Resistance To Science and Technology by Julian Vigo (Forbes.com)

There is a feedback link at the bottom of the article, if anyone would like to email feedback directly to Forbes.

 

Y'know funnily enough, I searched for about thirty seconds last night on any 'Spiked!' link and thought 'I can't be...bothered'.

Tedious, predictable shite (apologies).

 

Yes, nasty stuff. It all makes sense now. Her 'evidence' was that other journos had written about it. I replied with links to Hansard detailing how the 'scientists' in question bully and discredit their opponents, resist proper debate and gloss over ties to the insurance industry. I needn't have bothered!

 

Forbes is a business magazine. I mean...it might be about business...

 

Yep, I just asked her for the 3rd time for documented evidence of all the harassment and death threats she claims. She never replied to my requests, but to other folks who ask for same who she has replied to, she just points them to Google, tells them that there is plenty of evidence if they Google for it, in the form of very old propaganda-based newspaper articles. My latest tweet: "Hi Julian, still waiting for your documented evidence of all the harassment/threats. Googling old newspaper articles is not evidence. You say you write about science, surely you know the difference between evidence & hearsay. And the difference between science & opinion. Thanks". Want to take bets on whether she ever replies, LOL?

I get the impression that she thinks she's edgy and cool, but she's just coming across as weirdly out of date and closed-minded. And rude - many of her replies (including to me) were uncalled-for ad homs. Just ugh.

 

Yeah, writing for Spiked! says it all.

 

In retrospect I think it may have been a mistake for me to tweet the above. As others have said, probably better to ignore – although I hope there may be some value in engaging Godwin again. I’m guessing that @dave30th has probably filled him in on some of this stuff but I think it’s important for him to understand how patients and critics have been portrayed through the SMC etc.

 

It seems respectful and somewhat productive.
If things degenerate into an arguing match then it might be a mistake but i don't see a problem with the above sequence.

 

I got the phone number for editorial at Forbes, and have now presented my complaint about the article to an actual staff member. Usually nothing comes from complaints, but we shall see.

Edit: My complaint has been forwarded to another Forbes editor.

 

This probably explains a lot about the poor quality of the article and why the only 'evidence' she could give was old news interviews with Wessely.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1012733786449240065

 

A couple of exchanged tweets is not much of a connection... but Wessely's often does seem respected by hose with the most misguided views of the controversy surrounding CFS.

 

It also confirms our suspicions around the timing of the article.

There was no other explanation other than Simon reaching out to his old 'friends' for favours, in a time of need.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1012749924067364864

https://twitter.com/user/status/1012758426655608832

 

Quite agree, although you spelt "hoes" wrong.

 

In my experience, good people are cautiously optimistic about others' intentions. If they hear about a disease for the first time and they learn its existence is contested in some corners, they usually admit they don't understand and/or offer sympathy: erring on the side of kindness.

Jerks believe there's something 'brave' about taking the opposite tack. But there's nothing brave or edgy about a lack of empathy. Callous cynicism grows on trees. There's this idea that knee-jerk cynicism comes with a guarantee of a sharp-eyed bird's eye view of reality, too. That's naivete imagining itself wise.

 

Surely the suggestion that Sir Simon has had any involvement in this matter must be wrong. One feels sure that he would not wish to add to a colleague's difficulties by causing people to recall a Sunday Times article and any videos making reference to it. Just when the furore had died down. That would be too unkind.

I noticed, yesterday, that a Bristol University page makes a bold link to the Ted X talk. Strange that. It should be compulsory viewing for lawyers specialising in children's law, provided they also read the commentary.

 

"I've heard a lot of people saying that nobody likes these patients. Believe me." Who says things like that? What kind of person would preempt rational debate and criticism against himself by using his position of power to disparage and demonize people he uses as his own ego-fodder? I can't think of anyone, and yet, it's so familiar...

 

He would never admit to disliking patients because it doesn't fit the image he's trying to cultivate. The solution is to say other people dislike these patients.