MM on ME


Mar 21, 2010




Egoism + stupidity + groupthinking + prejudice

Stupidity and egoism are the roots of all vice
-- Buddha

This is an interesting thread from which I could lift many points to respond to. I take Natasha's:


Quote Originally Posted by natasa778 View Post
that would well describe scientists/virologists behind the three negative studies (I do not count psychologists there, who almost def have a big agenda in this issue, ie loss of standing and income even:), PloS Gerwyn described so well, but what about BMJ? For them to publish the Dutch study in the way they did, ie without proper peer review+ they followed the publication with VERY negative weasel comments and an interview that was designed to poo poo WPI without giving them a chance ... in the absence of downright conspiracy being the driving force the only other explanation would be "sheer spite" on the part of BMJ board. And don't forget the neurologist who scorned the Science study in the interview actually sits on the BMJ editorial board, so that was not an accident that her very negative views were aired.

There is another explanation (or two) next to "sheer spite" and my title lists them. Apart from the two factors Buddha saw so clearly, the other two are social and deal with human-all-too-human weaknesses that are socially maintained (and engineered).

These are MUCH stronger than is generally admitted. I could write a lot about them, but most of four decades of my conscious experience of them relate to Dutch peculiarities (such as universities that were directed by a university-parliament - "fully democratised" - from 1972-1995, in which leftist activists and members of the Dutch communist party played major roles) and my own peculiarities (my parents and grandparents were communists/marxists, but I gave that up in 1970 through reading logic and philosophy of science, and because the well-known student activist leaders such as Cohn-Bendit and Dutschke were compared to my father wimps of low intelligence) I won't enter into here and now, though I may try to write it up for my site - - in English eventually.

In brief - and wiith all due respect to members of this forum like Kurt and Wayne, who are so full of respect for all men and all points of view - in many ways my attitudes as regards science, morals and men (including women, in the politically incorrect way I write and speak English) are decidedly aristocratic: While many are called, few are chosen, and especially in the soft so called sciences most science and most scientists are not really scientific or rational and only in it for the money and the status. \

For more of this and related ideas see my

Title: Goffman reveals all (nearly) - Groups & Groupthinking

I have to abstain discussing this on this forum, I learned, because I am lacking in respect for what strikes me as phony, false, dishonest, irrational, stupid, ignorant or plain fraudulence, but if one says so forum members about whose own intellectual and moral status I know nothing (and if I politely ask am told nothing) start singing the postmodernistic song of the need for respect I detest, and am unwilling or forbidden to deal with on this forum as it should be.

Incidentally, this is why this forum is an excellent place to meet persons with ME and learn a lot about people's experiences, therapies and beliefs, but not a good place to use as a place to coordinate actions or rational thinking about ME. (Also, personally I don't want to be moralized publicly by persons I don't know at all and can't see much or any real scientific qualifications with the postmodernistic howling for universal respect, spiritual relativization of inconvenient facts, and general moral posturing I *totally* disbelieve - with all due respect, especially for the sanctimoniously stupid.)

Here is some background on postmodernism I put on my site yesterday and translated from the Dutch

Title: Scientific Realism versus Postmodernism

Now to the point Natasha touched upon, that I'll make as follows

(A) In science too, even in the real sciences like physics and maths, most men are followers, most are conformists, most care more for status and income than for truth, and only few are original (in a useful sense).

(B) In medicine and with regards to ME it seems to me that
(1) some - notably Wessely, Sharpe and White - knowingly deceive, posture and misrepresent, but
(2) there is a larger group of nominally scientifically qualified medics and psychologists who follow leaders, believe there is a psyche next to a soma, and who read Wessely, Sharpe and White with conviction mostly because these are Real Professors - Psychiatrists, no less! - who do write in the BMJ (and who also may further or obstruct one's own careers if one crosses their interests)
(3) there is an even larger group of nominally scientifically qualified medics and psychologists who simply do and think as they are told, because ME is not their personal problem; the pains of others are bearable, thank you respectfully and kindly; and indifference + conformism take the least trouble and provide the best career-prospects.

So.... it is not so much conspiracy (except for Wessely, Sharpe, White, Reeves, where I personally suspect a connection with governments or insurance companies) as egoism + stupidity + groupthinking + prejudice on the part of nominal scientists, which is aggrevated by the general scientific incompetence of the general public and the media, both of which postmodernistically insist that they are quite qualified to utter forth on anything whatsoever, with respect of course, and in full equality with anyone, and also in democratic majority, as anything is relative anyway, and all people deserve respect (from Einstein to Eichmann, which I know is a disrespectful qualification/addition, for which reason I was - praise the postmodern respecters of all - removed repeatedly from the University of Amsterdam).


P.S. Respectfully, this post has been informed by some respected contributions by the ever respectful Kurt & Wayne I cannot respectfully give their dues on this respectful forum. (Is there anyone under 60 on this forum who knows the difference between politeness, that doesn't pretend it is sincere, and respect, that does and lies? Or who feels that it is decidedly *odd* that some anonymous person insists that all manner of nonsense, prejudice and irrationality should be treated with *respect*, because there is room for spirituality? In science, no less, according to his enlightened attitudes? And all things are relative anyway?)

        home - index - top - mail