Opinions on de Meirlier
- Thread starter neweimear
- Start date
If you think infections like Lyme, EBV and other conditions like SIBO/leaky gut are irrelevant and ''anecdotes'', it's you who are acting like a PACE-author.
If you say that treating those conditions are not proven to treat ME, I will have to agree with you.
If you say that treating those conditions are not proven to treat ME, I will have to agree with you.
When I said his treatment made me worse he got angry, told me he is an expert and if I didn't believe in him that I should find another doctor (don't remember exact words due to memory issues but that was the gist of it). I was scared by my worsening of symptoms and the lack of alternatives and went along with that, and continued to see him for a while. Well at least I tried, but he took five months to send me another treatment recommendation for more antibiotics when I told him I didn't want any more antibiotics.
He seems to be unaware that he is harming patients, or doesn't care. Reminds me of the PACE authors.
He seems to be unaware that he is harming patients, or doesn't care. Reminds me of the PACE authors.
Last edited:
Literally facepalming so hard now. The physician has to have at least some peripheral reason for prescribing drugs, if he says it works without so, then yeah, that`s dishonest. Anyhow I am not suing KDM, a point you seem to completely miss. We`re not talking about if it`s possible to take him to court. Jeez.
Ok, let me spell it out for you. The distinction I was really hoping you would understand, but which you somehow failed to, is between dishonesty and incompetence. If you prove that a particular doctor is harming his patients, you would then have to prove that it was a case of a.) rather than b.) for them to be a crook. I think I will start charging you for law lessons as well.
Last edited:
Thanks, but your the last person I would ever consult for anything. For your information, it`s not relevant if patients were harmed or not, as in Norway the principle is that experimental treatment has to be given in studies, unless the patients are actually dying. And for the last time, I am not suing KDM, I`m pointing out that he`s a crook. I dont give two cents about your layman understanding of the law
Provide the evidence that he is a crook in the English meaning of the word, as I asked you to several pages ago, and which you have completely failed to do so far. I never addressed the evidence base for his prescriptions in my replies to your posts, so if you just admit you don´t have any evidence for your claim I will relent and you can debate the evidence base with anyone who cares to do so.
By definition it`s dishonest to claim something works without evidence, especially as a physician. If any studies would support his claims, I would change my mind, but they don`t exist. Feel free to continue with your wrongful semantics, though your`e not convincing anyone but yourself.
Okay, one more time: YOU NEED TO PROVE THAT HE BELIEVES THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR HIS TREATMENTS. Now, a particular doctor may believe there is evidence when there actually isn´t, which as we said before, wouldn´t be dishonest, but incompetent.
Last edited by a moderator:
Unfortunately, once again a moderator should intervene on a topic dedicated to KDM.
Oh wait... There's no moderators anymore
Oh wait... There's no moderators anymore
I'm not speaking about me. I didn't agree with you and you with me but we only talked about KDM & his approach.
On the other hand, your discussion with msf was way off-topic (from both parts I should say)
Keep cool. Don't need to be so rude.
On the other hand, your discussion with msf was way off-topic (from both parts I should say)
Keep cool. Don't need to be so rude.