1. M.E. + my eyes
a copy from the orginal to NOTEBOOK.
I insert the copy here for ease of
reference - the idea being that Nederlog 1012 continues after August
with NOTEBOOK, which is easier to maintain for me, because of the
problems with my eyes that started
in May 2012.
my eyes and the B12 protocol and M.E.
My eyes are
still not worth much, as
before. I have
stopped my B12 protocol now for 5 days, for which see Nederlog
but it does not seem to make a noticeable difference.
The diagnosis in my case is keratoconjunctivitis
sicca, as part of Sjoegren's
Syndrome, for which see the internet. There is some help with Duratears, but so far no cure.
Syndrome is prevalent
but then both are diseases or syndromes of unknown cause, in real
medical science. In psychiatric pseudoscience at least and probably
indeed like any disease, ailment or problem is declared
to be a psychiatric ailment: "psychosomatic", "somatoform disorder",
and especially so when the disease is not in the medical handbooks, or
not quite clear, or the patient is not absolutely average in almost all
being a psychologist with M.E.
As it happens, I am a psychologists who fell ill on Jan 1, 1979, with
Epstein-Barr, in real medicine the most common precursor of M.E., as
did my then wife. We remained both together and ill till 1984, when we
as not to go both to pieces from no help and medical discrimination.
Nevertheless, eventually we both finished our studies (psychology) with
degree, which in my case was excellent.
What conceivable reason did
or I have to claim we are ill?!.
We were very happy, we lived together only since 5 months, having a
student flat for couples; we were in the first year of our university
studies; we were both very intelligent and could expect an excellent
career; and being ill, in any way, was very
much against our interests and
In brief: There was no rational
empirical reason whatsoever for us to pretend
to be ill or to falsely believe
to be ill, other than that we really fell ill - eventually with a
disease that real
medical science does not have bio-markers for.
Thhen again, such bio-markers do
Epstein-Barr, which is what started our problems, that then never
disappeared - indeed as if we both got stuck somewhere between being
quite ill with Epstein Barr and recuperating from it, for some reasons
medical science has not found, and will never
find unless and until it starts to take people with M.E. serious and
scientifically researches their problems - and not by the
pseudo-science that is psychiatry, but by real medical science.
reason do psychiatrists or medical doctors
have to claim she and I were
not ill with a real disease but ill with an imagined disease, namely
one due to our "dysfunctional belief systems"?!
psychiatrists have an obvious monetary motive, they always refuse to
discuss, even if it
is THE reason they are in
professionals: It adds patients to their kind of heallth professionals
or to themselves, and thereby incomes, and also easy and safe
are much easier to (mis)treat
and much safer to
deal with, than are schizophrenics, melancholics, manic depressives and
almost any other kind of clearly insane, difficult but physically healthy
people. There is not much of a danger in telling a really ill person he
is not really ill: He can't beat you up for behaving like a cruel
bastard! He lacks the energy to go to court for medical malfeasance!
Besides, medical folks in general seem to find it hard to admit that
they simply do not know
things, quite unlike Hippocrates, who literally
unlike the principle "First do no harm",
or as he himself put it literally
and even better:
"The physician must...have two special
objects in view with regard to disease, namely, to do good or to do no
harm" (Bk. I, Sect. 11, trans. Adams, Greek: ἀσκέειν,
περὶ τὰ νουσήματα, δύο, ὠφελέειν, ἢ μὴ βλάπτειν).
that is in
dire need of the
do not pretend to know when
you do not know":
Most medical doctors seem to like to label one's complaints somehow, by
some label in their textbooks, rather than honestly and simply admit
"sorry - I don't know" - which
in fact is in
very many cases, also outside medicine, the most rational answer to
many questions and also often is the most honest and most moral
Secondly, note that - effectively - the claim by anyone that you are insane
or malingering or incapable of rational thought (viz. you are a
"neurasthenic", "psychosomatic", "somatoformer") is slander, defamation and character assassination, and an offense against one's human and personal
dignity, especially if
all the evidence
there is for it, as was true for of my ex and me, was that we claimed
keep feeling ill
- muscle aches, very little energy, unable to walk for
more than a few hundreds of meters, not being able to stand for more
than a quarter of an hour, always tired - while there were no standard
tests that revealed a known illness. Also we did that in a situation -
students on a loan - in which being ill had no advantage for us
whatsoever, and very many problems, such as being unable to attend
lectures, examinations and practica. (In fact, we did these
nevertheless, but indeed with great difficulties, and not always at the
first or second opportunity, because we then were too ill to do so.)
Now it ought to be obvious, although many doctors behave and speak as
if they pretend to themselves, and certainly to others, that they have
both a very firm claim on great personal moral integrity and on almost
perfect medical diagnostic skills, that this can't be really true in
general, and that, besides there are good reasons to assume that if the
person who is slandering and defaming one looks, talks and behaves as
an arrogant medical doctor that he or she may have started to study
medicine because that is precisely the one profession that much appeals
conscious, half-conscious and unconcious intelligent sadists:
persons who are ill are only mentally diseased provides the
psychiatrists with income with promises to cure; it
provides other medical doctors the flattering delusion that they are
omniscient, and can positively diagnose any complaint they do not know
how to diagnose from their textbooks as if "therefore"
it "must" have a psychiatric cause, and then to proceed letting the
get socially and financially destroyed.
For one of the most easily foreseeable common social consequences of
medically labelling a patient as a "somatoformer" is that, therefore,
all sorts of help ill people do get will be denied
to them, by bureaucrats, health insurances, and indeed also often
friends and family: "The doctor says you're mad - who are you to
presume to know better?!"
And as I
said, it gives persons with a medical or psychological degrees who very
well may have
a - possibly unconscious - sadistic inclination
all the joys of hurting and
harming others, and of getting
paid for it as well, and of
not being found out and
not being contradicted because they are supposed to be medical or
psychological authorities, what with their degrees.
is the more plausible as an explanation for the behavior and opinions
of quite a few (though certainly not all) medical folk I have seen
because of my M.E. since the followng alternative is or ought to be obvious to anyone with any
and any decent morality, such as any medical doctor and any
psychologist fit to practive must have:
Either say one does not
the cause of the patience pains and lack of energy, if that patient is
not manifestly insane, as the vast majority of persons with M.E. -
there are estimated to be more than 15 million of them -
is not, or else do some
serious reading, e.g. in the material in my M.E.-resources,
do a proper medical
and personal diagnosis of a patient with the symptoms of M.E., and not
one consisting of 10 minutes of mere talk, and make
a medical diagnosis to the effect that either that the patient is
really ill but of an unknown disease or that the
patient has M.E. and indeed is ill.
That is realistic,
rational moral medical science, that conforms to the
medical and moral principle of "First
do no harm".
diagnosis of persons with the symptoms of M.E. (<- medical
diagnostic tools in pdf, by 14 medical doctors) and
without evident known psychiatric ailment (and indeed possibly with: There
even are psychiatrists with M.E. (<-a book in pdf by such a one)
is bound to be sadistic, consciously
or unconsciously, and especially so
since the person making the diagnosis (i) should know
and usually does know that it will do much harm the patient, and (ii)
clearly on the medical and financial principle of "We're only in it for the money",
while (iii) it is clearly not
behaving as a good and moral medical doctor should - "First do no harm" - but as a fraud, who pretends
positive knowledge where he or she has
none, and who abuses a medical degree, for money, for kicks, or because
of indifference to the predictable and occurring suffering of patients.
For a real
medical scientist who is moral and who is not out to harm
people, and who is not out to denigrate them, or to pretend knowledge
where he or
she has none, and who is not somehow compensating secretly for harm
done to him or her, has no intellectual or moral reason to abuse his or
medical authority to slander and denigrate persons, and to stick
psychiatric labels on them that trivialize their suffering and that
socially impossible to get the help ill people are entitled to.
Whoever labels a person with the symptoms of M.E. or fibromyalgia, who
does not show evidence of serious delusions or socially dangerous
practices as a psychiatric case and who has a medical or
psychological degree is a dangerous incompetent or a dangerous liar,
who behaves as a sadist, though he or she may not know this or choose
to deny the evidence.
So yes, being a psychologist myself, who never could do anything with
his excellent degree in psychology (for that is what it happens to be:
I do have the degrees that would have gotten me a university career had
I been physically healthy, and I got my degrees while being ill with
It seems to
me that most medical doctors I have met because of my complaints with
M.E. were dishonest, incompetent or sadistic, and must all have known
that they were lying
when they said it must be "psychosomatic" if they
were not able to explain it otherwise - indeed unless they were
themselves quite deluded about their motives to be in their profession.
And to finish this diatribe, based on 34 years of nearly continuous
effective help - in which indeed I also have met some good doctors, who
not lie, and did not pretend to have positive knowledge they knew or
and could know they did not have:
The diagnosis that one's physical
suffering - for that is what my ex
and I complained of - is "psychosomatic" or "psychiatric" is a lie or an article of quasi-religious faith
that is both immoral and unscientific, and no more
"rational" than the claim
that one's physical suffering is caused by ones
sins and the devil.
Also, in the case of my ex and myself, and in the case of millions of
others with complaints like us, indeed also regularly with excellent
university degrees, and also sometimes themselves psychologists,
psychiatrists, orn medical doctors, the very bitter fact is that ALL
the medical folks that diagnose on as "psychosomatic" did so on the
basis of NO research whatsoever, or only on the basis of some standard
blood tests, without
ever trying to find out more than a brief diagnostic consultation in
the doctor's own practice could produce "in evidence":
It is like being
judged a mad sinner by a priest in the Holy Church Of Psychiatric
Medicine, on the ground that one does not believe as the one who is
socially, personally and medically abusing one.
It is an abuse of medical authority in the case of medical doctors, for
they cannot possibly know that they know all there is to know about all
possible diseases, and they can and usually do know that their
diagnosis that one is "a somatoformer" will in effect put one on the
social rubbish heap of those who deserve no help because they brought
their probllems on themselves by dysfunctional
belief system". It is clear
and manifest sadism that is in evident clear confllct with the moral
duty of a medical doctor to "First do no harm".
Indeed what one finds, if one has years or decades of M.E. without any
help and with many insolent defamations of one's character, personal
integrity, intellectual abilities, and human dignity is that a
part of medicine and most of psychiatry is much more like Edgar
Allan Poe´s clinic of Dr. Tarr and Professor Feather than like real
medical science that "First does no harm": In psychiatry all too often
the madmen and the sadists run the asylums and make the diagnoses.
and Dr Ewen
it pays well, it gives many kicks, for those who like those things,
perhaps unconsciously, and the perpetrators
can prance around as "medical" or "psychological" authorities because
have a degree of that kind, and most of their victims do not:
"The mild and the
long-suffering may suffer forever
in this world. As long as the patient will suffer, the cruel will kick."
-- Sidney Smith
especially if it pays a medical, psychiatric or psychological fee.
statistics and medicine
lies, there are damned lies, and there is statistics."
think the saying is Disraeli's, and my eyes are too problematic to
check it. In any case, it is a fine saying and a real insight: Few
techniques have been as much and as subtly abused to mislead,
misrepresent, or indeed outright lie as statistics.
The reason is mostly that if well and honestly used, statistics are
powerful techniques for summarizing many data to useful abstracts from
the data, and also powerful techniques for testing hypotheses, but
precisely because they are mathematical and summary and, as regards to
hypotheses testing subtle and difficult to understand fully, or to
refute easily, on the basis of relevant knowledge, they are
very easy to abuse.
Besides, they are quite often abused unintentionally:
scientists, including psychologists, may have had some education to do
statistical hypotheses testing, but then that is of the cook book
variety, that is, without understanding the real thing, mathematically
and methodologically, while applying recipes and rules from their
introductions to statistics.
are six points about statistics, that are not as widely known and
appreciated as they should - and I speak as one who has been reading
and studying rather a lot in the foundations of probability theory and
statistics, because these mathematical techniques are interesting, if
well and honestly applied very useful, and sometimes revealing in ways
no other treatment of data could produce, and also independently
interesting as mathematics or as techniques of human reasoning.
The foundations of both probability theory - regardless from its
applications - and of statistics are in many fundamental respects quite
unclear and unclarified.
is a basic fact any serious student in the subject of probability
theory knows, and I may restrict myself to that, because statistics is
applied probability theory, and is the reason there are many different
conceptions what probability is, and how probability should be used for
the purpose of statistics.
Those who want to know more about this, and have some understanding of
mathematics, should consult T. Fine, "Theories of probability".
(1) Statistical distributions
in general are based on
assumptions of independence that are introduced for mathematical
convenience but may not be true in fact.
The general point is that
to do it without
independence is mathematically impossible. This may often be innocuous
- a somewhat misfitted statistical distribution is a lot more useful
that none at all, as with maps
of territories -
but that is the fact. (There are quite a few distributions, and the
mathematical wizardry involved varies. They all involve assumptions, that may
not hold in fact, rather as with Euclidean geometry.)
statistical distributions - I
found to my dismay - seem to be modelled after mathematical
distributions, that do empirically hold, or mostly so, for simple
invariant physical things, like iron balls dropped in Galton
boards, that tend to neatly conform, on statistical average (!), to
what they should be mathematically. Idem with shuffling playing cards,
and drawing balls from urns.
main reason this is the case is the cook book approach all sciences
that are not thoroughly mathematical rely on to teach statistics to
their students - which also is hardly avoidable, save for a few with
real mathematical interests and real mathematical competence - and even
then both of the previous points remain true.
One problem with (3) is:
(3) In living things
all sorts of internal
processes are interdependent in all sorts of ways and strengths.
So... when I read, as I
did, that (paraphrasing) "the
statistics were quite good, with a sufficient sample of 37 patients", I
am feeling a bit flabbergasted: Even if indeed this is the best they
can do, mathematically, the assurance
they feel is totally unjustified, since in fact the mathematical
sufficiency is based on a mathematics that is at best known to be true
of simple invariant things like nearly identical iron balls.
Since there are very many possible reasons why living things may vary a
lot in their behaviour in similar circumstances, due to their having
partially unique constitutions or experiences, one needs larger samples
than are fit in the study of nearly identical balls, and their averages
and spreadings in various conditions.
The above also applies to
the crazy stories on 1
boring old man's site about the statistical research done on the
newer anti-depressives, except that these seem also to be intentionally flawed,
sometimes at least. (Or else the statistics that are published are only
reported if significant, and not if not, which also is - very common -
fraudulence: To get at the truth one needs
the outcomes of all proper
empirical tests, and not just those that support a theory or a product.)
apart from fraudulence, data manipulation and mathematical problems,
statistical testing tends to test a hypothesis ("something is so and
so") against a null hypothesis ("everything is distributed as per a
known standard distribution") in terms of 1 in 10 (90%), 1 in 20 (95%),
or 1 in a 100 ("99%" - "virtually certain" in social science land),
normally meaning that what is found in fact, fits in the presumed
distribution, in those fractions of cases. (This is what "level of
significance" tends to mean in these contexts: That no more than 1 in
100, 1 in 20, or 1 in 10 satisfy the distribution that is assumed as
normal, and that therefore, as - say with the XMRV-statistics, in 2009
- if in (reported) fact 2 out of 3 of those in the sample show what
would be so only in
1 in 10 or 1 in 20 cases if the theory was false, one has "a
significant finding", and a ground to believe the theory has been
supported by the facts that were found: 2 out of 3 as per the theory,
or 1 out of 20 if the theory is not true.)
Apart from the shortcomings mentioned so far, this kind of testing is
often done poorly, and the tests used may not at all be the best kind
of tests for those data or subjects to get at the truth. Also, the
levels of significance used may be - and usually are - not adapted to the importance of the
applications of their theoretical results if the theory happens
to be false: If - say - the
results are signicant on one of the levels mentioned, which are those
typically used, the value of the case of failure may be quite extreme,
and especially so in medical
If you don't know what Softenon
is, a search on the internet will show you what horrors "mathematically
sufficient statistics" may lead to.
again, as I said before, but as bears stressing in view of e.g. the
Softenon drama and the importance of safe and effective medicines for
patients, especially if the medicines they are prescribed are highly
profitable to their producers and these days also quite often to the
doctors who prescribe them, for a percentage:
(4) one must realize that
especially social scientists,
but also medical folks, rarely really understand the statistics
they use, and that especially the social scientists usually want "a
significant result" (i.e. one of the above three), to have a
Indeed, in fact the
mathematics at the basis of
statistical testing is quite sophisticated, not at all easy, not at all
explained for social scientists, and in fact, because of (1) and other
reasons, much more doubtful than most folks using these tests
are aware of, even if they are totally honest, and worked by the book,
as well as they could.
And besides, social scientists and medical researchers tend to be
interested far more in getting and publishing significant results
rather than publishing the statistically non-signifiicant but logically
quite important results their statistical tests of their hypotheses
That is to say:
(5) In psychology and
sociology, at least, often
distributions and tests are used that are not the best for the
case at hand mathematically or methodologically, to find out what is
really the case, but to get a publishable paper.
I have seen this myself
both in published papers, and
also in actual fact, where I have heard psychologists researching
education in school children in Holland repeatedly say "Let's throw a
chi-square over it, to get a significant result" - and this chi-squared
test is indeed a statistical distribution and test that is prone
to show "significant" results, also where that may be of no factual
This happened in Amsterdam, in the Kohnstamm Institute in 1978,
supposedly a high-reputation institute. It was clear intentional
fraud, and was the first example of this that I saw
heard in psychology. I worked there then as a typist, having been
removed for the first time from the university, because my grant was
withdrawn, because the study adviser of philosophy had advised me
wrongly, probably on purpose: He was a queer freak in all senses of
that term, who for some reason hated me from the beginning, and who
also had advised me "mistakenly" the year before, which led to my
missing a grant, thus forcing me to accept a loan.
The psychologists working in that institute, who were freely
fraudulence - using tests likely to be significant, rather than tests
likely to reveal what is true - in my hearing, thought I was a mere
typist, but I was then
already thwn statistically and methodologically savvy, being interested
in these things since 1971, and having read up on them for that reason:
I knew about chi-squared tests, and their proneness for "significant"
flukes, from the literature, as they also must have done.
Indeed, it is for reasons like these, of which I later saw more
examples, plus the fact that I did not get in my academic education in
psychology anything as remotely as good as William
Principles of Psychology", which originally moved me to the study
psychology, given also my basic interest in understanding human
reasoning since I was 15, having then decided this must be the
interesting subject since reasoning is what makes human beings so
special, that already in the first year of my university study of
psychology convinced me it
is not a real science.
Having begun, I took the B.A., since the study was also remarkably easy
for me, and the reason I did take also the M.A. is that I was removed
from the study of philosophy briefly before taking my M.A. in that,
asked questions that the
folks who had the power in the
University of Amsterdam did not want to hear posed nor honestly answer.
And so it went...
P.S. My eye
necessary corrections have to be made later.