Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
Let's have them, then.You want police reports of harassment etc. Get in touch. I have some
Perhaps some CBT could help the PACE researchers feel more positive about the situation.
I suspected as much. EG gets the wrong end of the stick and upsets everyone. Who'd have thought it.Ellen's comment relates to historic events that she was involved in personally. (Of which I know very little about.) I guess there will be conflicts in any large community. But the events she refers to are not directly related to the alleged (fictional) extremist anti-science campaign of harassment that Tuller's article is discussing.
Basically this. She's talking about harassment she allegedly suffered from Professor Hooper and the One Click Group, which as I understand is only tangentially related to PACE. This has nothing to do with what I took away from the article, which is that valid criticism, put forth in proper venues, is being labelled as harassment.Ellen's comment relates to historic events that she was involved in personally. (Of which I know very little about.) I guess there will be conflicts in any large community. But the events she refers to are not directly related to the alleged (fictional) extremist anti-science campaign of harassment that Tuller's article is discussing.
One thing Mr. Tuller might mention next time is that even if there were a wild card or two in the patient population
(and what population won't have them,) painting an entire group of people with the broadest blackest brushstrokes based on the (alleged) actions of one or two people
is irresponsible and illogical at best.
Is it a deliberate group attribution error which supports an idee fixe, held to avoid confronting a difficult cognitive dissonance?One thing Mr. Tuller might mention next time is that even if there were a wild card or two in the patient population
(and what population won't have them,) painting an entire group of people with the broadest blackest brushstrokes based on the (alleged) actions of one or two people is irresponsible and illogical at best.
Rainbows and unicorns? As a cure for snarks and boojums?The rainbows and unicorns they prescribe for us might make them feel better.
Rainbows and unicorns? As a cure for snarks and boojums?
Moreover, the reports did not present any independent evidence of the purported threats, other than claims made by the researchers. There were no statements from law enforcement authorities confirming the claims. No mention of any arrests made or charges having been filed. And no interviews with actual patients, much less these extremist, dangerous patients who supposedly hated psychiatry. In short, these news reports failed to pass any reasonable test of independent judgment and editorial skepticism.
And, frankly, it is starting to spill over into seriously immoral defamation.One thing Mr. Tuller might mention next time is that even if there were a wild card or two in the patient population
(and what population won't have them,) painting an entire group of people with the broadest blackest brushstrokes based on the (alleged) actions of one or two people
is irresponsible and illogical at best.
Agree. It is one of the basic tactics that whole crowd use. Avoiding the more substantive points and issues.Whenever I look at Wessely's twitter feed it has him ignoring reasonable and important concerns from patients, and then searching for the weakest points to respond to.
Perhaps it should be classified as a branch of catastrophisation or persecution complex?A new diagnostic category for vexatiousphobia should be entered into the next DSM manual.
A calculated and coordinated attack orchestrated by the SMC on behalf of the researchers to demonize a patient population with a broad stroke of the brush, is both unprofessional and unethical.
She's certainly hijacked the discussion, but she's not coming across well (does anyone know the Father Ted episode where he wins an award and his whole acceptance speech is a list of the people who've slighted him?). She grinds so many axes and you can't tell which camp she's in - probably because, as she says, she feels she's been rejected by both. I'm glad she's directed people to her blog, let's hope she posts a link so people can make their own minds up.Is it a case of trolling a comments thread with a straw man discussion?