Rod Liddle in the Times: "Always fatigued — yet they never tire of claiming their malady really is a virus"

large donner said:
Yes but will he actively condemn him on twitter for example? The opportunity is there to condemn such behaviour and put his money where his mouth is.
Click to expand...
He should do, because Liddle even contradicts MS and Co, because they have openly stated CFS/ME (as they call it) might well be triggered by a virus, albeit not perpetuated by it.
 
Last edited:
Robert 1973 said:
Moderator note: Most of the Liddle piece had to be edited out as the forum cannot breach the copyright.
[Edit: Apologies to moderators. If anyone wants a copy of the full article send me a pm]


Liddle is so widely despised I wonder if having his guns pointed at us may actually be a positive. Here is his predictably vile diatribe in full:

I’m wondering if it would be worth complaining to the IPSO. My guess is that Liddle’s columns are routinely screened by the Sunday Times lawyers and that they are therefore confident that any complaints would not be upheld.

The IPSO Editors’ code of practice states:

Any thoughts @JohnTheJack @adambeyoncelowe @Sarah @Nathalie Wright?
Click to expand...

(Accepted. Well, by this one at least. Hehe.)

I think you're right it's probably been screened by lawyers. Hard to imagine how half his stuff gets published given that rule.
 
This article is a real own goal for the BPS crew - being endorsed by known bigot Rod Liddle, is not a good PR outcome for Sharpe and Wessely. I notice neither of them has retweeted Liddle's article when normally they are very keen to retweet articles in which their work is discussed.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
So I suppose that Liddle's article illustrates why people with ME are completely justified in lashing out in anger against the prejudice and stigma generated by the psychiatrists' approach to ME.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I'm not sure if your post is a straight statement of your opinion, or you are probing for a reaction - it's the sort of thing that I read and, most of the time, a little "it's a trap" warning goes off in my head.

I would agree with all but the "completely justified" part. Edit it so that it read ".. illustrates why it is understandable that some PwME lash out in anger and frustration against.." and you would have my own position.
 
Andy said:
Honestly, I'm not sure if your post is a straight statement of your opinion, or you are probing for a reaction - it's the sort of thing that I read and, most of the time, a little "it's a trap" warning goes off in my head.
Click to expand...

No, no trap, just thinking aloud.
If psychiatrists are deliberately egging journalists on to stir up this sort of poison then 'completely justified' seems to me to fit my feeling.

I keep asking myself whether I am justified in claiming, as I do, that I take a completely disinterested view of the issues around ME/CFS. I keep getting the answer that I am. But it interests me that that is fully consistent with me being very angry about the mess some my colleagues have made of things.
 
And the thing is that they have deliberately made a mess of it, and continue to make a mess of it, because, one way or another, they profit from it being a mess. But in addition, they turn around and lecture us for having the temerity to actually point out that things are a mess, and for suggesting ways that the mess might be cleaned up.

But then that's how it has always worked, those in positions of power have blamed the people who lack power for lacking power, while denying them the means to gain power. But social media seems to have provided a means for some of the powerless to come together effectively and actually get their hands on some influence, and we are starting to see the fruits of that.

Sharpe et al must be scared and frustrated, seeing their influence draining away. That's why we have this wave of patient-blaming media, and chances are we will probably see more of it as we approach the end of the NICE guidelines review.
 
Andy said:
And the thing is that they have deliberately made a mess of it, and continue to make a mess of it, because, one way or another, they profit from it being a mess. But in addition, they turn around and lecture us for having the temerity to actually point out that things are a mess, and for suggesting ways that the mess might be cleaned up.

But then that's how it has always worked, those in positions of power have blamed the people who lack power for lacking power, while denying them the means to gain power. But social media seems to have provided a means for some of the powerless to come together effectively and actually get their hands on some influence, and we are starting to see the fruits of that.

Sharpe et al must be scared and frustrated, seeing their influence draining away. That's why we have this wave of patient-blaming media, and chances are we will probably see more of it as we approach the end of the NICE guidelines review.
Click to expand...

I think there's something of an ideological bent to it also. I mean, there is the issue of who represents or consults with insurance companies, a byproduct of which is that it saves that industry great sums of money. Of course, that's difficult to properly articulate without making it sound like conspiracy theory.

But it's pretty clear from their bleatings on Twitter, if nothing else, that Wessely & Sharpe are great proponents of the NHS. If you can give any credence whatsoever to the idea that they actually believe their model of ME as well as its 'treatment' is accurate, regardless of the fact that it convenently saves the UK gov't a lot of money as well, no testing, no research, etc etc...I don't think it's so hard to imagine that they see themselves as saving the NHS from a financial reality that proper testing, treatment, and research of ME patients would be extremely problematic. Whether or not it involves rationalization on their part, their construct serves a higher purpose. One that's a heck of a lot more important than anything that happens to us (particularly those in the UK, of course) as we rot in our beds.
 
Out of fear that ME/CFS patients would take away healthcare resources from the patients with real illnesses, they created a system to prevent ME/CFS from taking up healthcare resources. Now ME/CFS turns out to be a real illness, in the sense of there being abnormal physiology that is difficult to explain otherwise.

That narrative would fit reasonably well.
 
Last edited:
Dx Revision Watch said:
https://www.actionforme.org.uk/news/sharegoodscience-in-response-to-the-sunday-times/

March 18, 2019

A number of you have contacted us about the awful story by Rod Liddle in yesterday’s Sunday Times. Given the stiff competition to get a response published in the paper itself, we have chosen to comment on the story instead...

----------------------------------------

Click to expand...

Initially I was pleased of this and thanked them because of the, in my opinion, inappropriate silence around this current media episode. I don’t think issueing condemnatory or refuting statements is giving oxygen and I thought that there was supposed to be a no censoring of the news approach by the MEA. I personally think many patients would have liked to feel that a group with authority was going to stand up for them. However I’m now not sure if AFME are doing what they usually do , Make a lot of noise about the easy but essentially inconsequential target whilst letting the powerful establishment figures with serious influence go unchallenged. I remember on an Esther crawjey study Or report the AFME outrage was at the newspapers for their awful reporting whilst nothing said or done , ofcourse about Crawleys work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom