It's
interesting to read that Brian R Martin deleted his "review in praise of
the book", because he "got tired of" "abusive"
comments from people who would not "consider anything other than their
fixed views."
By writing this he shows no insight into the real problem.
Let me just quote what Mr Martin wrote himself in his deleted review: "and referring to the authority of the Countess of Mar, herself a sufferer of chronic fatigue syndrome, who without any apparent scientific/medical training quotes papers she undoubtedly has not read and who would not understand even if she had,"
So no wonder that people responded to this. I responded by saying: "That's an interesting observation, so if you don't like the evidence which is quoted, and you don't have any arguments to counter the evidence, you just say someone has no "apparent scientific/medical training", doesn't read articles and wouldn't be able to understand them anyway. So you just become very personal. That's not the right way to have a scientific debate or for science to move forward and you as a scientist should know that." I've since learnt that Mr Martin is an emeritus professor in physics in his mid seventies which makes his remarks about the Countess even sadder and more unprofessional.
As far as Mr Martins remark that people should "consider anything other than their fixed views" it's Mr Martin, Dr O'Sullivan and many 5 star commenters of her book, who refuse to consider anything other than their fixed views that ME is psychosomatic for which there is no evidence, why, because evidence that something is psychosomatic or psychological doesn't exist, and he refuses to accepts that a few days ago the Institute of Medicine and the National Institute of Health published the final version of their reports on ME/CFS, analysing more than 9000 research papers, concluding that ME is a devastating multisystem disease, and not a psychiatric or psychological one.
I always thought that physics was a science of evidence but Mr Martin's refusal to accept the overwhelming amount of evidence that ME is a devastating physical disease, is another reason why Mr Martin removed his review. It is clear that he as a professor cannot accept that there are mere mortals/others who know more about something than he does. And if people point out the evidence to him which he can't counter with any arguments because they don't exist, he becomes very personal as he did with the Countess for example, as if he is saying, how dare you say something to a professor.
By writing this he shows no insight into the real problem.
Let me just quote what Mr Martin wrote himself in his deleted review: "and referring to the authority of the Countess of Mar, herself a sufferer of chronic fatigue syndrome, who without any apparent scientific/medical training quotes papers she undoubtedly has not read and who would not understand even if she had,"
So no wonder that people responded to this. I responded by saying: "That's an interesting observation, so if you don't like the evidence which is quoted, and you don't have any arguments to counter the evidence, you just say someone has no "apparent scientific/medical training", doesn't read articles and wouldn't be able to understand them anyway. So you just become very personal. That's not the right way to have a scientific debate or for science to move forward and you as a scientist should know that." I've since learnt that Mr Martin is an emeritus professor in physics in his mid seventies which makes his remarks about the Countess even sadder and more unprofessional.
As far as Mr Martins remark that people should "consider anything other than their fixed views" it's Mr Martin, Dr O'Sullivan and many 5 star commenters of her book, who refuse to consider anything other than their fixed views that ME is psychosomatic for which there is no evidence, why, because evidence that something is psychosomatic or psychological doesn't exist, and he refuses to accepts that a few days ago the Institute of Medicine and the National Institute of Health published the final version of their reports on ME/CFS, analysing more than 9000 research papers, concluding that ME is a devastating multisystem disease, and not a psychiatric or psychological one.
I always thought that physics was a science of evidence but Mr Martin's refusal to accept the overwhelming amount of evidence that ME is a devastating physical disease, is another reason why Mr Martin removed his review. It is clear that he as a professor cannot accept that there are mere mortals/others who know more about something than he does. And if people point out the evidence to him which he can't counter with any arguments because they don't exist, he becomes very personal as he did with the Countess for example, as if he is saying, how dare you say something to a professor.
As far as
the review by Richard Gipps "rgtgipps" is concerned, who writes
that ME "is best understood psychologically" and that patients with
this disease have "frequent difficulty shown in accepting the possibility
of psychological origin and maintenance" and that sufferers "from
other debilitating conditions who are often far more ready to accept the
possible impact of stress".
Those two last remarks however are 2 different things. Anybody healthy or ill knows that stress can have an impact but that has nothing to do with the underlying problems in ME, or to use Mr Gibbs his words, with the "origin and maintenance" of ME.
It's like saying to people with Parkinson's that they should go to a psychologist instead of treating them with anti Parkinson medication. And if they start to complain you just say that they have difficulty in accepting the possibility of psychological origin and maintenance, ignoring all the evidence that Parkinson is a physical disease.
Or to quote exercise physiologist Professor Keller, who wrote in January 2015:
"Given what we have learned in the past eight years about this illness, it is intellectually embarrassing to suggest that ME is a psychological illness."
There is one more interesting observation and that is that doctor O'Sullivan is from UCL London and surprise surprise, Mr Martin, emeritus professor, is from UCL London as well.
For your information, I am a medical doctor, to be more precise a GP. And it's really sad to see that an emeritus professor in physics, ie Mr Martin, but also another doctor, ie neurologist Dr O'Sullivan, ignore all the evidence that what they say is wrong, and as you know doctors and professors should not do that, and that Dr O'Sullivan hasn't done her homework. Which is even sadder because in this day and age you can do most of it at home, behind your computer, articles are accessible via PubMed and many are open access these days. Meaning everybody can read them, free of charge.
Those two last remarks however are 2 different things. Anybody healthy or ill knows that stress can have an impact but that has nothing to do with the underlying problems in ME, or to use Mr Gibbs his words, with the "origin and maintenance" of ME.
It's like saying to people with Parkinson's that they should go to a psychologist instead of treating them with anti Parkinson medication. And if they start to complain you just say that they have difficulty in accepting the possibility of psychological origin and maintenance, ignoring all the evidence that Parkinson is a physical disease.
Or to quote exercise physiologist Professor Keller, who wrote in January 2015:
"Given what we have learned in the past eight years about this illness, it is intellectually embarrassing to suggest that ME is a psychological illness."
There is one more interesting observation and that is that doctor O'Sullivan is from UCL London and surprise surprise, Mr Martin, emeritus professor, is from UCL London as well.
For your information, I am a medical doctor, to be more precise a GP. And it's really sad to see that an emeritus professor in physics, ie Mr Martin, but also another doctor, ie neurologist Dr O'Sullivan, ignore all the evidence that what they say is wrong, and as you know doctors and professors should not do that, and that Dr O'Sullivan hasn't done her homework. Which is even sadder because in this day and age you can do most of it at home, behind your computer, articles are accessible via PubMed and many are open access these days. Meaning everybody can read them, free of charge.
So therefore the conclusion is that Dr O'Sullivan's
chapter about ME is intellectually embarrassing and should be removed from the
book.
No comments:
Post a Comment