Trial By Error: My Brief Encounter with Professor Crawley

I've felt - and said - this for a long time. You have to try and walk in the other person's shoes, no matter how unsavoury that may be. You have to try and understand a problem to tackle it.

I think some psychiatrists have a wholly different perception of what science really is, like a closed system of their own definition (yes, I realise that is more akin to religion ). Maybe it's because they deal with so much that is intangible and subjective, it's as if they live in a world where these attributes are the baseline from which their belief system is rooted. And tangibles and objectivity just adorn their cosy world when and if it suits. Then add into the mix, some personality types that utilise truth and fiction as best suits them.

 

I'm an engineer, and I recall some very wise words (I paraphrase, cannot remember exactly) one of our HND lecturers spoke, when asked "What do you think is the most challenging aspect of solving a problem during a design project?" After a moment's thought he replied "Understanding the problem in the first place." Over the all-too-many years since, I've realised the wisdom of that. If you don't put the effort in to properly identify and understand what the problem actually is, and its nuances, then you will probably go off on a tangent and try solving the wrong problem, then wonder why it didn't work out properly.

Properly identifying and understanding the problem you are trying to solve, is a paramount prerequisite for trying to solve it.

 

Anyone mates with him? It's rather a shame that so many are us are rather lacking connections with powerful people (or anyone much).

I saw Tuller got a couple of people criticising him in the comment section. It shows how careful he has been that all they have to complain about is that he says NICE requires "post-exertional malaise", when post-exertional fatigue is also allowed.

To me, that just shows how desperate some people are to say PACE critics as unreasonable. Even that trivial, and legitimate, simplification is being used to try to claim that Tuller doesn't know what he's talking about and is harassing researchers. We need to stay as careful and rigorous as possible. A lot of self-interest and prejudice is against us.

 

I think someone should go to every speech of hers and ask a difficult question or two. Let them claim harassment from that, an alternative perspective calmly questioning a lie or two should exist at all her presentations. And if they try to sue most courts take a dim view of institutions using vexatious lawsuits against people telling the truth

I find this very interesting. This rings in true in so many things beyond engineering covering politics, medicine, culture, laws etc.

 

The first words out of EC's mouth, even before DT had finished his question, were designed to portray him as an obsessive nutter to the rest of the room. She didn't even think of responding to the substance of what he was saying. Not a chance. Just launched into the name-calling straight away.

 

82 comments now on Tuller's blog post.

 

I like this idea.

 

The person arguing with David Tuller on the Virology blog appears to be this guy.

http://www.counselling-directory.org.uk/counsellors/mark-paine

He is a counsellor offering CBT for ME/CFS!

 

Very interesting..... I am not that far from one of his places of work, maybe I can get relevant info to him!

 

Does he provide CBT to PwME? Worried about losing an income stream?

 

It is one of the numerous conditions he mentions. He's also involved in teaching/supervising other therapists.

@Barry don't worry I'm not proposing anything militant I just think he may be interested in hearing some of the science-based information eg bullet points from IOM.
It's got to be worth a try at some stage.
He also says he counsels people dealing with long-term illness and disability, to enable them to come to terms with their conditions/restrictions.

His approach might be OK.
He might have just been trying to stick up for someone who portrays herself as vulnerable and under attack from the HMVs (harrassing, militant, vexatious) ill people, their advoacates, experienced scientists and clinicians, Oh and a really scary US journalist who came to the UK just so he could "attack" her. No, I do know he was over here anyway.

 

Protecting a vested interest then? Is it only me or is there a certain resemblance to another person we know?

 

David Tuller represents a lot of ME sufferers, its not only a few 'militants' who came up with the $60,000+ for him to continue his investigations. He is acting on our behalf and therefore according to the law:
Action against discrimination
You can do something voluntarily to help people with a protected characteristic. This is called ‘positive action’.

Taking positive action is legal if people with a protected characteristic:

• are at a disadvantage
• have particular needs
• are under-represented in an activity or type of work

It is pwME who are suffering discrimination as a result of EC (and the others) false narrative:

2. How you can be discriminated against
Discrimination can come in one of the following forms:

• direct discrimination - treating someone with a protected characteristic less favourably than others
• indirect discrimination - putting rules or arrangements in place that apply to everyone, but that put someone with a protected characteristic at an unfair disadvantage
• harassment - unwanted behaviour linked to a protected characteristic that violates someone’s dignity or creates an offensive environment for them
• victimisation - treating someone unfairly because they’ve complained about discrimination or harassment

https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights

 

98 comments now! Who wants to be 100?

 

Given that the chap defending her on Tuller's blog mentions about the PACE authors having adequately answered any questions about the study, he obviously believes he is educated about the situation and I would say it's safe to assume vested interests in this case.

 

*He is involved in the NHS as well as private practice...if this Mark Paine is our chap. Possibly a member of Esther's CBT/GET BACME group and recipient of emails from EC?

*as @Liv aka Mrs Sowester pointed out likely to have a professional conflict of interest

 

In that case we'd be assuming everyone who followed the topic had a vested interest. You could well be right about this person, but I think it can be helpful to try to engage with people on the assumption of good faith (at least at first).