\ 

Nederlog

 

8 maart 2010

 

Professor Malcom Hooper answers a "NICE" "reply"



I am not well at all, but there is an interesting and good reply by professor Hooper to be found on the Phoenix-forum. See my ME: Excellent letter by professor Malcom Hooper + "NICE" "reply" of the day before yesterday, with professor Hooper's excellent letter followed by the impolite snub by Professor Sir Michael Rawlins FMedSci, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (a.k.a. NICE) in "reply".

Here is professor Malcolm Hooper's reply, quoted from the Phoenix-forum and as before with some personal information about professor Hooper not reproduced:


PERMISSION TO REPOST:

This is Professor Malcolm Hooper's reply to Professor Sir Michael Rawlins' unscientific refusal to address the biomedical evidence that exists about ME/CFS:


From Malcolm Hooper Ph.D.,B.Pharm.,C.Chem.,MRIC
Emeritus Professor of Medicinal Chemistry

(..)

05 March 2010


Dear Sir Michael,


Thank you for your letter and the returned copy of Magical Medicine which I found very disappointing and disconcerting.

To be faced, yet again, with the denial and dismissal of the comprehensive amount of biomedical evidence about ME that has been presented in some 5000 published and peer-reviewed papers is disturbing and has sinister connotations devoid of any compassion.

Failure to consider this evidence means that any policy towards people with ME will be “built upon sand” in defiance of the basic principles of scientific inquiry and any consideration for very sick people, their families and carers.

As a fellow medical scientist I find the continuing denial and unwillingness to face the biomedical evidence both puzzling and incomprehensible.

We know Government is committed to funding research that is perceived to support policy, an attitude that has, in this case, lead to lack of scientific rigour, integrity and humanity in order to avoid developing a policy based on the biomedical evidence available in this complex and difficult area of medicine.


With best wishes


Malcolm Hooper


 Indeed! And as to

Failure to consider this evidence means that any policy towards people with ME will be “built upon sand” in defiance of the basic principles of scientific inquiry and any consideration for very sick people, their families and carers.

As is both immoral and irrational - but one positive conclusion may also be drawn from Michael Rawlins' answer, or rather lack of it, and his refusal to act and answer according to "the basic principles of scientific inquiry": What cannot be rationally answered is not rationally answered - and

Qui tacet consentit.
Qui ne dit mot consent.
El que calla otorga.
Chi tace acconsente.
Den som tier samtykker.

Here is the text that Professor Sir Michael Rawlins FMedSci of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (a.k.a. NICE) by refusing to reply rationally to its many arguments and very well-laid out presentation of evidence concerning ME by a real scientist: “Magical Medicine, how to make a disease disappear” - and the answer is: such diseases disappear because the health authorities are knowingly immoral and irrational. And the patients' lives and rights disappear in an ocean of misery, pain and poverty, because that is profitable for health-insurance companies (and the NHS in Great Britain) and because there are so many people and health-authorities quite as human-all-too-human as Professor Sir Michael Rawlins FMedSci of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence:

"We have all sufficient strength to support the misfortunes of others"
   -- Rochefoucauld.

Professor Sir Michael Rawlins FMedSci of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence is an honourable man! By refusing to refute professor Hooper's fine text, Sir Michael consents that all of it is true, and that he is unable to refute it nor to answer it rationally. For otherwise, being an honourable men, he would and should have done so, given his education and function and personal responsibility to behave as a moral and rational person and medical scientist.


P.S. And here is a link to a good interview with the mother of Sophia Mirza in the Irish Independent of today, by Sarah Spendiff, that shows what professors Rawlins and Wessely stand for, and why professor Hooper disagrees.

Maarten Maartensz

        home - index - top - mail