Blimey, they really are rattled if they are getting a journalist to try to do a hatchet job on you
@dave30th.
My first thought, and not changed. I think the HoC debate has really rattled them. I suspect there may be a strategy in play here to undermine the HoC debate, and maybe rattle some MPs, given
@dave30th's work will have underpinned much of their knowledge. Trying to undermine a linchpin. I think Carol Monaghan should be kept abreast of this.
Can these people
never see that every time they smear campaign the people who strive for good science, they prove, over and over again, their inability to provide any kind of scientific counter argument ... because they have none! It might be good to have a very simple and very clear illustration of that in some way; it is a behavioural trait of these people that seems burnt in. Obviously any counter along these lines cannot even hint at getting personal, but a wholly factual,
chronological cataloguing of assertions and counter-assertions would highlight the strategy - a timeline maybe. This latest antic would clearly show up for what it is.
Obviously ...
But let me say here, one more time, that I categorically condemn any sending or disseminating of death threats, threats of bodily harm, and any other kinds of threats. I also categorically condemn bullying, abuse and any efforts at intimidation, whether via online forums, Twitter, e-mail, Skype, Instagram, Snapchat, WhatsApp, any other media currently available or to be invented in future, or in person. There is simply no place for such behavior.
... goes without saying. If anyone tries to point to any such attacks as "evidence" for their argument, it will clearly be a distraction strategy, and could in fact be clearly shown up for how they misconstrue what evidence really amounts to; smear campaigns are
not scientific counter-evidence. There will always be an unfortunate few who resort to such extreme behaviour, but they do not represent us nor what we stand for, good science. There will be extreme extremists who latch onto all sorts of good causes, but that does not invalidate the fact the causes are good. But such behaviour is highly emotive, and easily latched onto by those opposing the good causes, to deflect attention from the goodness of the causes.
I think such an attempt could be their greatest mistake. I also think Carol Monaghan should be in the loop. Such an attack on David could actually do us a huge favour (sorry
@dave30th), in that it would show exactly the kind of abuse (yes, I really do mean that) that pwME have had to put up with from these people for many years, in their determination (and now desperation) to protect their bad science and their BPS club that promulgates it.
Also, trying to attack David's work from the perspective of his lacking medical qualifications, is again a lovely example of diversion tactics. To successfully and accurately report about a knowledge domain, does not require the reporter to be fully qualified their self in that knowledge domain. Their skill has to be in getting across what the knowledge domain experts are saying. Also, within a knowledge domain, not everything within it is complex, some of the knowledge is terribly simple. True, it would be foolhardy for someone outside the knowledge domain to presume they understood the significance of such things, but if they have listened to what the experts they trust have been educating them about, and the experts have written peer reviewed papers about, then it is fully justified for them to accurately report it; indeed it can sometimes be deemed a moral obligation to do so. Ultimately it is not about whether the reporter is fully qualified in a knowledge domain, but whether they are fully qualified to report it, and to utilise the expert sources behind them. I imagine that a considerable number of highly valid and successful exposés have been reported by people lacking full qualifications of the knowledge domain they have reported about. It is a red herring.
In the end it is very simple: is there anything David has ever said that is factually untrue? If so then refute on a factual basis, like good scientists. David always invites them to do that, would welcome it even. As yet they never have, that I'm aware of.
If this really is their potential counter to the HoC debate, then I think it could be a major misjudgement and serious own goal. It might also be an attempt to isolate David from sources of support, if they perhaps thought he might be afraid to discuss it openly; good that you didn't do that David
.
So very well done David. Your work is clearly highly appreciated
.
