This a story about a knight. More than one, actually. But we’ll start with one: Sir Simon Wessely, one of the most powerful figures in the British medical establishment. A man whose bad science, ego and ideology have for decades set back research into myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and treatments for the disease.
An excellent and extremely worrying article. What is it about Britain that it loves killing off its population especially those who are vulnerable or old?
This is a first-rate article, and also utterly terrifying. Evidence of the misuse of science is only too easy to find, but what is far more difficult is proving it. Bear shows us one good place to look: cui bono? And the recent film, "Oppenheimer", shows how easily scientists can be lured into fulfilling the wishes of politicians -- with disastrous results.
Who benefits from cutting the costs of a state agency? Typically such agencies have an incentive to increase their size and power. That's practically a universal tendency. This article gives no reason why the opposite would apply in this case. Ideology can be a powerful driver. Without taking any position on the causes of the problem, which this piece only hints at, I can make no sense of the economic argument. How does this person, now an NHS director, benefit from shrinking the NHS?
While I agree that CFS/ME has been wrongly classified as a mainly psychological problem in the past, and it is now well known that CBT and graded exercise does not work; the biopsychosocial model of health/illness is a legitimate lens with which to view any person within their context. The main thrust of this model is to take account of all factors that may be at play: the biological, the psychological, the social. It’s taken from a mental health paradigm and was meant to be a broader understanding of mental health issues outside of the narrowly proscribed medical model. It may have been misused in the PACE trials, but is nonetheless a legitimate model.
A fair point. As you say the issue is the misuse. And not just in the pace trials. It was being used by Aylward as the basis for benefits cuts before then. Many chronically ill people feel, rightly so I think, that its use as a political tool has undermined the model
An excellent and extremely worrying article. What is it about Britain that it loves killing off its population especially those who are vulnerable or old?
This is a first-rate article, and also utterly terrifying. Evidence of the misuse of science is only too easy to find, but what is far more difficult is proving it. Bear shows us one good place to look: cui bono? And the recent film, "Oppenheimer", shows how easily scientists can be lured into fulfilling the wishes of politicians -- with disastrous results.
Who benefits from cutting the costs of a state agency? Typically such agencies have an incentive to increase their size and power. That's practically a universal tendency. This article gives no reason why the opposite would apply in this case. Ideology can be a powerful driver. Without taking any position on the causes of the problem, which this piece only hints at, I can make no sense of the economic argument. How does this person, now an NHS director, benefit from shrinking the NHS?
Brilliant piece of writing. Experts are people who write and speak the lies that our rulers need us to believe.
That's why no one get in the media regarding Covid unless they minimise the implications of infection.
Thank you
It so has to change. What are we waiting for.
While I agree that CFS/ME has been wrongly classified as a mainly psychological problem in the past, and it is now well known that CBT and graded exercise does not work; the biopsychosocial model of health/illness is a legitimate lens with which to view any person within their context. The main thrust of this model is to take account of all factors that may be at play: the biological, the psychological, the social. It’s taken from a mental health paradigm and was meant to be a broader understanding of mental health issues outside of the narrowly proscribed medical model. It may have been misused in the PACE trials, but is nonetheless a legitimate model.
A fair point. As you say the issue is the misuse. And not just in the pace trials. It was being used by Aylward as the basis for benefits cuts before then. Many chronically ill people feel, rightly so I think, that its use as a political tool has undermined the model