Foreword of September 10, 2016
All of this file's text dates back to April 2012. Several of the links wil not work.
I will try to revise this, but this will probably amount to shortening
it, mostly because there still is no rational medical explanation for
Meanwhile, the following list probably is helpful, also because most
links are to materials on my site. (You can check this out by hoovering
over links: If these contain "me/RESOURCES/" they will link.)
Maarten Maartensz M.A.
September 10, 2016
greatness of man
consists in saying what is true,
and in acting according to Nature."
"If we believe absurdities,
shall commit atrocities."
beginning of ME - Resources on my site.
ME - Resources
What follows is the commented
links to the same list minus comments
PHILOSOPHY (Godess of):
But what's your job? There's no harm in asking that.
LUCIAN: I'm an anti-cheatist, an anti-quackist,
an anti-liarist, and an anti-inflated-egoist. I'm anti all the
revolting types like that - and there are plenty of them, as you know.
PHILOSOPHY [smiling]: Well, well! You're
quite an anti-body, aren't you?
LUCIAN: I certainly am. You can see why I've got
myself aso much disliked, and why I'm in such a dangerous situation.
Not that I'm not an expert pro-body too. I'm a pro-truthist, a
pro-beautician, a pro-sinceritist, and a pro-everything that's
pro-worthy. But I don't find much scope for exercisting my talents in
that direction, whereas thousands of people are always queuing up for
the anti-treatment. In fact I'm so out of practice as a probody, that I
dare say I have lost the knack of it by now - but I'm a real expert at
the other part of my profession.
PHILOSOPHY [seriously]: That's bad.
They're opposite sides of a coin, as it were. So don't specialize in
one at the expense of the other. They should merely be different
aspects of the same fundamental attitude.
LUCIAN: Well, you know best, Philosophy. But I'm
so constituted that I can't help hating bad types and liking good ones.
(From: Fishing for phonies, Turner translation,
Penguin Classics, p. 177-8)
following tables, the authors and titles with links are set apart on
one line, with some explanatory comments by me under it. The links are
either PDF or HTML-files.
The present version 2.0 is
meant to be rapidly replaced by the next with more resources.
There are the following sections, that correspond to directories:
basics relating to ME/CS.
|| Ten discoveries
about the biology of CFS
This is a brief
PDF-file by a professor in medicine of Harvard that gives ten
findings about ME/CFS: ME/CFS is not a mental
disease or psychiatric condition
Health Organization's placing of ME and CFS
A fairly brief
description how the World Health Organization has classified ME and
CFS. This is of considerable importance for patients and doctors, since
psychiatrists and psyhotherapists (not real scientists) since decades
choose to wipe their asses with the classification of the WHO, and
instead propose their own pseudo-scientific criterions and socalled
"evidence based science" (what results if you lie with statistics and
criminally incompetent or insane methodology).
Also, the American Psychiatric Association seems to be trying to
reclassify ALL diseases so as to have a psychological dimension, that
is lorded over by psychiatrists, in the interests of incomes for
psychiatrists, and a somatical dimension, that only will enter
the end of curing the patient (if not rich) after psychiatrists have
agreed the patient is ill.
This seems to be planned to effective from 2013.
| Carruthers et al
The Canada Criterions (as they are mostly known) for
diagnosing ME from 2003,
prepared by 14 medical specialists for
the Canadian government. Note this is
written mostly - unavoidably for such a
report - in medicalese.
These are the criterions for diagnosing someone as having ME
that are taken most
seriously by real patients with ME and
real scientists researching ME. The alternatives
are either less precise and useful
(Fukuda Criterions) or consist almost whole of
intentionally obscure psyhiatrists
waffle (Oxford), that aims underhandedly to
stigmatize patients with ME as insane if
not malingerers, for which reasons patients
with ME are excluded from all help,
which saves the state and the health insurance
companies enormous amounts of money.
of July 2011: The International Consensus
| Carruthers et al
(for non-medical people)
The same as the above, written by two members of the team,
but a lot clearer for
This is probably the best exposition of
what is scientifically known about ME/CFS
in one file.
The same as the
above medical version of the 2001 Canadian Criterions, but as published
in the Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, with a few additions (that
seem not important).
Note this is long, thorough and mostly written in (unavoidable)
|Carruthers et al
Consensus Criteria (pdf)
This is the 2011 revision of the Canadian Criterions.
the published version. There are also pre-published versions.)
Little Red Book: A new and simple definition of ME (2006)
by a medical doctor who treated very many patients with ME/CFS and who
goes his own way.
This is by professor emeritus Malcolm Hooper,
who taught medical chemistry and is a
very fine overview of what was know
scientifically and claimed and done non-
scientifically as regards ME/CFS in
This is another Must Read for
anybody interested in the facts about and around ME,
written up by someone with a great
amount of relevant scientific knowledge.
|| Engaging with ME: Lectureslides
Nominally, these are the slides for a lecture
by professor Malcolm Hooper in 2005, but
they provide a VERY clear overview
of ME if you know a little about it, and also
provides many excellent or
interesting references, links and illustrations.
| Twisk et al
for neurocognitive deficits in ME/CFS (etc.) (2010
is the text of a Letter to the Editor of Psychological Medicine.
It is brief but adequate.
and Treating CFS (27th ed, 2009
This is the 27th edition of medical doctor Sarah Myhill's
CFS-Book, that is quite long
but is very probable quite useful
for anyone with ME or caring for (or about) someone
Dr. Myhill has treated thousands
of patiens with ME since 1982, and with considerable
success also, while she has the
merit - for me - that she conceived of a bio-chemical
theory to account for the known
facts of ME that is very similar to my own, that I
reached completely independently
in 1987 (two years before knowing that ME/CFS
existed), and that others also
have come to, that is best classified briefly as the
mitochondrial hypothesis or
theory, to the effect that the energy-pathway by which
the mitochondriae produce energy
(ATP-ADP-AMP and back) is broken in persons
Again, this is a Must Read for
anybody interested in the facts about and around ME,
also because it contains very many
Wessely and his gang, like professors Reeves and Bleijenberg in
resp. the US
and the Netherlands, have since
over two decades insisted on totally ludicrous grounds
that persons with ME are not ill,
but are insane or malingerers, albeit it they often,
use more hypocritical terminology.
Since I hold they lie knowingly, I merely summarize
their real drift: Exclude people
with ME/CFS from being medically researched or
socially supported as ill people.
Psychiatry, since its inception by the cocaine-addict and un-uncloseted
of prof. Wilhelm Fliess (also
obsessed with noses and cocaine), has never been anything
like a real science, but consists
instead for the most part of tales, that for the most
part are meant to help
psychiatrists to get status and lots of money for selling
psychobabble to the naive, the
stupid, the ignorant and the easily impressed. It is
neither real medical science nor
real science: It is pseudoscience, and persons like
Wessely, Reeves and Bleijenberg
(the last a clinical psychologist, that is, a shrinkish
type with even less brains and no
knowledge at all of medicine) know this very well,
and probably - if they are at all
mentally healtht - take great private personal pride
in getting away with it.
Then again: Not all psychiatrists are mad, and not all psychiatrists
are bad, and dr.
Eleanor Stein, who is a
psychiatrist, wrote a good set of guidelines concerning how a
sane and moral psychiatrist should
treat his or her patients with ME.
Professor Wessely, mentioned before, the mad
Fraudian still teaching waffle at KCL,
very often lies, and does so very
plausibly and credibly, if one is not as informed as
he is. One of the lies he spouted
effortlessly - see: ME: Back
to the Middle Ages
with professor Simon Wessely - P.S.
- is that (I quote the KCL-liar and KCL-sadist
'Each country has different syndromes. They don't have CFS in France'
The above file, in fine French, was located by me within 6 minutes of
first, and also has the merits of
being a good exposition of what ME is, besides
refuting other lies of Wessely in
the linked interview.
The reason to list it hear is to
illustrate my theses that professor Simon Wessely
is both a pathological quite
possibly psychopathic liar (and apparently, like many of
that ilk, quite charming,
superficially) and an evident medical sadist.
Pain is one of the main symptoms for most persons with ME, again one of
facts prof. Wessely usually
conveniently forgets, denies, or pooh-poohs.
| McCleary et al
This is by the director of the CAA for the American Association of Pain
It is useful if not deep (and a
big download for a few pages) and is here because
it is so far the only halfway
decent file I could find on the topic of managing pain
from ME, which I have a lot of,
since decades also.
Johnson is an investigative journalist who got ME and then decided to
why so little is effectively done
in the USA to help people with ME. This she did very
thoroughly and managed to write up
and get published as a book, called "Osler's Web"
(after a 19th C brilliant English
medical doctor, William Osler, whose ideas of good
scientific medicine were very
modern, even in this day, for they were much like
The summary of the book is: There
has been an enormous amount of corruption,
fraudulence, incompetence and
intentional deception in the US, especially on the part
of the CDC, and the reasons why,
apart from the theft of millions, personal vanity,
evident sadism and lust for power
and a well paid easy job for the main perpetrators
at the CDC are still unclear (and
may be tied up with state politicking and health
insurance intrigueing or simply -
as in the case of dr. Reeves - personal corruption).
The book is fine and fat and thorough, and since it was published also
in the US
and Johnson is American, one may
safely infer that Johnson's facts - that might
easily be dismissed but for the
fact that she named names, quoted documents, gives
dates etc. etc. - will stand up in
a US court, and hence are probably most or all
quite as she wrote.
It cannot be quoted here (except for some parts) because Johnson
copyright and mostly forbids that,
quite justifiedly also, because she is ill with
ME, needs an income, and wrote and
researched the book.
Karlen interview with Hillary Johnson
Continueing the previous note:
What I did find was a good and not long interview with Hillary Johnson,
which I included because I believe nearly all really good things in the
human world are done by original courageous individuals who refuse to
conform to accepted prejudices and refuse to collaborate with
corrupt holders of power for the benefits of payment and protection by
Hillary Johnson is a very brave woman, and knowingly took the risk of
having her life and health destroyed on purpose by many of the
corrupt medical bureaucrats whose doings and crimes she unearthed.
||Dx Revision Watch
The above link is to Suzy
Chapman's site about the DSM-5, that manages to
be far clearer and far more objective than what the
American Psychiatric Association (APA) offers.
The DSM-5 is
the fifth in a series of Diagnostic Statistical Manuals compiled by
the American Psychiatric Association, so as to arrive at sets of
symptoms to diagnose persons with some form of psychological distress
or problem in an
evidence based agreed upon science based manner.
This is a respectable end but
lately, at least since the DSM-IV, this Manual
is being turned into an instrument to serve the interests of
politicians and health-insurors by redefining symptoms, description and
in ways that best serve these interests while seeming to be
This is most pronounced in the
proposals for the DSM-5, that is intended to be
in force from 2013 onwards, and that seems to seek to add a psychological
to many bodily diseases, and
to insist on treating these psychological ailments, together with, or
only as therapies for many diseases, and to seek to reclassify diseases
with an unknown etiology or cause as primarily or only
as caused by psychiatric symptoms ("dysfunctional beliefs",
to be exclusively or predominantly treated by psychotherapy and/or
The last is in particular so for ME, CFS, Fybromyalgia and similar
that the World Health Organisation, which is a body of medical doctors
all kinds, rather than an interest group of psychiatrists, classifies
classified as somatic diseases, of a neurological kind, expressly
For this reason, combined with
the fact that in many states psychiatrists
tend to have a stronger influence on political decision making than
groups of medical men, the contents of the DSM-5 to be, are of rather
great importance, since as soon as it is accepted, anyone runs the risk to be
'scientifically' diagnosed in terms that amount in non-medicalese
non-euphemistic terms to 'malinger or insane', and "therefore" not to be tested for somatic
symptoms, not to be entitled
to help and support somatically ill persons get, and to be forced to Cognitive
Behavourial Therapy - forcedto
help psychiatrists to make money for themselves from the
pseudoscience they peddle - to "cure" them from the "delusion" that
patients with ME/CFS, Fibromyalgia, and many other diseases with an
unknown aetiology, are somatically ill, and to force them to do labour
in the form of Gradual Exercise Therapy so as to teach them
correct discipline and work modes.
|dr. Allen Frances Ph.D.
|A Warning Sign on the Road to DSM‐5: Beware of its Unintended Consequences
This is a very
interesting essay by the chief-editor of the DSM-IV, professor dr.
Allan Frances MD,
professor emeritus psychiatry of Duke University, on the many dangers
he sees - mostly quite
correctly, in my fairly well-informed opinion - of the
I think this is from 2009: Since then dr. Frances has written quite a
lot more on the subject,
notably in Huffington Post
and in Psychology Today, where he has a column DSM5 in
In case you think it is odd for a psychiatrist to disagree on the
merits of psychiatry, here
are two links:
|dr. W.S. McCulloch Ph.D.
Past of an Delusion
This is from
1951, and is the text of a public speech by the - then - professor of
psychiatry McCulloch about the reasons why he had
come to hold that psychiatry
is not a real science but a delusion, an insight that motivated
McCulloch to become
one of the founders of cybernetics.
|dr. Thomas Szasz Ph.D.
myth of mental illness
Prof.dr. Thomas Szasz is an emeritus professor of
psychiatry who has now for over 5 decades argued psychiatry is normally
hardly a science and often quite dangerous to patients if also quite
profitable to psychiatrists.
He got world-famous in the 1960-ies with
his book The
myth of mental illness that
unfortunately did not get the influence or the rational discussion it
Here is a series of video-interviews with dr. Szasz from 2007 at the
University of Birmingham in the UK:
And here is an
interview with him from 2001 (from the Wayback Machine).
Statement to DSM-5
This is the April 2010 proposal
of the CFSIDSAA to the DSM-5 Taskforce.
(CFIDSSAA = The CFIDS Association of America.
CFIDS = Chronic Fatigue and Immune Deficiency Syndrome.)
|dr. J. Phillips, dr. Allen Frances et al.
|The six most essential questions in
psychiatric diagnosis: a pluralogue part 1: conceptual and definitional
issues in psychiatric diagnosis (pdf 426 KB )
Alternatively: The same in html (288 Kb)
This is a
discussion ("pluralogue) of the six questions meant in the title, posed
and formulated by dr. Allen Frances, who is the chief editor of the
DSM-IV and who also, indeed like the chief editor of the DSM-III, dr.
Robert Spitzer, is quite unhappy with and quite critical of the DSM-5.
The participants in the discussion are dr. Frances who poses the
questions; dr. Phillips who introduces and concludes them, and 23
psychiatrists who answered them and are in turn answered by dr. Frances.
|dr. J. Phillips, dr. Allen Frances et al.
|The six most essential questions in
psychiatric diagnosis: a pluralogue part 2: issues of conservatism and
pragmatism in psychiatric diagnosis (Provisional) (pdf
This is part 2 of
the previous item, at the time of writing Provisional and only
available in pdf.
of what psychiatrists have done and may do: A monstrous - and extremely
dangerous - past president of the American Psychiatric Association, as
written up on Wikipedia. (There is more information on the doings and
the victims of this man on internet, notably a BBC-documentary.)
An illustration of
what medical doctors and psychiatrists have done and may do if - they
claim that - the interests of the state or the people demand it: A
project to terminate the lives - and the costs involved in keeping
alive - of the ill, the insane and the mentally subnormal.
tiny parts of human cells in which the energy is generated the cell can
use, by the use of some pretty amazing and beautiful bio-chemistry, in
is broken down to ADP
which is broken down to AMP,
releasing energy, and then rebuilt to ATP.
See below for more: This is a very interesting subject for anyone who
wishes to know how one does manage to do anything with one's body and
whence one does get the energy to do it.
This is a clear
overview of the science involved in the subject,
written for intelligent laymen with some basic knowledge of science.
This is a clear overview of the
subject in not so many pages for laymen.
It is a bit simpler and less detailed than the previous item.
|Parik et al
and facts about mitochondrial diseases
This is a short
and clear summing up of what its title says. Like the previous
two items it is helpful for patients who are not medically trained or
| Myhill et al
fatigue syndrome and mitochondrial dysfunction
This is a VERY interesting paper
that originally appeared in the Int J Clin Exp Med
(as they themselves abbreviate it) in 2009 for at least two reasons,
First, it outlines almost exactly the theory I myself found in 1987,
about ME, then being ill since 1.1.1979 and having rather extensive
my own experiences with various supplements, after diving into some
biochemical textbooks. I wrote this theory out in Dutch and have given
several medical doctors none of whom did anything with it (and the
or "medical specialist" an average patients gets to see is not a
at all nor trained as one, but is trained as a practitioner of medicine
Second, it is an eminently
sensible theory, that should get the research funding
to get it properly tested, investigated, tweaked and, if it stands up,
used on a
This is highly recommended and
fairly readable also for laymen. If you want to
see - as I was pleased to discover myself - what line of thought I
1987 you should look at figure 1:
I copied this because this is
just the line of reasoning and indeed manner of illustrations I
followed in 1987. It is explained in - various degrees of - detail in
handbooks of biochemistry or musdcle physiology, and is in itself a
rather amazing and beautiful bit of biochemistry.
And incidentally, the
Mitochondrial Hypothesis for ME/CFS is co-tenable with the XMRV
Hypothesis for the same, for a reason based set out by an analogy: If
one can manage to tweak the water or gas supplies to a house in which
people live who cannot leave it (as patients live in their bodies),
then you can be sure of upsetting a great manner of routines in the
house that depend, directly or indirectly, on ordinary supplies of
water or gas.
Also incidentally: I do not know
which hypothesis is correct if any or both, and so far no one knows,
but two advantages I personally see with the mitochondrial hypothesis
is that I don't feel really optimistic about harbouring a retrovirus,
if I do, and that, as I said, I dreamt up this theory myself, on the
basis of rather good statistics of my situation and experiences and
experiments with supplements from 1985-1988. (But this is a matter of
personal feeling, and facts are facts whatever one's feelings about
as a Mitochondrial Disease
This is a short and quite clear
exposion of doctor David Bell, who treated a large
number of patients with ME of the mitochondrial hypothesis for ME/CFS.
SCIENCE OF ME
This section contains scientific
discussions and matters relevant to the
scientific study of ME.
Since there are at present in
broad terms two kinds of science involved
in that study, namely pseudo science (of the CDC, of KCL, of
University of Nijmegen i.a.), generally of a (pseudo-)psychiatric kind,
and real science, there are sections for both.
It is to be noted that especially
in this section and its subsections
there is FAR more material on the internet than is present here.
|| Scientific Realism
This is a short and clear
exposition that should be accessible to anyone
intelligent enough to be able to study a real science.
By way of introduction:
It is highly probable, given my obvious great intelligence and learning
excellent degrees, that if I had been healthy or indeed if I would have
help with my medically agreed upon real, debilitating and painful
invalidity, I had
been an academic employed in research and teaching of philosophy of
methodologogy and/or mathematical logic.
As outlined in the above
SCIENCE OF ME this is of considerable important
in that ME-patients lifes are being destroyed and ruined on the basis
truly sickeningly stupid pseudo-science the creation and reception of
I can only explain by sadism and/or utter corruption on the part of
who generated this irrational trash and by utter indifference of the
of medical doctors to the suffering of patients with ME/CFS.
Human degenerates like Wessely,
White, Bleijenberg and Van der Meer, the
modern doctors MEngele of ME, should have been kicked out of science and
their professional associations since decades for being grossly
incompetent besides being morally sick and lowering the reputations of
medical doctors, psychiatrists and psychotherapists to the level of sick
sadistic servants of their own perversions and of politicians and
And indeed the enduring strength
and power of degenerates - check the link! -
like Wessely, White,
Bleijenberg and Van der Meer, who propound fallacies in
the name of sciene to please their own perversions and to suck up to
politicians and health insurors, is that so very
few people have real knowledge
of real science and real knowledge of its logical, philosophical and
I do, and the link is a
translation of a Dutch piece I wrote several years ago,
that quite clearly outlines a 9-fold contrast of oppositions between
and pseudo science, also in terms any intelligent reader can grasp.
Incidentally, the reader should
realize that, especially since the rise of post-
modernism (that since its rise has not disappeared, since its acolytes
professors in soft "sciences" allover the world) and since the radical
in standards of admission and teaching in all but the very best
in the West, numerically and proportional there are at present far more
pseudo scientists than real scientists, and this will remain so the
generation at least, apart from a worldwide revolution or the
or collapse of human civilization, for a reason the physicist Max Planck already
noticed, next to the ordinary facts about power, groupthinking and the
average human profligacy, also prominent amongst academics, and
academics in pseudo-sciences:
"A new scientific truth does
not triumph by convincing its opponents
and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents
eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
Sad but realistic.
Foundations of Rational Science
This I published in 2009 on my site
with the title "Ten good modern
philosophy texts" but since all of them are
about the present title I chose that one for this occasion.
Note that it concerns basically a pile of books that, when put on top
of each other may be as tall as I am (1.95 m), whence it may be
inferred with utter certainty that it is a LOT of reading.
But it is - or would be - very
interesting reading, that is quite relevant to the real understanding
of real science, and indeed I doubt that anybody does have a real
understanding of real
science that does not have most of the scientific, logical and
mathematical knowledge outline in items 9 and 10 of my text.
case you asked 'But how come there are real good physicists who are
real good physicists without having bothered to read those texts?' my
answer is that a real good physicist imbibed most of that knowledge
while learning physics (at a real good university), for I am not
talking of pseudo-scientific posturing but about the real intellectual,
mathematical and logical foundations of ALL real science. (Indeed, you
can pick up most of it in Richard Feynman's "Lectures on
Physics", if you are interested in physics and intelligent enough).
from January 2011 for rational background
This is a quite short (11 Kb) but
quite useful list of books, papers and internet
material about which the unknown write starts with writing:
List of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
(CFS) resources for doctors
Suggested use. All but one of the
following resources are free.
I suggest doctors acquire and review all of them.
|De Meirleir et al
the origins of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
This consists of the slides of a
talk professor De Meirleir - one of the co-authors of
the Canada Criterions, for which see above - gave in May 2009. Its
"Gastrointestinal dysfunction, Production of Neurotoxins and
It is quite instructive, especially if you have been dipping in some of
mentioned in this file, and professor De Meirleir has a great and
deserved reputation among persons with ME for helping them and writing
very sensible science about ME/CFS: He is a real scientist and real
medical doctor who does and thinks like a real scientist and real
medical doctor should.
Pseudoscience is the science of
deception by abusing science for ends it is not designed for. Believers
in pseudo science generally believe it is real science, usually for
lack of scientific knowledge or strong personal, political or religious
interests or prejudices.
The originators of it come in
several flavours, depending on their ends, methods and state of
(self)delusion. The Viennese psychiatrist Sigmund Freud, like most or
all of his well-known contemporary psychiatric competitors, was for the
greatest part a conscious pseudo and fraud; many of his
psychiatric followers and of other psychiatric men of ideas and
phrases, generally are more deluded and less clever, and indeed may do
well (sometimes) for respectable reasons, simply because they mean to
be helping people and have found some understanding of them somehow.
Those who want to know more about
pseudo sciences as sets of hoaxes, delusions, scams, conmanship and
outright insanity are recommended to read Martin Gardner's
"Fads and fallacies in the name of science" and "Science:
Good, Bad and Bogus", both also interesting for anyone
interested in science anyway, and very well nwritten and informed.
The pseudo-psychiatry of the
schools of Wessely, White, Bleijenberg, Fink and other psychiatric
'specialists on CFS' are conscious bogus scientists, of whom
the kindest explanation is that they, at least and in any case, try to
serve their own interests and those of their psychiatrc and
In fact, this is the case
for the vast majority of the schools and therapies 'in the name
of science' psychiatrists and psychotherapists have practised and
written books about and did 'evidence based' science in
(methodologically rotten usually invalid statistics), for the same
reason that the vast majority of the religions must be mistaken since
they mutually contradict each other and both as regards how
things are to be explained and how one should act.
For a true and still valid
description of psychiatry by the former professor of psychiatry, later
professor of neurophysiology and one of the founding fathers of
cybernetics and neural networks see McCulloch vs. Wessely
and for a true and still
valid description see the fundamental description of what pseudoscience
is by the worldfamous physicist Richard Feynman see: Feynman vs Wessely.
Real science is vastly
different from pseudo science in methods, ends, outlook, and
assumptions, and is concerned with finding the real truth about real
facts, events and processes by means of intersubjective objective
methods of experiment and research, logical and mathematical argument,
and proper design and methodology.
It is mostly but not solely found
in the hard (as opposed to soft) sciences like physics, chemistry,
bio-chemistry and applied and pure mathematics. The reasons these
sciences are real is mostly because their subject-matters have been
shown to be amenable to mathematical methods, concepts and theories,
and to be open to repeatable experimental testing, while also being
concerned with things that are fairly simple or general, rather than
complex and variegated: Each atom of copper has the same properties as
any other, apart from location; each human being is uniquely differenf
from any other human being and vastly more complicated than an atom.
Real science started with
Galileo, who was the first to see and state clearlythat real science
must be based on careful experimentally established facts and conceived
in logical and mathematical terms, since the Book of Nature,in so far
as a man's mind can read and understand it, is written in mathematics
or only comprehensible mathematically (as in statisticalmechanics) for
a human mind.
The reason why mathematics is so
important is that it is the scienceof arbitrary structures and
everything is some kind of structure at least, apart from whatever else
it may be (such as pleasant to the
eye or taste).
This section differs from the others
in supplying links to websites concerned with ME that are not on this
I will have to update this but
for the moment copy my ME -
sites file (with one deletion) where you'll find more
information about the following sites and/or files:
Most of these sites contains a lot
of information and very many links to other sites.
XMRV is the acronym
of a recently discovered retrovirus (HIV is another) for which
there was evidence that it is relevant to ME/CFS and to prostate
speaking, I decided when I first heard of XMRV not to dive into
the subject, because I do not know much biochemistry nor any
and do not have the health to rapidly read into it.
That was a
decision that saved me a lot of work, and worked out well in the
sense that at the time of writing - April 5, 2012 - it seems likely
XMRV is not relevant to ME/CFS nor to prostate cancer: The article in Science that started the commotion
around XMRV - for many patients believed this must be IT: The cause
with the hope for a fast cure via anti-viral medunces - has been
withdrawn, as was a later paper by drs. Lon and Alter.
situation is that apart from dr. Mikovits - who meanwhile was dismissed
from the WPI and is in litigation with that institution - and some
patients, very few if any retrovirologists and few medical doctors
believe her theory that ME/CFS (and Fibromyalgia and autism, and
perhaps more diseases) is caused by HGRV (which is what dr. Mikovits
now believes to be the culprit: A so far unknown virus that is much
like XMRV, but is not that, for XMRV is most likely a lab-contaminant,
as she agrees with the US Blood Work Group that investigated the
matter, with over 20 authors, of which dr. Mikovits was one).
As I said, few
believe this theory, but dr. Ian Lipkin has done research that will
probably be reported in the first half of 2012 that will either confirm
dr. Mikovits was mistaken or cause a lot of publicity, and that may
also have other useful
This is just what it says, seems
written by a specialist, and is
comprises 3 clear pages and 12 suggested readings.
|| XMRV: De 'missing
link' bij ME/CFS? (Dutch)
This is an interesting article by
someone who knows medicine about quite
a few aspects of the XMRV controversy in February 2010. Clear, for
not long, with pictures of Dr. Judy Mikovits and Prof. Dr. Kenny de
Xenotropic Murine Leukemia Virus-Related Virus in Chronic Fatigue
Syndrome and Prostate Cancer (2010)
This is a short
and clear article as stated in its title. It is here because it seems
probable there is a link between XMRV and prostate cancer and my father
See also: ME -Documentation
and ME - Resources - Copyrights
NEW (April 5
NEW (April 5 2012)
This is a new version of
ME-Resources, that I have numbered 2.0 and that replaces version 1.2 of
October 29 last.
There are additions in the above,
especially in the DSM-5 section, and there are
some removals, especially in the XMRV-section and also of most of my
own pieces in Nederlog.
My reason to remove most of the
XMRV-material (there will be new recent material soon) is that it seems
a dead hypothesis to me at present, even if it is true, which I
consider most unlikely.
My reason to remove most of my
own material is not that I disagree with it but that it is diplomatic
to leave out some of my sharper formulations, that I can probably
uphold in court if pressed (I have very good degrees in psychology and
philosophy; I am nearly 62; my ex and I both fell ill with EBV in
January 1979, when I was 28 and she 24; and we fell ill in our first
year of study in the university, and have been uncontroversially ill
the first 10 years: It was only in 1988-1991 that the systematic
slander and defamation of patients like my ex-wife and myself was
started by Reeves, Holmes, Wessely and Bleijenberg).
Below follows a dotted list with
titles and links to material that is new on my site, but that may be
quite old (some that isn't yet on it will be).
All of the new material has been
gathered over the last 2 1/2 years from the internet. I reproduce it on
my sites because I think it either is or may be important to people
with ME/CFS and perhaps also for researchers, though my main target
group consists of people like myself: With a diagnosis of ME/CFS and
with enough education, intelligence, health and energy to read this
kind of material.
Except when it explicitly says
so, none of the material linked in this text is mine, and I accordingly
claim no copyright in it. I have not changed anything in any text that
is not by myself, and have generally reproduced material of others as I
found it on the internet, quite often with one change, namely in the
title of the file.
The reason for changing the
titles of files is normally that there is rather a lot of material in
and around medicine on the internet that only has a non-descriptive
title, such as a long numeral, and I generally have renamed such
file-titles with my own descriptive name, that often mention the main
author and either part of the title or the subject.
I have never changed the contents of the text of others (or if I did it
was in html and I either gave a clarification with an indication it was
by me or I provided a link). Then again, I have no guarantee others did
not make such changes, though I believe the chance this happened is
I have no copyright claims in
materials on my site that were not written by me. I reproduce material
of others on my site because I found them on the net on some publicly
accessible site, and believe they are of sufficient interest to others
with my disease or to researchers into my disease to reproduce and make
If you do hold a copyright and do
not desire it on my site, you can mail me and I may remove it (though I
probably will not do so if I consider it of legal or moral importance
to myself or other patients).
Here is the list of what is in
the section NEW on my site in ME-Resources as of April 5 2012. I start
with type indications for the kinds of files and the titles I give may
be not quite the same as given in the body of the actual text:
Note the above is mostly unsorted
and in no particular order of importance: I will later sort this and
And as is, the last file is the
best read, that explains well why Charcot and Freud were frauds, and
must have known they were. It is part of a book that found wide acclaim.
|NEW (April 21
Here is the list of what was added betwee
April 5 and April 21 2012.
This is all in the DSM-5
directory, since it is about psychiatry, psychiatrists, and the abuses,
misdiagnosis and lack of a rational scientific foundation of
|| ME: ME and Human Rights
This is again just
what it says: A full listing of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, both in English and in Dutch, with an indication why they
matter and which of these rights have been - knowingly and on purpose -
broken in my case with ME in Amsterdam.
Back to the Middle Ages with professor Simon Wessely
There are, no doubt, especially
amongst my "colleagues" who are "practising psychologists" and
such, some persons who consider themselves learned, rational and
reasonable, who would like to argue that I am somewhat mistaken in
assessing the human-all-too-human weaknesses of professor Simon
Wessely, a person I hold to be (and I just happen to be both older and
considerably more intelligent and learned than he is) a sadist who also
knows he is a sadist, but probably will not admit it until he falls in
the hands of a guy like him, when professor Wessely, in his human
equivalent Lavrenti Beria's gloating words about his victims
"will recite the
after a few doses of
CBT and GET he will then get.
Anyway... all who
doubt professor Wessely is a real sadist and also quite mad the last
incidentally in a way quite a few psyhiatrists seem to be evidently
mad, should read the above and following piece, and in particular
7: Professor Simon Wessely's many mental issues for
which see below.
ME - Resources
What follows is
the list minus comments:
links to the same list with the comments
(*) Quand on a pris le parti de ne
voir que ceux qui sont capables de traiter avec vous aux termes de la
morale, de la vertu, de la raison, de la vérité, en ne regardant les
conventions, les vanités, les étiquettes, que comme les supports de la
société civile; quand, dis-je, on a pris ce parti (et il faut bien le
prendre, sous peine d'être sot, faible ou vil), il arrive qu'on vit à
peu près solitaire.
Version: 2.0 - Apr
5, 2012: This is a considerable extension in material,
soon to be followed by more.
Version: 2.1 - Apr
21, 2012: Meanwhile added items in the DSM-5 section
relating to six fundamental questions about psychiatry and to dr.
Thomasz Szasz, dr. Donald Ewen Cameron and the Action T4.