Dr MyHill's License in Jeopardy

[Angela Kennedy]

Angela I am aware of ALL of the above. The fact is either we just keep hitting back with facts or we dont bother to engage with them or we will just encounter more of the same. Getting involved in a cat and mouse argument is not going to do any good and there are always people who will set out with that as their full intention.

I am at the point where I really dont care what the BS folk say because its just BS. ( two different meanings there).

Hi Flex,

Fair enough. I think you make good points : )

On the one hand - it's just a forum of unknown entities, as you say, maybe we could all be "at the point where I really dont care what the BS folk say because its just BS. ( two different meanings there)".

But it's the fact there are people there who have access to say, the Guardian etc. who might write prejudicially about the ME/CFS community; that there are those who have already been making inflammatory comments about named medical practitioners/ organisations (other than Myhill, by the way); and against those advocating for ME/CFS sufferers, that means we have to engage to some degree. The implications for the ME/CFS communities and their supporters are enormous, but we're not getting a chance to analyse the situation properly because of the relentless baiting and some frankly outrageous claims being thrown at us all, and the interminable ad hominem. I sadly therefore don't think we can ignore this situation with the BSers.

Just a few other issues that have presented themselves in the past few days:

1. If I've read the GMC transcript right - Professor Bouloux (the 'expert'?) is claiming anything that is not NICE approved is WRONG? The adverse implications of that way of thinking are enormous for one thing. That's if I'm right in what I'm interpreting.

2. We've already seen some inconstencies/inaccuracies in some claims about Myhill arising from the BS forum, some of which have been discussed here. But are the GMC going to take these at face value? Do the GMC have the wisdom to conduct an objective investigation when the background noise is deafening, basically?

3. Is there a frenzy of reporting to the GMC of ME/CFS 'friendly' doctors about to happen from BSers? What are the implications for ME/CFS sufferers? Are they to become 'collateral damage'?

4. Will certain ME/CFS community members respond in kind if they feel backed into a corner? That could happen - I've seen indications it might. The pernicious effects of state-medically sanctioned inappropriate psychologisation have gone on so long - this latest possibility of a 'blitz' on the private doctors may be the last straw for some. What implications does THAT possibility have?

There are likely to be many more issues that need to be considered. However, while the whole issue has been couched in the terms of the BSers rules of engagement, clear, careful, rational discussion is being precluded.

 

[pollycbr125]

ive read the wessely response and tbh im sceptical its him anyway the skepticat blog appeared friday and i didnt see it while late so your telling me wessely got up ate its cornflakes and replied at 8.23 am on Sat morn . tbh id have thought he had better things to do with his time on a weekend

 

[insignificount]

I will address (or at least try to) these points later on today, so I would be grateful if this thread could be kept open until then. If it gets locked, I'll just have to PM people...

However, what I will say for now it that I haven't posted anything on this forum to wind people up and I'm not trolling or (in Knackered's words) "trying to be clever".

I'm approaching this as someone who knows or has known several people with ME/CFS/something from the wastebasket (including someone I've known for over 15 years) and who didn't know that the issue of psychology in ME/CFS/something from etc. was so controversial (and I didn't know about the existence of GET either).

Although I've been quite open/blunt (and their might be an Aspergers element to that; I'm borderline) about disagreeing with people over here on the BS forums, I don't think I have said anything peurile or childish (unlike some of the others, but I can't make apologies for other people; I'm not Jesus). My disagreement with Angela was about the ability of the BS forum membership to think scientifically.

Here's an example (and Andrewdoc74 is one the newcomer's who is still discussing things with us [mostly about DPA issues, which one of our members is very passionate about]) of something I wrote.

For the life of me I can't understand why people want to find out his identity? Not really important is it?!

They (and this was mostly referring to things Mark has written) believe that there is some kind of conspiracy to push CBT & GET and other forms of "psychobabble" on all ME/CFS/whatever patients versus doing research into physiological causes (and they might have a point; I don't know).

(added emphasis and the comment about Mark)

Consequently, some of them refuse to believe that Jonas is just an individual who fired off a couple of emails (?) versus someone with connections to big Pharma/the conspiracy.

They want to know his identity because they want to see if he any vested interests or links to vested interests.

If I wanted to be rude, I would have said that (because some of you refuse to believe that Jonas' actions are not some part of an organised campaign) you were all paranoid or delusional or no better than those people who think the Moon Landings were faked or something (and joked about it), even though I have difficulty relating to people who are convinced that conspiracies exist when there are none.

BBL.

 

[valia]

ive read the wessely response and tbh im sceptical its him anyway the skepticat blog appeared friday and i didnt see it while late so your telling me wessely got up ate its cornflakes and replied at 8.23 am on Sat morn . tbh id have thought he had better things to do with his time on a weekend

Just shows how closely Simon Wessely has been following the Witch Hunt of Sarah Myhill.

 

[Mark]

Of course on top of that is the issue that he and his failed profession are desperately trying to equate themselves with real medicine like virology immunology and neurology.

Their branch of psychological medical theory does use work in 'real sience' areas, but their synthesis is essentially disingenuous, they spin every aspect of our reality to phrase it in a way that insults our intelligence. It is all nothing but spin. In reality what they talk about is couched in ever vaguer and less specific terms, despite the areas they claim to depend on - detailed study of symptomology is actively discouraged! Their approach excludes work in areas they are not familiar with and they routinely dismiss science from new areas they do not understand. Wessely is not unhappy to state publicly that he knows very little about the area of medicine concerned - retrovirology for example - but he is quite happy to confidently assert, as media spokesman, that whatever this new thing is, it will not be found to exist here. He can only be right for as long as he and his crew are the only ones who are allowed to look for it.

As you rightly highlight flex, the prospect of a scientific revolution in this area must horrify so many people - many will be asking how will the public ever trust us again if we all admit we got it hopelessly wrong? - but of course the better question is what trust there can ever be until they do.

But we should return to the subject of the matter at hand, Dr Myhill...what can we do next, the Bad Scientists have made what does seem like a reasonable suggestion, that the offending remarks be catalogued and explored so we can determine what allegations have been made and summarise the case regarding each allegation, anybody out there sitting round wondering how to spend all that spare time may wish to do so, but it seems an upside down way of doing things really, instead we should be asking them to explain their case and answer the procedural questions.

Just before the election, late one Friday, a little-known and highly inconvenient scandal about a little-known illness and a little-known doctor was queitly shuffled away from the Friday night news. A dangerous doctor, anonymously accused, and with no evidence of patient harm or dissatisfaction, was convicted without trial or procedure and debarred from prescribing in the most draconian terms. Elsewhere, business continues as usual, and the news rooms place the story to one side: they are busy covering important matters.

It must have seemed to the GMC like a good day to bury a good doctor. But we will continue to demand of them the evidence of patients who have been harmed by her dangerous treatments and advice and are unhappy with the terms of the service they received. And we will continue to believe that our experience should be considered important, and should be taken into consideration as evidence - somewhere, somehow, some day...

 

[pollycbr125]

Just before the election, late one Friday, a little-known and highly inconvenient scandal about a little-known illness and a little-known doctor was queitly shuffled away from the Friday night news. A dangerous doctor, anonymously accused, and with no evidence of patient harm or dissatisfaction, was convicted without trial or procedure and debarred from prescribing in the most draconian terms. Elsewhere, business continues as usual, and the news rooms place the story to one side: they are busy covering important matters.

It must have seemed to the GMC like a good day to bury a good doctor. .

oh their timing couldnt have been more perfect . bury it while the big boys are chasing Brown calling elderly ladies bigots .
its not the first time the media have managed to bury an important story due to a 'big' story taking precedence .

 

[lansbergen]

In brief:

Of late years the weasely Wessely has been redefining his position and that of the kind of psychiatry he stands for to this effect:

(1) There are a body&brain + a mind&soul (Ockham, Galileo and science be damned: may they burn in hell!)
(2) Where real scientists do yet not know the real physical answers about problems involving the body&brain, the Wesselyte school of psychiatry affirms that the Wesselyte school of psychiatry do ("therefore", in their psycho-"logic") know that these problems are all due to dysfunctional belief systems in the mind&soul
(3) against which the psychic geniuses of the Wesselyte school of psychiatry have The Final Solution of GET + CBT (for if you qua KCL-graduate know you do not know the physical cause of a patients suffering the Wessely-LP-KCL-school of Moral Medicine is... to kick the patient in the balls or the teeth as hard as they can, while screaming loudly that physical causality is a mental delusion the belief in which just proves the patient is a malingerer and a fraud who deserves to be kicked GET-wise and brainwashed CBT-wise).

I think you put it very well in a nutshell. I like it. It is loud and clear

 

[Angela Kennedy]

Some dude called 'jnthn' is characterising my questions expressed here this morning as 'paranoia' and 'spreading FUD' (wtf is that?)

http://www.badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15693&start=4625

"There's some real paranoia happening over on PR."

(Part of my post is then presented)

"I'm quite sad that Angela thinks we're part of/going to launch a massive attack against all ME/CFS doctors as seen in points 3 and 4. Especially since the substance of the complaint was nothing to do with ME/CFS and, indeed, that there is no organised Bad Science campaign. I'm not sure how many times we can say this. Also, Angela seems to be spreading FUD for no good reason, which give the vulnerable status of many ME/CFS sufferers, I find wholly reprehensible."

Give me strength!

Advocates can't even express possible problems here without this sort of ad hominem being thrown at them - because that's what that is. My concerns expressed here are not unreasonable, but they immediately become so in the distorting lens of dudes like jnthn, who also thinks he/she can speak with authority for the whole of the BS forum, I might add, for the protection of the vulnerable ME/CFS sufferers, by the way! jnthn's argument goes along the lines of "Don't worry ME/CFS sufferers, none of Angela Kennedy's concerns have any merit so you mustn't worry your pretty little heads, because I, jnthn, say so! People like Angela Kennedy are spreading FUD you know, in DARING to articulate what people MIGHT be thinking/worrying about, because the poor dears (those ME/CFSers) are so easily led."

Again, how on earth do you have reasonable engagement with that? But also - as it is, Phoenix Rising members may now not articulate concerns or worry even here without being judged as paranoid, stupid, etc. etc. over there. Certain BSers are trying to frame the issue in a certain way, and are using all the devices available to paint dissenters as unreasonable.

It is a ridiculous situation. But again, not of ME/CFS sufferers making. The post tally on the thread given above alone is 4664 at the time of writing. That is a LOT of ad hominem, misrepresentation, fallacious reasoning, appeals to authority, dodgy claims etc. for people to have to wade through (with only an occasional fair or reasonable point, to be honest). I've read every post but I can't possibly physically address everything that's incorrect on that forum. None of us can.

What therefore becomes of huge concern is how, through sheer volume, fallacious arguments get reified. We may not be able to prevent that happening on the BS forum - but it may become a bigger issue the more public the Myhill case becomes, because the Myhill case IS going to impinge on the ME/CFS community, in various ways.

 

[Gerwyn]

Some dude called 'jnthn' is characterising my questions expressed here this morning as 'paranoia' and 'spreading FUD' (wtf is that?)

http://www.badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15693&start=4625

"There's some real paranoia happening over on PR."

(Part of my post is then presented)

"I'm quite sad that Angela thinks we're part of/going to launch a massive attack against all ME/CFS doctors as seen in points 3 and 4. Especially since the substance of the complaint was nothing to do with ME/CFS and, indeed, that there is no organised Bad Science campaign. I'm not sure how many times we can say this. Also, Angela seems to be spreading FUD for no good reason, which give the vulnerable status of many ME/CFS sufferers, I find wholly reprehensible."

Give me strength!

Advocates can't even express possible problems here without this sort of ad hominem being thrown at them - because that's what that is. My concerns expressed here are not unreasonable, but they immediately become so in the distorting lens of dudes like jnthn, who also thinks he/she can speak with authority for the whole of the BS forum, I might add, for the protection of the vulnerable ME/CFS sufferers, by the way! jnthn's argument goes along the lines of "Don't worry ME/CFS sufferers, none of Angela Kennedy's concerns have any merit so you mustn't worry your pretty little heads, because I, jnthn, say so! People like Angela Kennedy are spreading FUD you know, in DARING to articulate what people MIGHT be thinking/worrying about, because the poor dears (those ME/CFSers) are so easily led."

Again, how on earth do you have reasonable engagement with that? But also - as it is, Phoenix Rising members may now not articulate concerns or worry even here without being judged as paranoid, stupid, etc. etc. over there. Certain BSers are trying to frame the issue in a certain way, and are using all the devices available to paint dissenters as unreasonable.

It is a ridiculous situation. But again, not of ME/CFS sufferers making. The post tally on the thread given above alone is 4664 at the time of writing. That is a LOT of ad hominem, misrepresentation, fallacious reasoning, appeals to authority, dodgy claims etc. for people to have to wade through (with only an occasional fair or reasonable point, to be honest). I've read every post but I can't possibly physically address everything that's incorrect on that forum. None of us can.

What therefore becomes of huge concern is how, through sheer volume, fallacious arguments get reified. We may not be able to prevent that happening on the BS forum - but it may become a bigger issue the more public the Myhill case becomes, because the Myhill case IS going to impinge on the ME/CFS community, in various ways.

what is meant by mind what is meant by duality.do either exist in mind independent terms?

 

[Jerry S]

Orignally posted by Angela Kennedy:

Some dude called 'jnthn' is characterising my questions expressed here this morning as 'paranoia' and 'spreading FUD' (wtf is that?)

FUD = fear, uncertainty, doubt. From the Skeptic's Dictionary. http://www.skepdic.com/

 

[xanadu]

The post tally on the thread given above alone is 4664 at the time of writing. That is a LOT...

The post tally for this thread on LP is 24.

And they really really don't understand why nobody believes a word they say about being 'equal opportunity skeptics'.

 

[Angela Kennedy]

Orignally posted by Angela Kennedy:



FUD = fear, uncertainty, doubt. From the Skeptic's Dictionary. http://www.skepdic.com/

Aha.

Thanks for that Jerry.

 

[Angela Kennedy]

The post tally for this thread on LP is 24.

And they really really don't understand why nobody believes a word they say about being 'equal opportunity skeptics'.

I'd forgotten about the LP thread. Even that was derailed slightly by irrelevant smart alec comments I note. The outrage-ometer was also 'lukewarm' at best, relative to the Myhill extravaganza, at least.

Of course - I would argue that it's possibly because LP beliefs and what objections can be made to them do have some key similarities with certain CBT principles applied to ME/CFS at least, belief-systems certain people appear loathe to critique.

Orla's thread, for example, on the Liverpool clinic literature, did highlight those similarities very well I thought.

 

[brenda]

Dr Myhill is not the first

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1332644.stm

http://www.whale.to/a/132.html

Dr Peatfield retired from the GMC I believe and went on to practise privately, travelling around the county to see his patients. I believe he is still practising and saw him myself. His position was worse as he did not have a private practise already in place but Myhill has so she will be able to continue and as she seems to use alternative rather than pharmaceutical treatments, her patients will be able to order them themselves, like the patients of Dr Peatfield. There will not be too much change for her patients and to imply there will be is to over-react.

I wonder if she has sought the advice of Peatfield?

I think that the problem is far deeper than what is happening to Dr Myhill, who may be seen to have been unwise in leaving contraversial statements on her site whilst still working for the GMC. You can`t have it both ways. There is enough information already up for the sensible patients who do not go down the conventional route.

 

[Angela Kennedy]

what is meant by mind what is meant by duality.do either exist in mind independent terms?

Hiya Gerwyn

Oh goodness, that DOES open up another big can of worms!

 

[xanadu]

LP beliefs and what objections can be made to them do have some key similarities with certain CBT principles applied to ME/CFS at least, belief-systems certain people appear loathe to critique.

Orla's thread, for example, on the Liverpool clinic literature, did highlight those similarities very well I thought.

Yes, LP is CBT on steroids, so criticism not allowed.

And why are so many psychiatrists prominent as quackbusters? Wessely was a founder member of HealthWatch, Goldacre trades as Bad Science, Barrett as NCAHF.

Psychiatrists have a hard time convincing the rest of the medical profession to take them seriously. I suppose attacking things lower down the food chain like CAM and supplements is intended to make them look less like quacks themselves.

 

[insignificount]

A few more Bad Science threads on the Lighting Process (which I found a while ago when I trying to work out reverse/mickel therapy was all about, which is the thing that one of my ME/CFS friends [for whom it worked] is convinced is the answer to all of my mental health issues, but I've yet to be convinced):

one from December 2007

one from January 2008

one from April 2008

one from December 2008

I think you'll find that we've been quite critical of TLP, albeit probably not in a manner that you would approve of. Sorry.

 

[Angela Kennedy]

A few more Bad Science threads on the Lighting Process (which I found a while ago when I trying to work out reverse/mickel therapy was all about, which is the thing that one of my ME/CFS friends [for whom it worked] is convinced is the answer to all of my mental health issues, but I've yet to be convinced):

one from December 2007

one from January 2008

one from April 2008

one from December 2008

I think you'll find that we've been quite critical of TLP, albeit probably not in a manner that you would approve of. Sorry.

Well - a tiny bit, not much. Some people still indicate belief in 'placebo effect', CBT principles etc. Pretty much the same lack of objection that we've already discussed here. Now they can do that if they want - but their critical faculties, crucially, are not applied to psychobabbly stuff - especially if it's state-medically sanctioned, and the discrepancy is stark, which particularly rankles in light of what has transpired with regard to the Myhill threads etc. (already discussed here).

 

[insignificount]

Can you be a bit more specific about this belief in the placebo effect?

I'm only familiar with the placebo effect as an explanation for why someone might not just merely feel better (i.e. they actually have a small but measurable improvement in their health) after being pampered by a reflexologist/whatever for an hour versus a ten-minute consultation with an indifferent GP who just writes out another prescription, or in literature/research/trials that states that homeopathic pills work no better than a placebo/sugar pills.

I certainly don't think that people can shrink tumours (cancer) or perform other miracles using the power of positive thinking (my mother is a Christian and knows exactly what I think about the so-called power of prayer), and I don't think anyone from the Bad Science forums believes that either.

However, I do believe that people who are mentally healthy/happy are more likely to be physically healthy (but not necessarily by much, which is why I posted links to the discussions about it); my mentall illness definitely has physical effects/consequences.

And please try not to link what I've just said to ME/CFS... as in don't accuse me of believing that ME/CFS people are mentally ill = physically ill because I suffer from a mental illness which does make me physically ill.

I haven't commented on the controversy about causes & treatments & Wesseley & everything else because I'm still trying to understand it all. I have never, ever, told anyone that I know or have known with ME/CFS that their illness is all in their head (or even partially to the extent of it being more important/significant than any physiological causes). I've never told anyone with ME/CFS what do or think, actually, which is why my friends with ME/CFS are still my friends.

I'll respond to the rest of your posts (the three long ones) later.

 

[flex]

A few more Bad Science threads on the Lighting Process (which I found a while ago when I trying to work out reverse/mickel therapy was all about, which is the thing that one of my ME/CFS friends [for whom it worked] is convinced is the answer to all of my mental health issues, but I've yet to be convinced):

one from December 2007

one from January 2008

one from April 2008

one from December 2008

I think you'll find that we've been quite critical of TLP, albeit probably not in a manner that you would approve of. Sorry.

When you say it worked for one of your ME friends exactly what does that mean? Does it mean like when you have been in car accident and you are lying in hospital all plastered up with broken bones feeling lousy and your mum turns up with some Lucozade and some grapes and you say "thanks mum, I feel alot better now".

Or does it mean it gave a little subjective psychological lift to an undefined level of illness which you say was ME.

Or was your friend in the depths of ME neuro immune disease and on complition of the course he suddenly lept up and returned to a normal healthy state miraculously, kind of like Jesus walking on water.

Second to last if your friend is convinced it is the answer to all of your mental health issues doesn't that say something about the true aims of the course and your friends condition if she advocates it for mental health issues.

Lastly, if you are even unsure of it for your own non physical issues I require no explanation as to why you think it worked on a neuro immune disease.

Unless of course such courses actually aimed at mind issues dont work on mind issues but do work on physical organic diseases like ME neuro immune disease. Now that really would take some psychobabble spin of the highest order to explain.