Petition: Per Fink Should Not Spread Lies about ME at Columbia University!

Andy

Andy

Retired committee member
We demand that Per Fink be uninvited to speak at the 4th Columbia University Psychosomatic Conference taking place in New York City on Saturday, October 20th.

Per Fink is a practicing physician in Denmark who uses the diagnosis of Bodily Distress Syndrome (BDS) as a unified umbrella for a number of diseases, including myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME). He treats theses diseases as psychosomatic illness with talk therapy and graded exercise, which have been shown to harm people with ME.
Click to expand...
https://my.meaction.net/petitions/per-fink-should-not-speak-at-columbia-university
 
I disagree with this demand.

I'm all for raising concerns about the quality of his work to the people in charge of overseeing the conference, or possibly going to the conference to offer criticism; but it's inappropriate to demand that an academic institution 'de-platform' a speaker. To me this makes us look like the bad guys trying to silence opposing viewpoints, and allows him to play the silenced victim card.
 
James Morris-Lent said:
I disagree with this demand.

I'm all for raising concerns about the quality of his work to the people in charge of overseeing the conference, or possibly going to the conference to offer criticism; but it's inappropriate to demand that an academic institution 'de-platform' a speaker. To me this makes us look like the bad guys trying to silence opposing viewpoints, and allows him to play the silenced victim card.
Click to expand...
Screw this, let him play his victim card and whine like a baby, if someone wants to hurt people our options are not just let them on "free speech" grounds or because we fear their wrath. If we want positive change we have to demand it. Not giving privilege to liars and reality deniers should be the minimum standard, not something we are scared of doing.
All that evil needs to succeed is for good people to do nothing.
 
arewenearlythereyet said:
I agree you can’t shut down debate however unpalatable ..just argue for fair representation
Click to expand...
Let him debate to an empty room. I am reminded of this comic
free_speech.png
 
I have signed this petition though I have mixed feelings about the idea blocking speakers at university events.

Though free speech is important, we must also draw the line at actions that cause real harm to people. Also the BPS crew have consistently ignored and attempted to suppress views that they disagree with, be it in academic debate or the extreme of taking children into care or institutionalising adults. There is an enormous difference between refusing someone a platform at a conference and taking away someone's liberty and perhaps irreversibly destroying their health.

We need to ask the question is the conduct of the BPS advocates such that they have lost the right to any courtesy or respect.
 
Totally agree with @Alvin, and thought of the same cartoon.

Silencing someone and not giving them a prestigious platform are two completely different things.

He is literally teaching people to harm patients. How anyone can be against demanding that stops is beyond me.
 
Peter Trewhitt said:
I have signed this petition though I have mixed feelings about the idea blocking speakers at university events.

Though free speech is important, we must also draw the line at actions that cause real harm to people. Also the BPS crew have consistently ignored and attempted to suppress views that they disagree with, be it in academic debate or the extreme of taking children into care or institutionalising adults. There is an enormous difference between refusing someone a platform at a conference and taking away someone's liberty and perhaps irreversibly destroying their health.

We need to ask the question is the conduct of the BPS advocates such that they have lost the right to any courtesy or respect.
Click to expand...
I get what your saying but no one is advocating putting him in prison or physically harming him for these harmful views. I am saying he should not be pandered to.
As your saying they already do far worse then we are advocating. Why can they do so much worse to us but we should not oppose a university hosting him?


They harm patients which is a violation of their oath and human rights, they lock people up to inflict their damaging "treatments" against people's will, they silence critics, they deny the reality that is slapping them in the face, they use their power to invent lies and perpetuate them, they slander anyone who speaks the truth and they use any avenue they can find or invent to prevent progress and inflict harm on us, the medical system and anyone who dares not agree with them.

Yet we are afraid to not give them special treatment?
 
Last edited:
Alvin said:
Screw this, let him play his victim card and whine like a baby, if someone wants to hurt people our options are not just let them on "free speech" grounds or because we fear their wrath. If we want positive change we have to demand it. Not giving privilege to liars and reality deniers should be the minimum standard, not something we are scared of doing.
All that evil needs to succeed is for good people to do nothing.
Click to expand...
Not just a liar, his actions have been criminal. He uses his soft-science to harm pwME and their families. An institution like Columbia University should know who they are putting on a pedestal. This is akin to them giving the pulpit to someone teaching conversion therapy for LGBT+. It's not science, it's ideology. Is the conference on philosophy or medical science?
 
Diwi9 said:
Not just a liar, his actions have been criminal. He uses his soft-science to harm pwME and their families. An institution like Columbia University should know who they are putting on a pedestal. This is akin to them giving the pulpit to someone teaching conversion therapy for LGBT+. It's not science, it's ideology. Is the conference on philosophy or medical science?
Click to expand...
Indeed, as i said i don't advocate harming him for his views but when one performs criminal activities then they have gone beyond the purview of free speech
 
Stop it, all you people, with your fair points on both sides. :confused: :rolleyes:

I don't like suppressing speech, but equally don't like bad speech going unchallenged.

Fink is pushing his legitimacy pretty seriously. At best he is being stubborn, reckless, and callous, to a degree totally unacceptable from a senior academic, clinician, and policy adviser.
 
I don't only have a problem with Per Fink, I have a problem with the premise of the whole conference. It seems it will be a BPS fest, with 'true believers' reinforcing each others' false beliefs in the BPS model and spreading the word. Oh dear.

I'm not sure about the petition's narrow focus on Fink, dreadful though his ideas are. I'd like to see the whole conference challenged.

We have a thread on the Conference here. The rest of the agenda looks just as bad.
 
You most likely will not block him or even slow him down. You will raise talking points. Properly delivered we can benefit from talking points, but they may also be distorted by the audience. All psychobabble, which psychogenic medicine appears to be, should be opposed by scientists and academics who want rigorous research. Not all psychosomatic medicine probably qualifies as psychobabble, but probably most of it. We really need more scientists to attend these events. The people who need to attend this events are scientists qualified to make objections using evidence and reason.

I would think an open letter to Columbia asking for independent scientists to attend, and maybe sent directly to a few, would be a better choice.

I have not read the petition yet but hope to do it soon, then I will decide if I should sign it.
 
I have signed, because for me it's a protest and I'm all for objecting to Per Fink; it's my way of saying 'NO!'. Once again I'm signing a petition that I don't think will do any good.

As I don't think this will work I think we need informed people there to show his dangerous nonsense for what it is.
 
I’m not clear on what the context is? I think for me the issue is how influential is this conference...what will it lead to? It doesn’t seem to be specifically related to ME, rather a group of disturbed deluded individuals talking a load of crap to each other?

The issue seems to be a wider one of the validity of psychosomatic conditions and quality of research?

I’ve read the “demands” and they read poorly and a bit scatty and aimless, so I won’t sign this one ...mainly since it seems a bit pointless and overly pedantic/stroppy with no purpose in mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom