what an utterly strange thing to decide to do
and more importantly it just feels very badly written whatever the intention (if there is one - so why 'just opinionate' to show who you are?) particularly in the sense that it seems to show an unawareness that there are different severities of ME, and indeed his personal level isn't mentioned even though all this is indeed based on recommending what he does.
And then he barely caveats this lack of responsibility given the horrific situation for a number of people with very severe ME in hospital in the last few years with:
" of course there are some with ME who are extremeley ill, confined to bed, for which my remedy would be totally wrong"
That he's placed at the end of the penultimate paragraph which to me smacks of avoiding the primacy-recency of it being even in the last lines. We and he should be well aware the last people to read to, nevermind provide weight to that line, will be those who have their beliefs and are looking for things which agree with what they want to hear. Hence irresponsible, in fact gobsmackingly so.
I underline this because he has chosen not to begin at the start with that safety caveat or explaining the overall illness and spectrum in a proper attempt to safeguard the impact of his opinion, but to hide it where it is. ANd by doing so chose not to contextualise properly his 'advice' as not being advice (and to whom it applies) - hence the irresponsible at best.
But also to me gives a sign of being out-of-date in understanding you can't just island the constituency of those most ill with an 'of course I'm sure they will be looked after with something different' get out of jail free clause, and split the spectrum. At least some of those in that situation will have ended up there due to the world taking advice based on things that have been written in similar ways which can be similarly misinterpreted such to cause harm inadvertently, or indeed due to the GET attitude - and now find the type of tropes this article seems full of until that last caveat are being thrown at them once they are harmed to such an extent.
You surely can't have someone who has this lack of understanding of how risky what they've just done is to the most vulnerable in their population. The least someone can do if they are using 'the name of' is to always be thinking safety first - and this fails utterly in that care in my opinion.
All the rest around it sophistly trying to justify why he has done this strange thing just seems worded to be antagonist by trying to hide that analysis of his main points ie not take responsility for the need to have properly worded them even if he does believe in them to not cause that harm in the first place [that he's had to try and 'cover for' with a poor caveat - and I use that term like the CMA would, where someone puts a line in small print at the end clarifying 'that's not strictly true' etc] by writing those words poorly.
I agree with
@Peter Trewhitt - and, in fact, the language chosen indicates allegiances too, because noone who is in the position he is for so long is unaware of the antagonistic sophist terminology chosen by certain individuals.
It all just feels very silly and irresponsible from a number of angles but particularly professionally because it really I struggle to see has no benefit whatsoever as written to either the organisation or its aims. Plus of course it serves neither as good advice nor as an insight into his own experience that would provide some sort of comfort to other sufferers even if he is telling himself it would achieve that.
The man could at least have dated when he did this bed rest he talks of, and his severity at that time; particularly if it was advice given to him that was generation-specific and done to a level not accessible to most in recent decades etc. He must know that without that information he infers that was/is 'normal' or 'common'?
