Hey ho silverB - spot on.
Their incompetence and the "its a cock-up" explanations are all an indication of plausible deniability in the offing.
Inside FD 23/4553 is a redacted document reporting a symposium held in London in May 1992. This report of the meeting of 'experts' in the field of ME research, is a summary that has psychiatric opinion and very little biomedical opinion - this is strange as I have read the transcript of this meeting and there's lots of evidence indicating something is physically, organically wrong from the bio-medical participants.
The document fails to report on this evidence - within this document are sections that are redacted - I can only assume this is the missing detail from the symposium - the bio-medical stuff. I have repeatedly requested this information from the MRC but they at present are reluctant to oblige. They insist the information is personal to the anonymous author - they wont disclose the identity of the author - I asked.
The redacted parts of this document from FD 23/4553 are held in FD 23/4553/1. The document is information presented to the MRC. There is a big chunk missing when the author discusses virology evidence, another redaction at sleep disorders, then a huge wedge of information redacted during the general discussion. So all the psyc stuff is there but all the bio is missing - Why has biomedical information been redacted from a piece of information held by the MRC? - What is so risky to the MRC that they feel it necessary to redact that bio-medical evidence?
This document is amongst correspondence to and from the MRC - this document needs accessing to understand what the author claims is personal information (in the midst of a report that coincidently just happens to be detailing bio-medical information) and therefore exempt from the FOI when it is linked to a quango that spends public money on research into ME/cfs.
This document is amongst other evidence including details of appointments to a mental health board within the MRC that I have been reliably informed is in FD 23/4553/1 in error - appointments to a
mental health board in a secret file by mistake that contains ME/cfs information - imagine a document placed in a secret file for 70 odd years by mistake - I was told it was part of a larger file and that it should not be there - they still would not let me see it - thats how thorough these people are with sensitive information. Tsk, how careless - just putting this away for 80 years, has anyone checked it? Oh and just for a bit of conspiracy, Tosser Wessely was one of the 'experts' presenting at the symposium.
On page 68/144 there is an interesting letter addressed to the MRC from an observer who was expressing concern at the seriousness of the biomedical evidence presented at the symposium - just as they write about just what is so 'serious', it is redacted information. There then follows a further letter from the same individual (whose identity is not redacted) with yet more information redacted when attempting to raise another serious concern. The 1st letter was ignored by the MRC as the 2nd letter (5 months later) began with a complaint for the lack of response from the MRC. They were such a nice bunch back then just like now .......NOT.
On page 76/144 there is reference to the cost of benefit payments for those diagnosed with ME/cfs - just why is this information shoved away in a secret file?
Page 88/144 - a letter from St Barts "forewarning" the MRC that a request for funding was on its way to them into amongst other things, GET - this was in 1989 - the reply from the MRC turns down the request but sends them an application form! Huh?
Be they government, corporate or lurking within the psychiatric school of theory - their incorrect illness beliefs defy logic and scientific evidence - there is more than one person involved - and so by any definition - I think, yes, it does appear to be a conspiracy - just my opinion.
max
