Esther Crawley gets 'commendation' at 2017 Maddox Prize awards.

When a condition is described as 'complex' it's often seems to be mean people have no idea what they're talking about.

 

They are both headed by members of the Living Marxism sect.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/LM_group

 

Someone put the whole thing on-line here: http://pw.me.uk/EC/20130505_Sunday_Times.pdf

He's said a few things that indicate he's lazy enough to think trusting Wessely is a sign of sophistication: http://www.meassociation.org.uk/201...r-colin-blakemore-in-the-times-2-august-2011/

Ugh - feeling genuinely disgusted after re-reading that.

 

Frank Richards was the pen name used by the guy who wrote the Billy Bunter books



Frank Furedi is probably taking the ****

 

Off-topic, but I wonder: Why are "liberals" called "marxists"? They obviously don't fulfill what Marx wrote in his books.

 

I fear that feeling won't go away, although it's better we're on p.4 now, leaving those pictures on p.3 behind.

 

And somehow he ended up doing neither medicine nor psychiatry, but rather self-indulgent creative writing regarding his grand theories of illnesses.

I suspect he went into psychiatry for that reason, and to avoid the bleak realities of neurology. But based on his earliest publications of case studies prior to his involvement in ME/CFS, he quickly discovered that psychiatry was at least as bleak and filled with inevitable failures. His tone lightened up quite a bit once he found something supposedly non-lethal to make into his playground.

A lot of psychosomatic quacks with a psych background seemed to have started off in forensic (criminal) psychology or psychiatry as well. I suspect they either lost interest when that proved to be a lot of unpleasant work instead of coming up with brilliant and sexy theories, or they found that their niche market was already saturated with more qualified candidates doing the fun and easy stuff.

Can't save patients and receive fame and gratitude in the real world? Just construct a fake world with easy answers instead, and bask in the glory of inevitable (yet imaginary) success.

 

I have no doubt that at one time there were some angry statements made, maybe worded in the form of threats even. However, that was at a time when the ME/CFS community felt completely unheard and was face with the MRC funding a dreadful trial. I have difficulty in believing that anything similar has happened recently, unless in the form of anger from patients who feel they have been let down over the treatment of their children.

I have received angry remarks from patients in the past. People get angry when they feel strongly about things. I have always assumed that as a doctor one should respect anger when it arises from distress relating to illness. Esther Crawley seems to be deliberately feeding off the anger.

I have written to Colin Blakemore about this. What continues to puzzle me is that the science community do not seem to aware how meaningless these trials are.

 

There seems to be a lack of will to want to realise.

 

There seem to be reasonable grounds for believing that something of this nature occurred with Wessely. The "threat" to cut someone's balls off appears to have been directed at him. Without knowing the circumstances and context, which never seems to be mentioned, it is hard to form much of an opinion. It might have been viewed as a threat. It might be that more serious threats have been made during sledging in Ashes test matches.

However Crawley has had opportunities to provide evidence of the threats which have allegedly been made against her. In the circumstances it seems strange that she should refer to the "threats" against Wessely as if they had been made to her, and to give the impression, to unknowing audiences, that the "creative" Sunday Times image, upon which she has relied, represented a message sent to her.

It may be that she has indeed been threatened, but, if she wishes to be believed, it is incumbent upon her to provide credible, corroborative evidence.

 

Thanks, @Trish, after reading @Luther Blissett's link again I got this impression, too. Too sad such things are often connected with Marx. You can't just pick one thing, make an ideology about it and then say "Marx" - oh, this principle reminds me of something we are discussing in this thread

 

This one is good:
“I now go to Iraq and Afghanistan, where I feel a lot safer” (Prof. Wessely). Indeed!

I hope no Iraqi or Afghan was reading that. I suggest he really visits these places (I mean the relevant places) before saying such a thing, even if it's sarcasm.

The article is terrible.

 

Is it officially recorded how many visits SW made to Afghanistan and Iraq? It would also be interesting to know how many casualties were recorded in the areas which he visited. It is made to sound as if he was a frequent flier and that he was going to forward operating bases in dangerous parts.

One suspects that he would never have been in any particular danger on these visits, and so it is possibly quite accurate that he was safer in Afghanistan and Iraq. But it must be considered doubtful if that is quite the message he wished to convey. The MOD would never have let him go anywhere risky. Anyone would think he joined the Paras for the duration of his tour.

EDIT This is not as off topic as it might appear. It is a question of establishing a course of conduct, and how it came to be considered acceptable.

 

There are millions of ill people who have good reason to be angry with Crawley, etc. It's only takes a couple of idiots to send e-mails that can then be used to try to discredit everyone else, and it wouldn't surprise me if there were a couple of idiots out there. That she's having to use the cover of a magazine article indicates that whatever she does get is still not ideal for her propaganda campaign though.

 

What argument? I think I've missed something. I agree that their campaign seems designed to promote prejudice.