do not stoop to using derogatory names when disagreeing with someone else on this forum. Gerwyn is a highly valued member of this community and is entitled to his opinion, even if you disagree with it.
I do hope a mod deletes the offending comment.
G
Gerwyn
Guest
it appears that you are as ignorant of the law as you are of science.Anonymity is not protected on the internet.
I,m afraid that it is you who are living in a world of infantile ignorance.Would you like the case law on the subject?
I notice that you lacked the courage and or courtesy to respond to the questions i raised about Wesselly and his cohorts.
This is typical of your ilk.When the science gainsays your argument you ignore it.That is of course the embodiment of Bad Science.
C
CheeseOnToast
Guest
Yes please. Please provide me with the case law that suggests one can have the personal details of someone on the internet revealed simply by requesting them; without having good legal reason to do so.
Regarding Wessely et al, like I said, I've taken the advice of a couple of your regulars and won't be drawn on the subject of Myhill's predicament. If you want to have a polite discussion about it I'm happy to do so by private message.
G
Gerwyn
Guest
There you go
Motley Fool v Totalise
enjoy.I still think you are too much of a coward to anwer my question.you have been easily drawn on Dr Myhill before
C
CheeseOnToast
Guest
Afraid not. In this case the court had to be convinced there was a case to answer over charge of defamation before divulging the personal details of the individual. So, if you're using this case as a template, you would first have to demonstrate that there was a reasonable case that "Jonas" had acted in a defamatory manner (presumably against Myhill). Firstly, you would be unable to bring this case on Myhill's behalf. Secondly, seeing as "Jonas" undertook the correct, legally specified, route in raising his concerns about Myhill (and that the appropriate body - the GMC - appears to have agreed with him) it is vanishingly unlikely that a court would support a defamation claim.
Try again.
Regarding the Wessely stuff. Okay, I'm a coward, if that makes you happy. I already explained why I'm no longer being drawn on the matter, and said that I'm more than happy to discuss it with you privately.
G
Gerwyn
Guest
i think you had better read the case only evidence that the statement might be defamation is needed.It does not matter in the least what route he took.the burden that the statement was not defamatory rests with him.the requirement that you are involved in thhe case is not true. if you doubt it see a lawyer.It's nothing to do with the behaviour just the content of the statement.The GMC is not there to resolve whether the comment is factual or not and specifically said so
C
CheeseOnToast
Guest
You are quite simply mistaken. The court concluded that revelation of an identity can be forced only if it is "necessary in the interests of justice". The judge first had to rule that the posts in question were "clearly defamatory" before forcing the disclosure of personal details. The court required that a prima facie case existed.
You CANNOT simply go up to a court and get the details of an individual who is saying things you don't like. You would have to satisfy a judge that bringing a case of defamation could be successful.
And it absolutely matters what route he took. Are you suggesting that people can be sued for defamation for making complaints in the official, legally recognised way? Don't be ridiculous.
Try again.
G
Gerwyn
Guest
yes they can be sued if the contents are defamatory.The comments only need to meet the legal tests of defamation. if those are met then a prime facie case exists"in the interests of justice" is in itself a legal test.If an action is brought then it is up to the defendant to prove that the comments were not defamation
these are the facts;
A user of the service, 'Z Dust', made a number of postings which were allegedly defamatory against the Claimant. The Claimant requested disclosure of Z Dust's identity from the Defendants. The Defendants refused on the basis that disclosure would breach the Data Protection Act 1998 (the '1998 Act'). As a consequence the Claimant brought a Norwich Pharmacal application against the Defendants seeking a Court Order that they disclose Z Dust's identity and provide documents relating to the same.
Owen J. made an order for disclosure of Z Dust's identity and that the Defendants pay the costs of the application. This costs order was made on the basis that although the Defendants had to carry out the balancing exercise as to whether or not to disclose the identity, in this case there was only one answer to that balancing exercise, namely that they should have complied with the requests made by the Claimant. The costs part of the order formed the subject of the appeal.
these are the facts;
A user of the service, 'Z Dust', made a number of postings which were allegedly defamatory against the Claimant. The Claimant requested disclosure of Z Dust's identity from the Defendants. The Defendants refused on the basis that disclosure would breach the Data Protection Act 1998 (the '1998 Act'). As a consequence the Claimant brought a Norwich Pharmacal application against the Defendants seeking a Court Order that they disclose Z Dust's identity and provide documents relating to the same.
Owen J. made an order for disclosure of Z Dust's identity and that the Defendants pay the costs of the application. This costs order was made on the basis that although the Defendants had to carry out the balancing exercise as to whether or not to disclose the identity, in this case there was only one answer to that balancing exercise, namely that they should have complied with the requests made by the Claimant. The costs part of the order formed the subject of the appeal.