Nederlog

 

 May 1, 2011

 

me+ME: On medical sadism - 1

 

   "We never hurt each other but by error or    by malice." 
   (Sir Robert Chambers,
    possibly inspired by Dr. Johnson)

This is the first of what is meant to become a series on the subject of medical sadism, since I have learned that this is an important subject, that ought to get more attention and study than it gets, mostly because the medical men and women themselves rather do not discuss their own living colleagues, nor do they have an interest in speaking of abuses of their science, unless it happened long ago (and preferably far away).

Today's sections

1. Introduction
2. A little background about medical sadism
3. About sadism, medical and otherwise

1. Introduction

The present Nederlog is to provide some background to the subject of my title, that I first presented as a subject here, in 2010

namely, after learning about Wessely's, Sharpe's, White's, Reeves's, Jones', Bleijenberg's (not a medical person: a psychotherapist) and Van der Meer's doing and sayings around ME, that I - a psychologist in my early sixties with ME since my late twenties, like my ex-wife - had not known at all or so well before, and which appears an important part of the cause that I do not get any help whatsoever while having a serious illness according to the medical persons who know and researched me.

The reasons I did not know about this human scum - o yes! I live in a Calvinist country, and while neither a Calvinist nor a religious person, the Calvinists were quite right about one thing: Many men are far greater rotters, bastards, sadists, and degenerates than they like to hear publicly discussed, and in a country were for centuries everybody has been told from the pulpits that most of the audience deserves to go to hell, I certainly have the right to say so - were mainly these:

(1) After reading Bleijenberg's incredible intellectual and moral rot in his Ph.D. thesis ca. 1992 I had mostly turned away from reading about ME/CFS, immediately concluding that this was the sort of mad and cruel nincompoop that when the universities still were good never would have been admitted to a university and that his prose and person sickened me so much I wanted to avoid being exposed to this manner of "human being" and his awful pomo texts in any way, shape or form.
(2) I had till July 2009 only a slow telephone-modem to search the internet, and that telephone-modem, ever since the once excellent provider "xs4all.nl" was bought by Dutch Telecom aka KPN was extra-ordinarily lousy and slow, and (3) I relied for much of my information about ME/CFS on Ms. Ellen Goudsmit, who since has revealed herself as either most economical with the truth or in mental problems (or both, of cource)

And Ms. Goudsmit, like her friends professors Wesssely and White, is extra-ordinarily economical with so much as mentioning truths or information she personally does not like - see my Williams vs White + Feynman vs Wessely for the moral decency and scientific honesty of this systematic non-mentioning of any research in a field one pretends to be a specialist in, and pretends to inform others about, while simultaneously what one does inform others about is only that small part of what is happening in science that suits one's personal interests or prejudices, while publicly acting and posing as if any research that doesn't suit one's tastes or interests simply doesn't exist and never existed - while she is also quite pretentious about her mental and educational qualities, neither of which impress me positively at all. (I have had the same "education" in psychology she had, except that I did not study clinical psychology but cognitive psychology and methodology, and have always been very clear in public what an inferior education I and all students studying with me in the UvA received: Spiegeloog-columns - that incidentally Ms. Goudsmit, who knew of me through these very columns, never denied or contradicted or doubted, neither to me, nor in public, nor to anyone I know, namely until she got her degree and started pretending that she has all sorts of insights and knowledge mere laymen and ordinary mortals altogether must lack, for reason of lacking her education and degrees. Sorry Ms: that is utter baloney. [1]

2. A little background about medical sadism

In fact, I arrived at my subject of today it seems mainly because of dr. Francis Collins, the head of the US NIH, whom I mentioned repeatedly earlier in Nederlog e.g. here

And lest I am misunderstood: I do not at all think dr. Collins is a medical sadist - and those who know more about me should and can know that I am not afraid to say and write so, in public, if I were to believe it - but he is indirectly (co-)responsible for this Nederlog through this thread I found today on Phoenix rising

This mentions the

that I mentioned before in Nederlog, having learned about it last year. The Wikipedia article about it starts as follows (minus most links and notes you do find in the previous link)

The Tuskegee syphilis experiment (also known as the Tuskegee syphilis study or Public Health Service syphilis study) was an infamous clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972 in Tuskegee, Alabama by the U.S. Public Health Service to study the natural progression of untreated syphilis in poor, rural black men who thought they were receiving free health care from the U.S. government.

The Public Health Service, working with the Tuskegee Institute, began the study in 1932. Investigators enrolled in the study a total of 399 impoverished, African-American sharecroppers from Macon County, Alabama who had previously contracted syphilis before the study began. For participating in the study, the men were given free medical care, meals, and free burial insurance. They were never told they had syphilis, nor were they ever treated for it. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the men were told they were being treated for "bad blood," a local term used to describe several illnesses, including syphilis, anemia and fatigue.

If you don't know about this, it is well worth reading: It will not make you feel happier - unless you are a medical sadist, or are fit to be one - but it will give you a somewhat more realistic perspective on modern medical science and modern medical scientists - though I also like to qualify here, in two ways:

A. Because my ex-wife and I have been ill for so long, both she and I have seen a lot of medical persons, and because both she and I are intellectually gifted, and meanwhile also both titled psychologists, we soon concluded that most medical doctors we saw were neither highly gifted nor honest. If you are not yourself uncommonly intelligent and in the possession of relevant university degrees, it is not likely - if also you have not been ill for a long time - you will come to a similar conclusion, but I am afraid it is statistically true, if only because it also is statistically true that most men are neither particularly smart nor particularly moral or honest, and while medical doctors as a rule are more intelligent than the average, they are not supermen either.

B. Nevertheless, I do not believe most medical men and women are sadists - but I meanwhile have concluded that (i) some are and (ii) those who are will be attracted to medicine because precisely in medicine, as medical people, they get power over life and death of others on the strength of a university-degree, while (iii) only a very small percentage of the patients they meet will be able to make a rational and scientifically informed assessment of their probable capacities and motives. [2]

In any case: The Tuskegee syphilis experiment linked above (in Wikipedia: There is considerably more on it elsewhere, some of which is linked in that article) should make it quite clear what I have in mind with phrases like "medical sadism" - and it should be noted that one of the really frightening things about it is that it went on for forty years, in what's at least nominally both a democracy and a state of law, and without there being any war to give medical sadism a semblance of justification (as in WW II, though it also seems likely that in the Tuskegee-experiment racism played an important role).

Now back to the Phoenix Rising thread that triggered this Nederlog, where another US experiment involving syphilis and medical deception and sadism were involved, this time not involving US citizens but people from Guatamala - and I quote from the thread, including the bolding and red lettering:

The U.S. government ordered two independent investigations to uncover exactly what happened in Guatemala and to make sure current bioethics rules are adequate. They will be led by the prestigious Institute of Medicine and the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues.
While deliberately trying to infect people with serious diseases is abhorrent today, the Guatemalan experiment is not the only example from what National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Francis Collins on Friday called "a dark chapter in the history of medicine." Forty similar deliberate-infection studies were conducted in the United States during that period, Collins said.

So that is how dr. Francis Collins enters my subject - and before going on let me quote a little more to clarify what in fact has been going on in Guatemala, from the thread again:

In Guatemala, 696 men and women were exposed to syphilis or in some cases gonorrhea, through jail visits by prostitutes or, when that did not infect enough people, by deliberately inoculating them, reported Wellesley College historian Susan Reverby. Those who were infected were offered penicillin, but it was not clear how many were infected and how many were treated successfully.
She reported that the United States had gained permission from Guatemalan officials to conduct the study, but did not inform the experimental subjects.

As in Tuskegee, by the way.

In the same thread, I found an interesting link on the subject in Wikipedia

Here are the first three paragraphs of it, including the bolding and the links:

There have been numerous experiments performed on human test subjects in the United States that have been considered unethical, and were often performed illegally, without the knowledge, consent, or informed consent of the test subjects.

Many types of experiments have been performed including the deliberate infection of people with deadly or debilitating diseases, exposure of people to biological and chemical weapons, human radiation experiments, injection of people with toxic and radioactive chemicals, surgical experiments, interrogation/torture experiments, tests involving mind-altering substances, and a wide variety of others. Many of these tests were performed on children and mentally disabled individuals. In many of the studies, a large portion of the subjects were poor racial minorities or prisoners. Often, subjects were sick or disabled people, whose doctors told them that they were receiving "medical treatment", but instead were used as the subjects of harmful and deadly experiments.

Many of these experiments were funded by the United States government, especially the Central Intelligence Agency, United States military and federal or military corporations. The human research programs were usually highly secretive, and in many cases information about them was not released until many years after the studies had been performed.

And let me also quote a small passage from the Wikipedia lemma "Medical Ethics"

Six of the values that commonly apply to medical ethics discussions are:

  • Autonomy - the patient has the right to refuse or choose their treatment. (Voluntas aegroti suprema lex.)
  • Beneficence - a practitioner should act in the best interest of the patient. (Salus aegroti suprema lex.)
  • Non-maleficence - "first, do no harm" (primum non nocere).
  • Justice - concerns the distribution of scarce health resources, and the decision of who gets what treatment (fairness and equality).
  • Dignity - the patient (and the person treating the patient) have the right to dignity.
  • Truthfulness and honesty - the concept of informed consent has increased in importance since the historical events of the Doctors' Trial of the Nuremberg trials and Tuskegee Syphilis Study.

that may help clarify why I speak of "medical sadism" in relation to messrs. Wessely, Sharpe, White, Reeves, Jones, Bleijenberg (not a medical person: a psychotherapist) and Van der Meer:

I and other people with ME in Holland, England and the US have no effective right to choose treatments, and in fact are denied all treatments while forced into GET and CBT when in the dole, on the strength of lies by medical sadists like White and Sharpe; I and other people with ME in Holland, England and the US are not dealt with in our personal interests, but serve as the financial prey of the pseudo-scientific providers of quack- and quasi-treatment that only benefit these providers; I and other people with ME in Holland, England and the US have been very much harmed - and, as I am quite certain in my case and that of my ex: Because this much pleased the perversions of some of the medical sadists we met because we were ill; everybody with ME/CFS in Holland, England and the US is systematically and multiply victimized, as tax-payer, as voter, as citizen, as patient, as human being by denying persons with ME/CFS the necessary funding for real biomedical research into the causes of their disease; I and other people with ME in Holland, England and the US do not have any right on any human dignity - in fact, I must tolerate that the scum of Holland that is bureaucrat in Amsterdam screams in public that my mother is a dirty cunt-whore and I am a dirty queer because I say I am ill or because I protested against discrimination of others I was present at; the vast majority of the medical men and women my ex and I met have lied, lied, lied and lied (or if you prefer: posed, posed, and posed ad nauseam) - about their own relevant knowledge of medical science, probability, psychology, competence, and motives, and about what ailed my ex or me.

3. About sadism, medical and otherwise

In this section I will provide some generalities on sadism and some personal experiences.

First, my entry in my Philosophical Dictionary on the subject

Sadism: pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others or from causing others pain or misery.

The term 'sadism' is derived from the Marquis de Sade, who much exulted in sexual pleasure derived from the infliction of pain and of cruelty to others, and who wrote many books in praise of sadism, especially in the defined sexual sense.

When sadism is defined without necessary involvement of sexual pleasure, but in effect as the human-all-too-human joys derived from malice, it may be seen that sadism, thus defined, accounts for many human acts, especially against those whom the perpetrators dislike, consider as enemies, or believe to be inferior.

Indeed, there is much more sadism in human beings than  most are willing to admit: Very many people derive much pleasure from being in positions of power and by hurting, denigrating, demeaning or displeasing others. It probably does not arouse most of them sexually, but they wouldn't do it if it did not please them. And this kind of pleasure seems to be one of the strongest motivators of those who desire to be boss: To let others feel they are inferior.

"We never hurt each other but by error or by malice." 
   (Sir Robert Chambers, possibly inspired by Dr. Johnson)

Together with stupidity, sadism explains two famous and mostly correct observations on history:

"History is little else but the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind"
   (Gibbon)

"Presque toute l'Histoire n'est qu'une suite d'horreurs."
   (Chamfort)

For clearly most of the harm that human beings have done to human beings - millions upon millions killed, tortured, raped, exploited, starved, persecuted - was done on purpose, and willingly, and for the noblest sounding moral pretexts.

Accordingly, this 'human-all-too-human' desire to hurt, harm, demean, denigrate, abuse or exploit others is one of the normally unacknowledged forces of history, as is stupidity.

It is probably the normal human reaction to personal unhappiness: Make others suffer at least as much as one does oneself; demean those who seem better of than oneself, if one can do so without danger to oneself; and take vengeance for one's own pains, miseries and disappointments by wrecking even more of the same on the supposed enemies of one's society, or on social deviants or dissidents, since then one also gains moral credits easily, with the majority of one's peers.

Note that I am neither a Freudian nor so stupid as to reduce all human motivation to sex related things, for which reason I speak of sadism as malice:

When sadism is defined without necessary involvement of sexual pleasure, but in effect as the human-all-too-human joys derived from malice, it may be seen that sadism, thus defined, accounts for many human acts, especially against those whom the perpetrators dislike, consider as enemies, or believe to be inferior.

Second, this is not to say that there are no sexually motivated sadists, nor to say that sadism, malice, pestering, denigrating, discriminating etc. are simple mono-causal acts, for they rarely are, nor to say that most men or women are, in normal circumstances, sadistic or malicious, or look upon this with pleasure, though one should be not overly optimistic here: See Ordinary men, for some relevant facts underpinning the diagnosis that 

"History is little else but the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind" (Gibbon) [3]

This - in my eyes - true and lamentable diagnosis is not all, or for the most part, due to human sadism or malice, for much of it has other or contributory causes, such as stupidity, conformism, cruel or mad but widely believed religions or political ideologies, and indeed also solidarity and heroism in times of war and civil unrest.

Third, most men and women do not commonly derive much pleasure from sadism or malice, though all - except perhaps for born saints - do sometimes. But then some do, and these tend to be in social functions that help them indulge themselves where they can: Bureaucrats, prison-wardens, bailiffs, butchers, priests, clergy, and the military and police come to mind, for these are all functions where persons get personal power with little real control about the lives, chances and health of others, which is what sadists want. (So politics and medicine are two other fields this species may be expected to be more significantly present, than in, say, mathematics or music.)

Fourth, I do not know reliable statistics, but I do have an indication or two from my personal life:

As an adult, I have been ill most of my life, and have had to defend my human integrity and personal dignity against Amsterdam and Dutch bureaucrats some of whom I cannot regard other than as human beasts masquerading as deserving prominent Dutch Labour politicians or followers, simply from the palpable fact that my pain, poverty, misery and discrimination pleased them so very clearly so very much, and they loved to contribute to my pain, poverty, misery and discrimination to the very best of their possibilities and power, with gloating dedication also, under pretense they were working in the best of my personal interests, and I must be "a fascist", "a verbal terrorist" with "a dirty cunt-whore" as a mother and "a madman" as a father [4].

It is fairly common in Amsterdam and Holland, but not - yet - normal among bureaucrats, and what is in fact and by far the most frightening thing, is that the vast majority of Dutch and Amsterdam bureaucrats do cover up for their colleagues, even if they know these are criminals, or probably especially if they know they are criminals.

Next, as a child, I remember having been seriously puzzled when I was 6 or 7, because in the school where I was there were some boys and girls of my age who liked to search for spiders, and pull out their legs, which puzzled me, because while not liking spiders, I guessed they felt pain when one pulled out a leg (or two or three or four, as these playmates liked doing) and one condemned them to die, and I saw no reason to want to do that, especially not in that way.

This was in the order of 3-5 children in a fairly a-selective group of 80-100, and it was clearly what they liked doing, as a sort of game playing, and most others didn't, so I would guess that, in such an a-selective human group, 1 in 20 or so likes to do these things. [5]

Finally, as a teenager, mostly because my father had survived a series of German concentration-camps as a political prisoner, and made exhibitions about them, and had quite a few books, with illustrations, about them, I realized that in times of war and with dictatorial or authoritarian governments, what is little different from sadism may get institutionalized as bureaucratic or government policy: Hitler's concentration camps, Stalin's Gulag and Mao's re-education policies were quite evidently meant to terrorize people, and intended to take revenge on opponents and dissidents, since they could not be explained well by other reasons, such as economical ones, though this was also part of the motivation for Hitler and Stalin: cheap slave labour.

Meanwhile, I have not gotten much further with clarifying medical sadism, though the above given links to Unethical human experimentation in the United States and Medical Ethics should clarify rather a lot for most:

It exists; there are medical people who presumably became medical people or remained medical people to satisfy their perversions; this happens - as the first link shows - quite often, and as a seeming matter of course, also outside situations of war and inside (nominal or real) democratic countries with at least decent legal systems and freedom of the press and of speech; and if it is in any way organized, as it was in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China and indeed the US of Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy, it general is for "reasons of state" (<- Wikipedia).

But to conclude this for today, here is the Wikipedia on the subject of the severely dysfunctional minds and behaviours of messrs. Sharpe, White, Wessely c.s. - at least in my informed psychologist's and philosopher's eyes, with my life and chances ruined by their ommissions and commissions (and those of others, quite often similarly inclined):

There appears to be a genetic component to the disorder.[3]

Diagnosis                                                      

Proposed DSM III-R criteria

Sadistic personality disorder is:

A) A pervasive pattern of cruel, demeaning, and aggressive behavior, beginning by early adulthood, as indicated by the repeated occurrence of at least four of the following:
  1. has used physical cruelty or violence for the purpose of establishing dominance in a relationship (not merely to achieve some noninterpersonal goal, such as striking someone in order to rob him/her).
  2. Humiliates or demeans people in the presence of others.
  3. has treated or disciplined someone under his/her control unusually harshly.
  4. is amused by, or takes pleasure in, the psychological or physical suffering of others (including animals).
  5. has lied for the purpose of harming or inflicting pain on others (not merely to achieve some other goal).
  6. gets other people to do what he/she wants by frightening them (through intimidation or even terror).
  7. restricts the autonomy of people with whom he or she has a close relationship, e.g., will not let spouse leave the house unaccompanied or permit teenage daughter to attend social functions.
  8. is fascinated by violence, weapons, injury, or torture.
B) The behavior in A has not been directed toward only one person (e.g., spouse, one child) and has not been solely for the purpose of sexual arousal (as in sexual sadism).

[edit] Exclusion from DSM-IV

This disorder was dropped from DSM-IV for two reasons:[4]

  • because of scientific concerns, such as the relatively low prevalence rate of the disorder in many settings
  • for political reasons - sadistic personalities are most often male and it was felt that any such diagnosis might have the paradoxical effect of legally excusing cruel behaviour.

Sexual sadism that "causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning" is still in DSM-IV.

I do not think it should be hard to convince an honest and objective (!) court that this is what ails and motivates many a shrink, besides quite a lot of medical doctors my readers may have met, and especially motivates many shrinks concerned with or around ME/CFS (where they also all makes lots of money by) so I am not very amazed the DSM-IV excludes it:

Medical sadism seems to be an  occupational disease especially psychiatrists, psychotherapists and bureaucrats are prone to.

Finally, the DSM-IV reasoning escapes me totally, (because males are believed to be more often sadists than females, one should not put it in psychiatric diagnostic manuals?!?!) but then I have a rational and not a psychiatric mind, and I know a lot about the German and Soviet concentration camps, and about the classical Roman daily joys of going to the circuses, and seeing people thrown ad bestia or slowly tortured to death, and also can make my own guesses about why there is so much violence on TV in serials: Many human beings tend to approve easily of violence, or condone it, if it concerns those not of their own kind of group


Notes

[1] Having read quite a lot of psychiatry and psychotherapist's prose myself (mostly as examples of pseudoscience: See my McCulloch vs. Wessely) I do know she had a difficult and disappointing life, and the background is in Adler.

[2] In case you may harbour illusions about this: I do believe most medical people "are in it for the money" (and the status, and the work), but since that is the normal human motive to work, I do not find that disquieting - that is, as long as their functioning is objectively monitored by impartial colleagues, who know what a good medical doctor should and should not do.

[3] Sixteen million plus Dutchmen will probably tell you that Gibbon must be "a fascist" without any "respect" for ordinary men and their common goodness and intelligence. (Many of the best and brightest Dutchmen - in this day and age -told - screamed at - me so when I tried to tell them that they were of the species of concentration camp making animals.)

[4] This was literally said so to me by Amsterdam bureaucrats of the family names Zegerius, Edelaar, Van de Berg, Lont, Segers, and Vlas, who also told me I am a liar and a malingerer, and who could and can do so because (i) every Dutch bureaucrat except very rare ones like Fred Spijker (a Dutchman who refused to falsify the facts about faulty handgrenades that had killed Dutch military men in training, and in punishment was for many years depicted by every bureaucrat, parliamentarian and minister as insane, irresponsible and - worst crime - uncollegial) covers up for every Dutch bureaucrat regardless of what illegality indecency, or crime, simply for being "a colleague" (Dutchies should read here: Hoe word ik een Nederlands Topambtenaar?), in fact rather like medical colleagues cover up for each other against their patients' interests, as a matter of highly desirable moral course, and (ii) those who maltreated me probably were all members of the Dutch Labour Party, and had been instructed to do so, because I criticize the Amsterdam's mayor, aldermen and municipal police's protection of the Amsterdam drugs mafia's interests and trade: The previous three Amsterdam mayors and their aldermen, and the last three commissioners of police of Amsterdam all have strong interests I die before I can testify in a court in Straatsburg.

Incidentally, my father was said to be "mad" by several Amsterdam bureaucrats, including one medical doctor in 1984, because he was in the Dutch resistance - which is true very few Dutchmen were: Six times more were volontary members of S.S., for example.

Again, there is no legal redress against such bastards, unless one takes the law in one's own hands. (Dutchmen should check out what was done to Fred Spijkers and Ad Bos to cow them, shut them up, blacken their character, or drive them to suicide - and again, the most amazing thing (for somebody with my genes) is that most Dutchmen stand by, gawk, turn away, and leave the victims to their persecuters, probably because most Dutchmen are convinced that "being normal" is the supreme moral value in a Dutchman's life, and persons who criticize authorities are not normal, if the matter is one of important human principle, and not about sport or the media).

[5] Meanwhile in my sixties, I can quote more evidence to similar effect, but stress again that I do not know any good and reliable statistics about the prevalence of sadism and malice, and the sadism and malice of common men and women, like their sexual acts, is a subject that it is quite difficult to get good and honest statistics about.


P.S. Corrections, if any are necessary, have to be made later.

Terminological note, also in view of dr. Collins' remark above: From Google it would seem that I am the originator of the term "medical sadism", while from the remarks of dr. Collins I infer it - nevertheless - is far more common than well-meaning people would like to believe or perhaps even like to know (pleasant illusions feeling nicer than painfiul truths) - but pray:

If Lord Acton's "All power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely" is true and explanatory of much that rulers do, how can it fail to be explanatory of a prime danger medical people may fall prey to, if they didn't study medicine in the first place to exercise power over others while having high status and high income?

And no: I do not say this is true for most medical folks - but I do say the more quacky kinds of healers, medically degreed or not, are especially prone to it, and the scientific medical research of ME/CFS has been poisoned by psychiatric sadists for decades, and since 1988 at the latest.

Those who want to take me to court - are you there at all, o lying bullshitters Sharpe, Weisel, Reeves etc. - are very welcome, and can expect very large claims for damages. And those who remain silent on the topic - are you there, Mike Sharpe, Si Weisel, Billie Reeves etc.?! - consent that I have diagnosed their characters - the lack or perversion thereof - too painfully truly for them to dare to risk discussing it with me, in or outside a court:

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

And yes, I do agree that in the cases of the gentlemen mentioned (and others mentioned on my site in this context of explaining my pain and discrimination) "There appears to be a genetic component to the disorder" and the reason these perverts commit their perversities are well indicated by Frankfurt's "On Bullshit"

It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose. (Harry Frankfurt)

They get a personal kick out of it; it is their career; and it makes them and their kinds rich as well, all in the name of "evidence based science", because there are many more suckers than shrinks.

See also: me+ME: The gentle art of bullshitting the public for money


As to ME/CFS (that I prefer to call ME):

1. Anthony Komaroff

Ten discoveries about the biology of CFS (pdf)

2. Malcolm Hooper THE MENTAL HEALTH MOVEMENT:  
PERSECUTION OF PATIENTS?
3. Hillary Johnson

The Why

4. Consensus (many M.D.s) Canadian Consensus Government Report on ME (pdf)
5. Eleanor Stein

Clinical Guidelines for Psychiatrists (pdf)

6. William Clifford The Ethics of Belief
7. Paul Lutus

Is Psychology a Science?

8. Malcolm Hooper Magical Medicine (pdf)

Short descriptions:

1. Ten reasons why ME/CFS is a real disease by a professor of medicine of Harvard.
2. Long essay by a professor emeritus of medical chemistry about maltreatment of ME.
3. Explanation of what's happening around ME by an investigative journalist.
4. Report to Canadian Government on ME, by many medical experts.
5. Advice to psychiatrist by a psychiatrist who understands ME is an organic disease
6. English mathematical genius on one's responsibilities in the matter of one's beliefs:
   "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence".
7. A space- and computer-scientist takes a look at psychology.
8. Malcolm Hooper puts things together status 2010.
 


    "Ah me! alas, pain, pain ever, forever!

No change, no pause, no hope! Yet I endure.
I ask the Earth, have not the mountains felt?
I ask yon Heaven, the all-beholding Sun,
Has it not seen? The Sea, in storm or calm,
Heaven's ever-changing Shadow, spread below,
Have its deaf waves not heard my agony?
Ah me! alas, pain, pain ever, forever!
"
     - (Shelley, "Prometheus Unbound") 


    "It was from this time that I developed my way of judging the Chinese by dividing them into two kinds: one humane and one not. "
     - (Jung Chang)

 


See also: ME -Documentation and ME - Resources


Maarten Maartensz (M.A. psy, B.A. phi)

        home - index - top - mail