Trial By Error: Some Thoughts About an Upcoming Article

Sunshine3 said:
Sorry I am so clueless as I don't reside in U. K. What is Holgate's roll now and who is the present chair of the MRC... I gather the current chair is focused on biomedical research.. Is that correct?
Click to expand...

Holgate is the chair of the CMRC and Chris Ponting is the deputy chair. I don't know much about Holgate's background but I think that Chris is an excellent researcher with interesting ideas around ways to explore the biology behind ME. The whole CMRC has changed in nature in the last year or so and I think is now a positive force for biomedical research.

The CMRC now also has a patient advisory group (PAG) who are also pushing for biomedical research and I joined the CMRC PAG in January.

The names are confusing the MRC is the medical research council which is a government agency whose role it is to fund medical research. I think there are issues but as I understand it Holgate and Ponting are doing their best to persuade the MRC to fund more biomedical research.
 
Sunshine3 said:
Thank you, that sounds reasonably promising. What brought about Holgate's change of heart? He treated Dr Geraghty terribly from what I just read. Last question..
Click to expand...

I think we only have parts of stories around this and I could speculate but it would be pure speculation and so not worth doing.

I think we are now in a position where the CMRC is a positive thing for patients.

I really think stories such as the one this journalist is trying to write could become very negative in that relationships are being build between researchers and patients but a repeat of patients vs researcher stories could damage that. The real answer to such stories is that patients are doing all they can to back high quality research, push for funding and fundraising for research. Of course part of pushing for high quality research is to understand the current state of the research, the literature, methodologies and problems to ensure they are not repeated and clues are followed. It may be unusual for patients to have such deep discussions of the science but that should be seen as a positive. And of course that is why this forum is here - so that patients and researchers can discuss the research and science around ME (and Chris Ponting is a member).
 
Paul Watton said:
In light of my tweet, the journalist asked me what my views were about people who made death threats against researchers !!!
Click to expand...

Did you ask what evidence had been seen as to the existence of death threats? Its a shame the interview didn't take place later. You could have asked if the journalist had been shown previously unknown video evidence.

EDITED
 
Last edited:
Paul Watton said:
I was contacted by a journalist in early September last year, following a tweet I posted in March, where I expressed the view that "I am really looking forward to Michael Sharpe's professional demise and his much-deserved public humiliation."


The journalist said that the article was going to be about the fierce battle between CFS/M.E. patients and researchers and would probably not come out until the end of the year.
In light of my tweet, the journalist asked me what my views were about people who made death threats against researchers !!! They also wanted to know whether I thought that Sharpe was a bad person (or something like that) and whether I would like to meet him - to which I responded with words to the effect of "Why would I want to do that?"
I subsequently made notes about the near hour-long telephone conversation and have kept a record.
Click to expand...


While it would be ridiculous to try to tie that tweet to death threats, at the same time I don't think that tweeting something like that is a good idea. (And I say that having posted a few things that were probably not a good idea myself. I've had a comment of mine where I was complaining about the prejudiced views promoted in one judgement then presented as evidence of how unreasonable PACE critics are to the ICO in a judgement that classed a reasonable request for information as 'vexatious', and that didn't feel good.)
 
Last edited:
Esther12 said:
While it would be ridiculous to try to tie that tweet to death threats, at the same time I don't think that tweeting something like that is a good idea. (And I say that having posted a few things that were probably not a good idea myself. I've had a comment of mine where I was complaining about the prejudiced views promoted in one judgement then presented as evidence of how unreasonable PACE critics are to the ICO in a judgement that classed a reasonable request for information as 'vexatious', and that didn't feel good.)
Click to expand...

Sometimes you just have to say what you think.
I am sick & tired of the kind of political correctness which stifles frankness.
I stand by every word.
 
chrisb said:
Did you ask her (I use the word purely in accordance with the preferred modern, stylistic convention) what evidence she had seen as to the existence of death threats? Its a shame the interview didn't take place later. You could have asked if she had been shown previously unknown video evidence.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did ask. The reporter confirmed having seen "evidence" of death threats, but didn't say what.
I followed up by saying that in my opinion, anyone who does that, isn’t helping the cause of people with M.E., because they’re gifting an opportunity to the likes of Wessely, White, Sharpe and others, to make themselves look like victims.
 
chrisb said:
You could have asked if she had been shown previously unknown video evidence.
Click to expand...
I have read @Valerie Eliot Smith's recent posts. Valerie has been an incredible help to me over the last 3+ years. Despite her poor health, she vetted multiple versions of my initial 15,000-word investigation and multiple posts afterwards. She has been scrupulous in advising me on what kinds of expressions are allowable under UK standards (different from US) and what are not. I trust her 100%. If she says she saw a video and it contained what can only be called criminal threats, then that's what it contained. I see no reason to think she is so naive that she was hoodwinked or somehow played by anyone.

Added: Oh, she and her husband also suggested the name "Trial By Error." So I am grateful to her for that as well!
 
Paul Watton said:
Yes, I did ask. The reporter confirmed having seen "evidence" of death threats, but didn't say what.
I followed up by saying that in my opinion, anyone who does that, isn’t helping the cause of people with M.E., because they’re gifting an opportunity to the likes of Wessely, White, Sharpe and others, to make themselves look like victims.
Click to expand...
If they have actually received such threats they should have to keep records and better yet show them to the Police for followup action.
If they exist they would have no problem with this and justice would be served.
 
dave30th said:
Why make the assumption the police were not called in? Sometimes these things happen quietly and charges are not pursued for any number of reasons.
Click to expand...
Was there not a situation a while back where they claimed to receive threats but could not furnish any evidence?
 
Like you, I have no doubt about VES. The fact remains that for the video to be regarded as credible evidence capable of use in a prosecution there would have to be someone who could say either that they had made the copy of the video, or that they had watched it on the internet and that this appeared to be a recording of what they had seen. It may very well be that the video which Valerie saw was indeed taken from the internet. The questions which interest me are not the credibility and integrity of VES, which I do not doubt, but the reasons for the recording not having been previously mentioned amongst all the stories of harassment and abuse, the reasons for its re-emergence now, and the capacity in which the person who made it available held it. I assume that it was not provided by SW or his lawyers, who might be reasonably expected to hold copies. Who else would have held copies?
 
Alvin said:
Was there not a situation a while back where they claimed to receive threats but could not furnish any evidence?
Click to expand...
I'm only talking about the Wessely tape that Valerie wrote about. I'm not talking about any of the other alleged threats. In some cases you might want to keep information private for safety, or you might be advised by the police to do so. I have no knowledge of any of this stuff. But I trust Valerie. If she says she saw a video that had been sent to Wessely and it contained possibly criminal threats, then there was a video that was sent to Wessely that contained possibly criminal threats.
 
Paul Watton said:
Sometimes you just have to say what you think.
I am sick & tired of the kind of political correctness which stifles frankness.
I stand by every word.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the situation and prejudices surrounding ME/CFS means that the average sick patient, angry about the way they are being treated, is given much less leeway in how they can comment on those who have power over them than general members of the public are in how they comment on politicians and the like.

Things that we say, that would be utterly un-noteworthy coming from members of another group about some politician, can be used as a justification for dismissing all of our concerns and make life more difficult for patients everywhere. It's worth pointing out the problems with this, but I also think it's worth being aware of the way in which we face higher costs than most groups for posting some expression of anger or frustration.
 
Last edited:
chrisb said:
The questions which interest me are not the credibility and integrity of VES, which I do not doubt, but the reasons for the recording not having been previously mentioned amongst all the stories of harassment and abuse, the reasons for its re-emergence now, and the capacity in which the person who made it available held it. I assume that it was not provided by SW or his lawyers, who might be reasonably expected to hold copies. Who else would have held copies?
Click to expand...
Good questions. But I think unfortunately they will likely remain unanswered. In cases like this, there are likely good reasons for confidentiality. There are also issues of lawyer-client privilege which might be coming into play. It has only "re-emerged" now because Valerie wrote about it. That's the only reemergence that has happened, as far as I can tell. The experience she wrote about is from the past.
 
I think it's perfectly possible that such a video was produced and planted there by the BPS people. They have fabricated evidence before (see Crawley's claim of having received a threatening letter). PACE showed how dishonest they are. It's difficult to explain why such a video, if it was authentic, was not presented as evidence during the QMUL PACE data tribunal hearing, and why Chalder admitted that no threats had been made. She is a colleague of Wessely. Chalder already admitted under oath that the threats against researchers story was false. At least until that point.
 
Last edited:
chrisb said:
You could have asked if she had been shown previously unknown video evidence.
Click to expand...

dave30th said:
I have read @Valerie Eliot Smith's recent posts. Valerie has been an incredible help to me over the last 3+ years. Despite her poor health, she vetted multiple versions of my initial 15,000-word investigation and multiple posts afterwards. She has been scrupulous in advising me on what kinds of expressions are allowable under UK standards (different from US) and what are not. I trust her 100%. If she says she saw a video and it contained what can only be called criminal threats, then that's what it contained. I see no reason to think she is so naive that she was hoodwinked or somehow played by anyone.
Click to expand...

I thought @chrisb was referring to the journalist, not to Valerie.

The problem some of us found with Valerie's investigation into the threats was not whether she was honest or not. I am sure none of us have any reason to doubt her integrity and we are all very grateful that she has been such a terrific help with your work.

It was rather puzzlement over what purpose she thought she was serving in digging into the threats, and the strategy she proposed for following up her researches. It seemed to me, and to some others that her approach was unwise.

As Jonathan Edwards said on the thread where we discussed Valerie's blogs:
There may have been a death threat. There may have been rude comments. But that is irrelevant in the context of the manipulative nonsense produced by Peter White at Bristol claiming that these are an attack on science. Either they are attacks on people - which might be unfair but should be daily routine for psychiatrists and treated with compassion - or they are attacks on research. It is now clear that the attacks on the research are entirely valid so there is nothing for anyone to apologise for.
Click to expand...
https://www.s4me.info/threads/blog-...y-valerie-eliot-smith.7538/page-5#post-135885
 
dave30th said:
I'm only talking about the Wessely tape that Valerie wrote about. I'm not talking about any of the other alleged threats. In some cases you might want to keep information private for safety, or you might be advised by the police to do so. I have no knowledge of any of this stuff. But I trust Valerie. If she says she saw a video that had been sent to Wessely and it contained possibly criminal threats, then there was a video that was sent to Wessely that contained possibly criminal threats.
Click to expand...
Ah, we are talking about different incidences here, my bad

Esther12 said:
Unfortunately, the situation and prejudices surrounding ME/CFS means that the average sick patient, angry about the way they are being treated, is given much less leeway in how they can comment on those who have power over them than general members of the public are in how they comment on politicians and the like.

Things that we say, that would be utterly un-noteworthy coming from another group about some politician, can be used as a justification for dismissing our concerns and make life more difficult for other patients. It's worth pointing out the problems with this, but I also think it's worth being aware of the way in which we face higher costs than most groups for posting some expression of anger or frustration.
Click to expand...
Thats one way bullies keep themselves on top, by pretending to be the real victims and using double standards to keep their actual victims down.

strategist said:
I think it's perfectly possible that such a video was produced and planted there by the BPS people. They have fabricated evidence before (see Crawley's claim of having received a threatening letter). It's difficult to explain why such a video was not presented as evidence during the QMUL PACE data tribunal hearing, and why Chalder admitted that no threats had been made. She is a colleague of Wessely.
Click to expand...
That might be the one i am thinking of

In the end all this threat stuff is meant to keep us spinning our wheels and the real issues out of the spotlight which is their scientific malfeasance.
Its a common tactic used in national discourse and even politics.
We need to make sure we don't fall into their sandtrap and steer the conversation back to the real issues at hand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom