Justin,
This concerns me greatly. In my opinion I would not want Lewis and/or Wakefield anywhere near my condition thanks all the same. You simply cannot and should not seek to compare the Wakefield saga with what you believe constitutes bias towards ME by the BMJ et al.
You attempt to get Wakefield involved with my condition and it will undermine legitimacy for a start. You think the psychiatrist's in my country have ruled the roost - well you see what will happen if Wakefield wades into it all.
I kid you not - this could be the worst thing to hit ME - and if you are unfamiliar with the Wakefield fraud then please please please read the link I posted to the autism blog left brain right brain - the one that in turn links to Deer's refutation of Lewis's complaint:
http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2012/01/brian-deer-responds-to-david-lewis-complaint/
e.g. Deer re nature of Lewis's 'fraud' complaint:
'These biopsy assessments, however, werent the basis upon which, in January 2011, the BMJ concluded that Wakefields MMR work was an elaborate fraud. The evidence we presented rested firmly on the GMC panels findings of research dishonesty, and was overwhelmingly related to Wakefields activities with regard to the admission of patients to the study, as well as the purported clinical histories and findings which lay behind a claim by Wakefield of a 14-day temporal link between the administration of MMR and the first behavioural symptoms of autism. We say this purported link was fraudulent.'
e.g. 'At the core of our problems in dealing with Lewis is that nowhere was such an allegation made in the BMJ. He repeatedly identifies my feature Autistic enterocolitis under the microscope, published in April 2010, but this simply doesnt make such an allegation. Plain reading would make this clear.
Not only can I find no foundation for this fundamental of Lewiss complaint (and I think Id remember forming any view at that time that the histopathology reporting in the Lancet was fraudulent, as distinct from, say, wrong, misleading or incompetent), we consulted legal counsel, before and after publication, and expert peer-reviewers. We remain unable to identify any text inferring Wakefields intent with regard to histology reporting. Ive similarly asked Nature to identify any such text, and they too have failed'
Wakefield/Lewis are autism and autism and ME are 'linked' because of Mikovits/Annette and their XMRV and Autism comments. Don't do this Justin. It will not help anyone.
And have a read of Deer and what he has to say about Lewis 'a retired environmental microbiologist' himself as part of his response to the 30 page nonsensical complaint:
http://briandeer.com/solved/david-lewis-1.htm
Dr. Lewis responded graciously to my email and another follow up. I posted my reply email below. He gave me permission to summarize part of what he conveyed to me, which was that he forwarded the email to Dr. Wakefield and his lawyers to see if they wanted to look into it. He said he may have an opportunity to look into the BMJ/ME situation to an extent next year, at least ancillarily to further research he wishes to do on the BMJ/Wakefield situation.
The professors I mention were a couple of law professors at NYU with whom he is in contact regarding autism.
I don't know much about the Wakefield situation, but Margaret Williams said that Prof. Hooper knows Dr. Wakefield and has supported him from the get-go which says a lot to me.