Trial By Error: Bristol’s Complaint to Berkeley [Short Tuller blog 23rd December 2017]

And that no one will listen to the criticism anyway

 

This whole anonymous business is meant to distract us and keep us busy.

 

I knew there would be a good reason . I guess the "ethics" is about protecting the investigators .

 

Like strychnine then.

Edit: I see @Alvin beat me to it.

 

Is anonymity more important than safety? Isn't an ethics commitee's job to oversee if a trial is safe, doesn't contain criminal acts and so forth? So, could a researcher torture trial participants if it's anonymous? Sounds absurd.

 

I have been rather puzzled to receive the following from Dr. Marc-Alexander Fluks via an M.E. group:

"Berkely Uni back David Tuller, confirm he has done nothing wrong
> http://www.virology.ws/2017/12/23/trial-by-error-bristols-complaint-to-berkeley/

This is in fact bad news. It is not about whether or not patients like or dislike the work of Esther Crawley, it is about the cyberstalking of David Tuller damaging the reputation of PWCs."

He's also referred to James Coyne as a cyberstalker and says that his webpages at a couple of universities have been deleted.

 

Eh? Well, I suppose if not answering his (reasonable) questions, then accusing him of libel, pretending to have sent him legal letters to cease and desist (from being entirely reasonable & doing his job) and finally trying to get his university to rein him in doesn't work......let's get someone to try to ruin his reputation with the patients.

At what point do you think it will occur to them, if ever, to just engage with reality?

 

When Fluks came up in another thread here I did a google, and found some very odd stuff from him, eg: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.med.cfs/xMjK9GbxzVM

It wouldn't surprise me if some universities were distancing themselves from Coyne after some of his comments on social media over the last couple of years.

 

Questioning and refuting lies = cyberstalking? They're simply taking the logical fallacy of tone-policing to a new level, and Fluks needs to stop slandering people by accusing them of crimes or other misdeeds. Ironically, doing such slandering online makes Fluks a much more likely candidate for being labeled a cyberstalker than David Tuller.

I suspect there's also a substantial objection to scientific discussion taking place on the internet at all - the doctors have lost control of the masses in the online society. Doctors who appreciate science and discussion have no problem with that, but the ones who rely upon establishing their authority in the form of letters after their names might be more upset about the situation.

 

It's very strange, as he sometimes posts info that I post here (I think) - perfectly lucid.

 

He is the same person, he's a Doctor of Astronomy, though he doesn't make that clear in his posts! ISTR he posted on Co-Cure before he got his doctorate.

 

To me, it looks like Fluks is posting some stuff that is too odd to try to explain.

 

Questioning and refuting lies is cyberstalking. Whereas just copying and pasting press releases is journalism.

 

He seems to have severe mental issues and posts very strange things about numerology and medieval type alchemy stuff. He will talk about a drug or something then say the chemical symbol is like the symbol for mercury so it means it is a trap set by people who want to take over the world or something like that.

It could be something to do with Tuller's initials that have set him off, no reasoning behind it.

 

New today... a short teaser from Tuller on next weeks blog: http://www.virology.ws/2017/12/27/trial-by-error-a-sneak-preview-of-next-weeks-post/

 

I agree with others that some of Fluks' writings suggest he might be somewhat unwell/unhinged, and probably little point/need us getting caught up in it. If his advocacy is indicative of what the BPS brigade now need to rely on ... .