Dr MyHill's License in Jeopardy
- Thread starter Cort
- Start date
It is indeed tedious rebutting such disingenuous arguments fourecks, especially given their length; others have done so here and elsewhere, it is easy enough, but I will just pull out one point now, which has some bearing on the only issue in my post where your response gives me a brief pause to wonder whether I have certainty over one of my assertions:
As regards the rest, your arguments are all either
(a) irrelevant nitpicks not germane to the point being made
(b) explanations of why the issues of concern to us are not the point, and the technicalities of your complaint are
(c) based on a complete lack of understanding of the wider context, particularly of the context for ME/CFS sufferers.
(d) a defence based on a statement of what the law and procedure and practice currently are, when we wish to continue to assert also the injustices introduced by the changes that have been made to how these procedures operate.
Overall, your argument, and the approach of BS, seems to be based on a narrow and legalistic approach to very specific questions of law and procedure, with no reference to and apparently no understanding of nor interest in the wider issues, the political context and the experience of patients.
The approach your forum takes seems to be to "have fun" with the legal technicalities presented to you and to use those to persecute doctors and their patients with no reference to the realities of those patients, causing anguish and distress to many, over which behaviour you show no sign of remorse. It is an utterly reprehensible, irresponsible, and uncaring approach. Sticking your head in the sand and focusing on technicalities is an excellent way to do harm, and showing no compassion for those affected by your actions is an excellent way to demonstrate your indifference to your victims.
The apparent concern of BS and of the GMC over the dangers that may arise from somebody reading the advice on Dr Myhill's website are very much overstated IMO. It is fairly clear to the reader that this advice is not the same as what they may have heard elsewhere, and in cases where the aim is to seek the underlying cause of a problem rather than just ameliorating it with drugs, most people - even many doctors - now know full well that this is a major problem in the mainstream of our health service, and if you think this at all contentious, my advice is to walk onto the street, find a real person, and ask them what they think about the tendency of doctors to just prescribe drugs for everything because they are influenced by the drug industry. If your random stranger takes issue with you on this point, I can only assume the problem is that you are living in a gated community of medical professionals.
Just in case this point is not clear to you, and you sincerely believe in what you are doing, it is obvious to anyone that even if a website contains a clinician's opinion (a personal opinion, even, if indeed you allow such a hazardous concept as a doctor having an independent clinical opinion - you seem uncertain on whether this is a good idea), anybody reading any such allegedly dangerous advice would still have all their existing range of medical advice to access, and other opinions to consult, including those of their regular chosen practitioner, and they would be able to fairly weigh up whether to believe Dr Myhill or not, based on the evidence and including that evidence that you wish to censor.
Your kind concerns for the legal status of the mirror sites are noted, and thanks on all readers' behalf for the laugh, but since as far as I'm aware I am as a private citizen and not a doctor still allowed in this country and elsewhere to say that leeches are an excellent cure for cancer, if I so choose, and even if I do not believe it to be true, I may say it, certainly if with the proviso that any advice I give is provided for entertainment purposes only, and if you are concerned that the hosts of any mirrors may be unaware or not have access to the appropriate professional means of covering one's rear, then I suggest that you are making the mistake of seriously underestimating the intelligence and capacity of ordinary people in a highly connected age.
In fact I will suggest that anyway, since it seems a good generic summary of the flaws of bad science, of Bad Science, and of bad scientists alike.
I have myself seen this quote before, although I can't be certain I read it myself on Bad Science. If you can't find it, then that would suggest this is an example of a post that has been removed or edited. From what you say, if we choose to believe it, one would assume it was edited and removed by the original poster, which would of course not be a surprise nor an offence.
As regards the rest, your arguments are all either
(a) irrelevant nitpicks not germane to the point being made
(b) explanations of why the issues of concern to us are not the point, and the technicalities of your complaint are
(c) based on a complete lack of understanding of the wider context, particularly of the context for ME/CFS sufferers.
(d) a defence based on a statement of what the law and procedure and practice currently are, when we wish to continue to assert also the injustices introduced by the changes that have been made to how these procedures operate.
Overall, your argument, and the approach of BS, seems to be based on a narrow and legalistic approach to very specific questions of law and procedure, with no reference to and apparently no understanding of nor interest in the wider issues, the political context and the experience of patients.
The approach your forum takes seems to be to "have fun" with the legal technicalities presented to you and to use those to persecute doctors and their patients with no reference to the realities of those patients, causing anguish and distress to many, over which behaviour you show no sign of remorse. It is an utterly reprehensible, irresponsible, and uncaring approach. Sticking your head in the sand and focusing on technicalities is an excellent way to do harm, and showing no compassion for those affected by your actions is an excellent way to demonstrate your indifference to your victims.
The apparent concern of BS and of the GMC over the dangers that may arise from somebody reading the advice on Dr Myhill's website are very much overstated IMO. It is fairly clear to the reader that this advice is not the same as what they may have heard elsewhere, and in cases where the aim is to seek the underlying cause of a problem rather than just ameliorating it with drugs, most people - even many doctors - now know full well that this is a major problem in the mainstream of our health service, and if you think this at all contentious, my advice is to walk onto the street, find a real person, and ask them what they think about the tendency of doctors to just prescribe drugs for everything because they are influenced by the drug industry. If your random stranger takes issue with you on this point, I can only assume the problem is that you are living in a gated community of medical professionals.
Just in case this point is not clear to you, and you sincerely believe in what you are doing, it is obvious to anyone that even if a website contains a clinician's opinion (a personal opinion, even, if indeed you allow such a hazardous concept as a doctor having an independent clinical opinion - you seem uncertain on whether this is a good idea), anybody reading any such allegedly dangerous advice would still have all their existing range of medical advice to access, and other opinions to consult, including those of their regular chosen practitioner, and they would be able to fairly weigh up whether to believe Dr Myhill or not, based on the evidence and including that evidence that you wish to censor.
Your kind concerns for the legal status of the mirror sites are noted, and thanks on all readers' behalf for the laugh, but since as far as I'm aware I am as a private citizen and not a doctor still allowed in this country and elsewhere to say that leeches are an excellent cure for cancer, if I so choose, and even if I do not believe it to be true, I may say it, certainly if with the proviso that any advice I give is provided for entertainment purposes only, and if you are concerned that the hosts of any mirrors may be unaware or not have access to the appropriate professional means of covering one's rear, then I suggest that you are making the mistake of seriously underestimating the intelligence and capacity of ordinary people in a highly connected age.
In fact I will suggest that anyway, since it seems a good generic summary of the flaws of bad science, of Bad Science, and of bad scientists alike.
The ease with which they slip into this constant refrain is quite extraordinary in this whole argument, and the obsessive appeal to it whenever things become difficult, not to mention a spinoff propaganda campaign that seems to hope to present this image of us...well, if I didn't know better, I would think that somebody was trying to discredit our case and convince people that we are all crazy simply by calling us "crazy conspiracy theorists". I can't see how they think this approach will wash with anyone, but if they seriously believe we can still be effectively suppressed that way, and have nothing more impressive to offer, then the game is indeed nearly over.
Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
re: if he was a doctor and the GMC was his patient he would diagnose them with Alzheimer's disease
I think Myhill said this. Google is your friend:
http://www.drmyhill.co.uk/wiki/Demonstration_speeches:_Ruth_Myhill,_Dr_Myhill_and_Jane_Martel
I think Myhill said this. Google is your friend:
http://www.drmyhill.co.uk/wiki/Demonstration_speeches:_Ruth_Myhill,_Dr_Myhill_and_Jane_Martel
Is this perhaps a proof-fail? Why do you point out your own repetition in this way? Or are you working under direction of another authority as this implies?
Are you perhaps a bad journalist rather than a bad scientist?
Thanks Esther, Dr Myhill claims to be quoting from the anonymous complainant there, that may well be where I heard the assertion.
Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
Could be, but there's a quotation mark just before it: GMC decided to use this email to front the complaint to Myhill *sigh*."
I'd guess it was from Myhill rather than the BSer.
flex
Senior Member
- Messages
- 304
- Location
- London area
can somebody clear up the following:
1) The alleged complaint from a group of doctors was written on what date and received by the GMC on what date by which official complaint means.
2) The Jonas initial email was received by the GMC on what date.
3) The Jonas official complaint was written on what date and received by the GMC on what date.
1) The alleged complaint from a group of doctors was written on what date and received by the GMC on what date by which official complaint means.
2) The Jonas initial email was received by the GMC on what date.
3) The Jonas official complaint was written on what date and received by the GMC on what date.
This is one of the starkest issues where Bad Science give the appearance of complete naivete and where, if they are sincere, they should be asking much more probing questions. They themselves seem to have been surprised by the speed and efficiency with which the GMC picked up their emailed complaint and ran with it at great speed. When we talk in terms of an attack on ME patients, and we mention truths they regard as evidence of conspiracy-theory thinking, if they were serious people they would at least wonder whether there is some truth in what we say, given that it has been confirmed by their own experience.
The doctors' complaint was in the pending tray since Dec 09. The conveniently-timed complaint by Jonas over a much less significant issue (one not involving direct patient care at all) was raised to the very top of the pile straight away, even as a misspelt email. And within days Dr Myhill was censured without anything that any reasonable person would recognise as a valid due process.
If only I had the luxury of the bad scientists' comfortable and easy trust in the integrity and equanimity of the system! Such trust and confidence is sadly not possible for those who have long since been disabused of these notions through direct and bitter personal experience. Only from inside some form of ivory tower or gated community can such beliefs be successfully maintained. Those outside such walls know the truth of these matters only too well.
Originally Posted by Mark
Thanks Esther, Dr Myhill claims to be quoting from the anonymous complainant there, that may well be where I heard the assertion.
Could be, but there's a quotation mark just before it: GMC decided to use this email to front the complaint to Myhill *sigh*."
Esther: I'd guess it was from Myhill rather than the BSer.
On watching the demo video again, it's apparent that this was an honest misunderstanding, the timing of Dr Myill's words seems to have been misinterpreted by some as implying that the "alzheimer's diagnosis" quote was tagged on at the end of the Jonas quote. Dr Myhill didn't intentionally mislead here, as the video shows - it's simply a case where Phonetic Punctuation would have been required for her to indicate the "close speech marks".
I'm happy to retract the one detailed assertion I made that Fourecks has identified as possibly unjustified, namely that insulting posts in BS have been edited or retracted. Until I hear otherwise I will assume those insults remain in place, but I am not going over there to check. I don't have any desire to spend time on the BS site based on what I've seen of it.
biophile
Places I'd rather be.
- Messages
- 8,977
Laughing @ the NICE guidelines
Skimmed through some of the transcript, came across this ...
That is pretty funny! The treatments recommended in the NICE guidelines are reported to make a large proportion of patients even worse than they already are. This is according to patient reports, which are dismissed as anecdotes, but are the only "real world" evidence we have because the "evidence base" used by NICE seems to be a biased selection of RCTs conducted by "specialists". Even if we assume these RCTs are legit, the typical patient is not going to be treated by those who conducted these trials and I doubt there is much "quality control" going on.
Skimmed through some of the transcript, came across this ...
That is pretty funny! The treatments recommended in the NICE guidelines are reported to make a large proportion of patients even worse than they already are. This is according to patient reports, which are dismissed as anecdotes, but are the only "real world" evidence we have because the "evidence base" used by NICE seems to be a biased selection of RCTs conducted by "specialists". Even if we assume these RCTs are legit, the typical patient is not going to be treated by those who conducted these trials and I doubt there is much "quality control" going on.
biophile
Places I'd rather be.
- Messages
- 8,977
Re: The mind-body distinction (mostly off-topic)
Thanks Angela K for clearing up the "placebo = no treatment" misunderstanding. Many trials appear to lack either a placebo arm or a no treatment arm.
Exactly. Patient/advocate criticism has often been met with the fashionable dismissal of the mind-body distinction via an appeal to physicalism. This of course is a massive red-herring and does not "transcend" the problem. Physicalism (whatever flavour one chooses) does not negate the very practical (albeit somewhat arbitrary) distinction between mind/psyche and body/soma. Neither does physicalism negate flaws in biopsychosocial literature and the construct of psychosomatic functional illness when applied universally to ME/CFS. The vast majority of people would not be caught dead claiming such a distinction is "false" in cancer vs depression, but it becomes a free for all when "psychosomatics" and pseudocommonsensical assertions about ME/CFS is discussed.
Thanks Angela K for clearing up the "placebo = no treatment" misunderstanding. Many trials appear to lack either a placebo arm or a no treatment arm.
Exactly. Patient/advocate criticism has often been met with the fashionable dismissal of the mind-body distinction via an appeal to physicalism. This of course is a massive red-herring and does not "transcend" the problem. Physicalism (whatever flavour one chooses) does not negate the very practical (albeit somewhat arbitrary) distinction between mind/psyche and body/soma. Neither does physicalism negate flaws in biopsychosocial literature and the construct of psychosomatic functional illness when applied universally to ME/CFS. The vast majority of people would not be caught dead claiming such a distinction is "false" in cancer vs depression, but it becomes a free for all when "psychosomatics" and pseudocommonsensical assertions about ME/CFS is discussed.
biophile
Places I'd rather be.
- Messages
- 8,977
Re: On the hypocracy and logical fallacies of outsiders
Angela Kennedy says:
:Retro smile: Time for scientific skepticism to "clean house"?
Angela Kennedy says:
:Retro smile: Time for scientific skepticism to "clean house"?
biophile
Places I'd rather be.
- Messages
- 8,977
Re: The physiological factors (mostly off-topic)
Mark's previous comment about Wessely's post is interesting, and Wessely's use of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder as examples is noteworthy. It reminds me of something Peter White said in a presentation on CFS (pages 46-50 of http://bnpa.org.uk/doc/HANDBOOK.pdf), under the heading "Is CFS neurological or psychological?", where he states the following "answer":
To answer this question with a mere position statement of physicalism about the nature of psychological processes, reveals his ideology regarding CFS. In his other work he does not appear to acknowledge any neurological disease component to CFS, so when he concludes CFS is "both", he obviously does not mean "neurological disease" and "psychological illness". He would be well aware that proponents of the biomedical approach to CFS view the "neurological" in terms of disease pathology, not "psychological processes mediated by neurophysiological systems". At most he may allow some "functional" disturbance imposed upon said neurophysiological systems, such as those caused by cytokines? Anyway, I doubt he would ignore the mind-body distinction and read his statement back to a patient who has Parkinson's disease and comorbid depression.
For most biopsychosocialists, allowing "physiological" components or physiological "triggers" is not an admission of a disease process. To them, the physiology of CFS is deconditioning, effects of stress and psychiatric comorbidity, and the sensitisation of the nervous system as a result of allegedly maladaptive cognitions; while physiological trigger often means an infection inducing prolonged symptoms in psychologically vulnerable individuals with irrational beliefs about the symptoms once the initial trigger is gone. Some biopsychosocialists place more emphasis on the neurobiology of stress and chronic arousal (allowing some role for infection), but do no really deviate that much from the above.
Biopsychosocial model = mixture of psycho-neuro-endo-immunological research + psychosocial ideology.
Biopsychosocialism = a philosophical school of thought.
Biopsychosocialist = a loyal adherent to the belief system.
Mark's previous comment about Wessely's post is interesting, and Wessely's use of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder as examples is noteworthy. It reminds me of something Peter White said in a presentation on CFS (pages 46-50 of http://bnpa.org.uk/doc/HANDBOOK.pdf), under the heading "Is CFS neurological or psychological?", where he states the following "answer":
To answer this question with a mere position statement of physicalism about the nature of psychological processes, reveals his ideology regarding CFS. In his other work he does not appear to acknowledge any neurological disease component to CFS, so when he concludes CFS is "both", he obviously does not mean "neurological disease" and "psychological illness". He would be well aware that proponents of the biomedical approach to CFS view the "neurological" in terms of disease pathology, not "psychological processes mediated by neurophysiological systems". At most he may allow some "functional" disturbance imposed upon said neurophysiological systems, such as those caused by cytokines? Anyway, I doubt he would ignore the mind-body distinction and read his statement back to a patient who has Parkinson's disease and comorbid depression.
For most biopsychosocialists, allowing "physiological" components or physiological "triggers" is not an admission of a disease process. To them, the physiology of CFS is deconditioning, effects of stress and psychiatric comorbidity, and the sensitisation of the nervous system as a result of allegedly maladaptive cognitions; while physiological trigger often means an infection inducing prolonged symptoms in psychologically vulnerable individuals with irrational beliefs about the symptoms once the initial trigger is gone. Some biopsychosocialists place more emphasis on the neurobiology of stress and chronic arousal (allowing some role for infection), but do no really deviate that much from the above.
Biopsychosocial model = mixture of psycho-neuro-endo-immunological research + psychosocial ideology.
Biopsychosocialism = a philosophical school of thought.
Biopsychosocialist = a loyal adherent to the belief system.
biophile
Places I'd rather be.
- Messages
- 8,977
The usefulness of a wiki at this forum
Mark says:
Wading though a myriad of posts may turn off some outsiders. I think it would be very useful if this forum also had a wiki so we could collaborate on information and resource articles together. Not sure how practical this is for Cort though.
Mark says:
Wading though a myriad of posts may turn off some outsiders. I think it would be very useful if this forum also had a wiki so we could collaborate on information and resource articles together. Not sure how practical this is for Cort though.
We do need to develop this sort of thing. We need a kind of FAQ, and perhaps a thread or threads to discuss ME 101 with newcomers. That could all be done now, with the info we had, actually I'm a bit disappointed that there isn't more of that sort of thing going on at the moment, there are lots of such projects that people could be doing, but I guess we all have a lot to be sidetracked by...
An actual wiki is very much on the agenda, but as I've pointed out before, there's no reason we can't achieve most of the same goals with dedicated threads for specific outputs where the first post is an edited version of the output. I really do think people could do a lot more of these things quite quickly, but you shouldn't expect the moderators to have time to lead on these projects, personally I think I would be doing a lot more of that if I weren't moderating. See also the mold and MCS subgroups I'd like to set up - or like somebody else to set up...lots of enthusiasm for the concept...
I guess the apparently desperate hope that the bad science people can live up to what they profess to be about and explore the biggest 'woo' of all is the main reason any of us are still engaging with them. Being such a powerful bunch in comparison to a small group of sick patients, if only they could seriously look into the bigger issues, they could be of great help to us and more than make up for the harm they have caused. But I suspect the honest appraisal of Woosselly would be too large a task for them, and smaller projects are just easier to pick away at, demonstrating once again of course how any set of principles can be perverted by context. Since they now have weapons to allow them to attack anyone they want, they have carte blanche to go round shooting down all the little guys and I guess they think they'll leave the big bosses till the end of the level when everybody else has been wiped out. Of course all this assumes that their motivation isn't really just to kick people out of their wheelchairs and then stand around laughing at how pathetic they look down there on the floor and patting themselves on the back for being so much stronger and better than them. I suppose I don't like that theory because I don't like to believe in such viciousness. I think it is possible to explain their behaviour in terms of the 'sincere but misguided' analysis that blames the error of pickling a well-understood and simple principle into an all-powerful code that will automatically solve all ills. You can say they just have a few fundamental core ideas that they believe will solve all ills, they base everything they do on those principles, and they abdicate all responsibility for the rest of the things that go on in the real world of people's actual lives. Such people, ironically, often tend to criticise the dogmatism and absolutism and appeal to authority of religious belief - with no apparent sense of irony or self-awareness.
I don't know, misguided philosophical victims, or cripple-bashers? Take your pick: but we know what they would say: if it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck...
Brilliant posts by the way biopsychobabble, thanks for those, a most enjoyable read. The Bad Scientists do appear to be sceptical about some woo, so I really hope some of them read and consider your posts carefully. I have this crazy dream where it turns out that the BS crew literally can't see the biggest ghost of all because it's just too big and scary to contemplate it. But we help show it to them and they then get down to the brief of their site and start swearing at the ghosts instead of the sick people.
Let's face it, how many of us really understood that ghost without having to live with it first? So we have to give a bit of leeway to those who are still deceived, at least when assessing their souls.
Let's face it, how many of us really understood that ghost without having to live with it first? So we have to give a bit of leeway to those who are still deceived, at least when assessing their souls.