Guardian brings back Wessely death threats again.

Doctor wins 2017 John Maddox prize for countering HPV vaccine misinformation
The Guardian
Previous winners include the psychiatrist Simon Wessely, who faced death threats for his work on chronic fatigue syndrome and mental health, and Elizabeth Loftus, whose work on false memories propelled her into controversies over the unreliability of eyewitness testimonies and recovered memories ...

https://www.theguardian.com/science...ring-hpv-vaccine-misinformation-riko-muranaka

 

sigh...perhaps he can have his award stripped from him when it comes to light it was a pack of delusional thinking?

 

Hopefully they will buckle soon. The paper doesn't even amount to toilet reading anymore.

 

I forgot to say that comments are still open on the article... Apart from the weasel the HPV vaccine may cause something that looks very like severe ME - the doctor getting the prize is publicising how safe the vaccine is.

I do hope somebody can make some sort of comment? I don't have 2 brain cells to rub together at present as had trip back from Wales Sunday, collection of new car Tuesday, trip to theatre Wednesday, am completely and utterly knackered.

 

It does if they have a picture in there ...

 

If the Guardian were to take it's head from up it's arse it may notice that everyone else (including other media outlets and journalists) has moved on, and that rather than linking to their infamous article of 6 years ago in which they uncritically lapped up the SMC's bullshit, they should bury their head in shame, preferably back up their arse for all I care.

 

I think that it would be a really serious mistake to tie concerns about CFS research to concerns about vaccinations without there being good evidence of vaccination causing problems. If patients ever go beyond the evidence in their criticism of CBT/GET, it can end up being used against all criticisms of CBT/GET. Tying CFS concerns to criticisms of vaccination that are not supported by solid evidence would be a absolutely terrible move politically. The SMC and people are doing all they can to tie PACE critics to unreasonable anti-vaccine campaigners.

 

@Esther12, I agree the concerns over vaccinations is a different issue to concerns over ME research. I'm sorry I put things so badly in my earlier post. As I said earlier I've had an over extended week and am knackered and brain dead. On top of about 3 weeks of a foul cough virus husband donated to me.

Having said that, I'm not totally convinced of the safety of said vaccine. I'm glad I didn't have to help my girls decide whether to have it or not - they're now well past the age for it to be done in school! But this is really a subject for a different thread.

I read the comments on Grauniad article earlier today, and back then there was one person had taken up the death threat thing, and referred to the Tribunal decision that there was no proof of them. Comments are still open if anyone wants to join in!

Quick copy and paste of some comments.

• Tenbaum
  23h ago
  1617
  "Previous winners include the psychiatrist Simon Wessely, who faced death threats for his work on chronic fatigue syndrome"
  
  Poor Simon Wessely, continuing to play the victim card.
  
  These threat accusations were demolished by a First-Tier Tribunal as baseless.
  
  However, the ruling of a First-Tier Tribunal apparently won't stop Wessely and The Guardian from continuing to gaslight an innocent, desperately ill and often bedridden patient population.
  
  Reply
  Share
  
  Facebook Twitter
  Report
  • 
    Clare Munks Tenbaum
    23h ago
    1920
    The Guardian should familiarise itself with the latest research on CFS. This indicates a metabolic disorder due to a body's cells being unable to obtain energy from glucose. There have been 2 articles in New Scientist; one early this year, the other more recently.
    
    Reply
    Share
    
    Facebook Twitter
    Report
  • 
    Wolfbone Tenbaum
    22h ago
    1112
    These threat accusations were demolished by a First-Tier Tribunal as baseless.
    
    Indeed - it seems the John Maddox Prize people seriously screwed up there. Awarding prizes to people defending their bad science by making up nasty stories about their critics is probably not something John Maddox would've approved of.
    
    Reply
    Share
    
    Facebook Twitter
    Report
  • 
    TanTan Clare Munks
    20h ago
    45
    New Scientist is a popular science magazine, not a peer-reviewed journal. People are right to be dubious of a first-world illness with a wide set of vague symptoms, because that is an ideal market for pharmaceutical companies to push for positive diagnoses.
    
    Reply
    Share
    
    Facebook Twitter
    Report
  • Loading…
  • 
    jamesg4 TanTan
    13h ago
    78
    Hi TanTan,
    
    There's plenty of published info on ME/CFS in peer-reviewed journals going back decades, and work going on by gifted scientists at top institutions around the world. Those who are informed about ME/CFS know its existence and devastating impact only too well.
    
    The only thing dubious about ME/CFS is the lack of funding for proper research, the lack of treatment options and the involvement of psychiatrists trying to take ownership of treating and researching the illness over the last few decades.
    
    Please see links to published work and ongoing research:
    
    https://med.stanford.edu/chronicfatiguesyndrome/research.html
    
    https://www.omf.ngo/the-end-mecfs-project/
    
    http://www.nova.edu/nim/research/mecfs-genes.html
    
    https://www.griffith.edu.au/health/...merging-diseases/publications-and-conferences
    
    Reply
    Share
    
    Facebook Twitter
    Report
  • 
    jamesg4 TanTan
    13h ago
    23
    I meant to say too - pharmaceutical companies have taken very little interest in this illness, and many mainstream doctors even doubt its existence. I could understand why you'd think it could be potentially lucrative for pharma companies, though.
    
    Reply
    Share
    
    Facebook Twitter
    Report
  • 
    RhysGethin Clare Munks
    10h ago
    01
    There have been 2 articles in New Scientist; one early this year, the other more recently.
    
    New Scientist is not a scientific journal, it is a popular science news magazine.
    
    And CFS is psychosomatic.
    
    Reply
    Share
    
    Facebook Twitter
    Report
  • 
    afcone RhysGethin
    6h ago
    23
    And CFS is psychosomatic.
    
    [Citation needed].
    
    More accurately, CFS is claimed by some scientists to be psychosomatic and some scientists not to be. Treatments based on 'faulty cognition' / 'false illness beliefs' have been shown to have, at best, only modest improvements in outcomes. And these studies have been criticised by other reputable scientists (not just patients, and including criticism from the US arm of Sense About Science, who promote the Maddox prize) as having serious methodological flaws (outcome switching, poor selection criteria, subjective outcomes showing success not matched by objective outcomes, A vs A+B testing etc.).
    
    To say simply that it is settled that CFS is psychsomatic ignores the very real debate in this area, with scientists on both sides. Sadly, the Guardian is probably the worst newspaper on this topic, with the perfect science vs unhinged patients line being portrayed.
    
    Reply
    Share
    
    Facebook Twitter
    Report
• 

​

 

Sorry if I sounded overly critical! I'd meant to be making general points, but looking back I can see that it could read like more of an attack on what you'd said than I intended. I know that there had been medical journal papers raising concern about links between the HPV vaccine and CFS/PoTS, so you were right about that, but the strongest piece of research we've had on this now indicates that CFS was just as likely to emerge in those who had not received the vaccine.

Some discussion of this here: https://www.s4me.info/index.php?thr...r-based-study-from-norway-your-thoughts.1232/

 

@Esther12 thank you for the link to the stuff about the Norwegian study. I'll try read it better tomorrow (or whenever brain returns from its holiday ) as only briefly scanned this evening. An interesting thread that I really must try get my head around.

I don't think you sounded over critical - my words aren't working well today, just horrid worn out after a very over-exciting week. Much fun, but sadly that can be problematic. Here's one of my exciting things, new Motability car. We drove straight to Pickerings Pasture after collecting car - was my last outing in November last year before my car went back after I lost the points on PIP needed for Motability. It seemed like a good place to begin with my new car.


New car 28 Nov 2017 by Maggie, on Flickr

 

Best wishes... pleased to hear about your fun, sorry about your benefits pain.