Guy Chapman's Blahg - Latest Comments

Re: Policy-based evidence making

greggypetty — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 12:28:05 -0000

Hmm, this HCG homeopathic stuff is all interesting. It went to the top of the dieting "food chain", then right back down. But it works!

Re: Ms Scrayen? Ms Streisand on Line 1

anarchic teapot — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 05:23:13 -0000

Nice to see you tamed that plug-in. I blogged about this too, while you were wrestling with technology. I was a fractional ruder and more abrasive than you, on the basis that Scrayen needs to learn she can't intimidate everybody.

Re: Ms Scrayen? Ms Streisand on Line 1

Liz Ditz — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 15:58:13 -0000

As I often do, I'm keeping a list: Dan Buzzard writes the facts; Homeopath Francine Scrayen Threatens With The Law

I will keep updating the list silently.

Re: hCG diet scam

Guy Chapman — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 10:39:25 -0000

Except that it fails to address in any meaningful way the criticisms of the HCG diet, namely that randomised double blinded (i.e. honest) trials show HCG to be ineffective in promoting weight loss.

Re: Simon Wessely

Guy Chapman — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:15:08 -0000

The word you are looking for is "was", he has not been involved in ME/CFS for some time, as far as I can tell.

I know some people feel that the mere involvement of a psychiatrist is inherently wrong and unacceptable. That is a dogmatic position and does not address the recorded fact that a decent number of people found that CBT was able to improve their symptoms. That doesn't prejudge any cause, symptomatic relief can be an end in itself.

You do not get the option of only allowing those who agree with your preconceptions involved in the field. If your preconceptions are wrong, you could be excluding valuable research. Science does not recognise acceptance of preconceptions as a valid starting point for open-minded research.

Re: hCG diet scam

Guy Chapman — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:11:31 -0000

I have cited studies that show the HCG diet to be ineffective, and data from the FDA and American Society of Bariatric Physicians that point out the fact that HCG is not approved for weight loss, and the very low calorie counts of the Simeons protocol are well below recommended minima.

All I have seen in response is a bunch of arm-waving from miracle diet peddlers. You fail.

Re: hCG diet scam

Alohahcg — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 17:15:55 -0000

You state that the HCG hormone is dangerous when used for weight loss.....correct ? Where is your proof ? Where are YOUR clinical studies ? Where are the documented cases of these people that have been harmed by the HCG diet ? To date, I personally have never seen any. I personally have helped hundreds of people CHANGE there lives with my product that comes from an FDA approved facility, and uses all FDA compliant ingredients. I agree that there are a lot of scam company's out there when it comes to the selling and the advertising of HCG, but you can say that about just about every industry out there that has access to the public market. I also own an Auto Repair company, an industry know to lack moral values. But I can guarantee you that my Auto Repair business is not one of them, So should we just all quit "getting our car fixed?" If your going to make a statement about a product, then back it up. I have Dr. Simeons original study done in Europe over 50 years ago that states that the HCG hormone does IN FACT aid in weight loss when combined with a low calorie diet. ( I tried to attach the file to your blog, but it does not support the format ) but you can google it and find it on line, which I might suggest. You may just be surprised at what you read. As far as the FDA is concerned, there main beef with company's selling it is the fact that they are labeling it homeopathic. HCG does not fall into the FDA's category of homeopathic remedies, but certain toxic poisons that are allowed to be added to products that we ingest daily are !!! Try and figure that one out.

Re: Simon Wessely

andy — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 13:14:59 -0000

.Many people with ME feel that Simon Wesselys involvement with ME is fraud. his articles have been nasty and manipulative undermining the integrity of people he supposedly cares for, or attacking them for crimes against humanity they cannot defend themselves against, often they are examples of a person gaining pleasure and gloating over peoples misfortune far away from caring . He says he cares but importantly he allows people excuses for not caring such as yourself. . History should be telling you not to put trust in one persons hands and disbelieving everyone the large number of ME patients who are telling you how it is . You say it dosnt matter if Simon is wrong or right but you do not have ME. It matters to me if he is wrong or right as it effects me not you and many others who have this . The abuse allegations should definitely have been investigated independently from Simon for the benefit of ME patients who deserve to know the truth not just Simon's say so In the end as you say it dosent matter if ME proves not to be psychological i can treat his research and allegations deservedly to a landfill site were it belongs .I hope that day comes soon . you want bare facts and science from ME patients not negative emotions but allow your own positive emotions not science for Simon to dominate making your mind up to disregard everything and the multitude of everyone else I also have Aspergers fell ill at eleven at school with ME it was a humiliating experience you cannot understand how bad it was for me.It would be nice not unreasonable to have people who actually l like who care investigating ME .

Re: Letter to Reading Chronicle re. Burzynski

Ben Hymas — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 15:32:13 -0000

Hey Guy I did ask cancer research UK if they wanted us to keep them up to date with our great progress and they didn't write back to me. I don't understand Why they didn't write back to that email but I am more than happy to share information. You see I asked them to remove some content about Laura that was untrue, eventually they did.

Re: Letter to Reading Chronicle re. Burzynski

Lesmondine — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 14:07:06 -0000

Unfortunately the efficacy of medical treatments cannot, for various and often complex reasons, be assessed by patient testimonials and "survivor stories". We need Burzynski to release the data from the 60+ clinical trials he has registered over more than 20 years. Trials his patients have paid for. At the very least he owes them this for the eye-watering amounts of money he's charged them. They've paid for the data.
All of the publications the clinic cites are either conference abstracts or reviews (and even these aren't particularly encouraging) - useless for assessing the intervention.
In the main, rather than presenting his results sensibly and objectively to the scientific community, he relies on dubious advertorials like "The Burzynski Movie", which are deeply flawed and one-sided.

Time for Dr B to man up and publish.

However, I cannot and will not blame the patients and their families.

Re: The Burzynski Clinic

Voice of Treason — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 08:42:19 -0000

I would point out (again) that Burzynski is only allowed to treat patients for whom conventional therapy has failed or who have been told have no hope. Many are apparently now alive and cancer-free years later: Please watch the film.

If you have an advanced tumour which conventional therapies cannot treat and you know you will die within 6 months, £200k represents a one-way bet. You can't take it with you.

What evidence do you have that this treatment 'almost certainly does not work'? Please present it. The only published (as well as anecdotal) evidence I have seen suggests that it probably does work and that there are grounds for cautious optimism.

Edit: Having said that, I totally accept your basic point that patients should not be charged for entering a clinical trial of a therapy that is not officially proven. However, there is a lot of context missing here and there appear to be good reasons why Burzynski's treatments are conducted under the auspices of clinical trials, which the film explains. You really need to watch it.

Re: The Burzynski Clinic

Voice of Treason — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 08:15:09 -0000

Thanks for the additional information, Dorothy. I don't agree with US ethical practice but I guess that's just the way they do things and they are more geared to making money; the medical culture is different.

Another thing to remember about Dr Burzynski's therapy is that the whole field of cancer research and treatment is dominated by enormous vested interests, especially in the US. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy are multi-billion dollar businesses, protected by patents. Clinical trials are not just a matter of science: politics and big business loom very large indeed. If some independent operator comes along and threatens the existing oligarchy with a new, potentially much better treatment, they will inevitably run into strong opposition - potentially very dirty opposition.

If you watch the film I posted, it explains in great (and very interesting) detail why it has taken so long for Burzynski's clinic to go to FDA approved trials and why his therapy has remained unlicensed for so long. It is a story well worth looking into, regardless of what you think of Burzynski himself. Of course, the film is a piece of advocacy, so it is not intended to be balanced and one must bear that in mind. However, it is extremely well argued and presents a powerful case, which critics will need to address.

I must also point out that Burzynski's therapy cannot be bracketed with such things as homoeopathy. There is no a priori reason to believe that homoeopathy might work, since it's just water and it has also been proven no better than placebo in large-scale clinical trials. It is therefore justifiable to call homoeopathy 'quackery'.

By contrast, antineoplaston therapy is actually very similar to conventional chemotherapy. The difference is that Burzynski uses a cocktail of compounds which occur naturally in healthy human subjects but not (he claims) in cancer patients. The mechanism of action is likely very similar to normal chemo, as the antineoplastons are thought to switch off oncogenes and activate anti-tumour genes. However, because the compounds occur naturally in healthy humans, the side-effects are minimal. The precise mechanisms may be unclear but that is not a strong objection. It's not as if it can't work and it's not as if it's ever been proven to be ineffective - rather the opposite from what I can gather - although Burzynski does not claim to have a 'miracle cure'; just one that is more effective than current treatments (and not subject to Big Pharma patents).

Re: The Burzynski Clinic

Voice of Treason — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 21:08:53 -0000

Hello. I came here for information, having googled Burzynski, as I've just watched a film about his work, posted here:

http://documentaryheaven.com/c...

I have yet to come to any final judgement about this man, his clinic or his claims about his therapy, but I do feel there is a lack of nuance in this whole discussion. Before rushing to judgement, I would urge anyone at least to watch the film, in its entirety, as it does give Burzynski's side of the story, very effectively. I'm aware that the film is not unbiased (no film ever is) but it does seem very well-sourced, with reference to documentary evidence, clinical trial results and numerous sincere personal testimonies, so I would commend that it is well worth watching, to get a rounded view. I would also like to note a few points worth considering from it:

1) Burzynski did partner with the NCI in the US to do an independent trial, but they could only recruit 9 patients (all with severely advanced tumours) and NCI abandoned the trial before completion (presumably due to small sample and no control group?). Despite this, NCI did publish a negative result from the trial (no cures or remission in the 9 patients), although the pharmacokinetic data in the paper showed that they had used the wrong doses of antineoplastins (far too low), thereby invalidating the results anyway. Make of this what you will, but it underlines the fact that the patients' initial prognoses and exact treatment protocols (in addition to sample size and control protocols) are absolutely crucial considerations when evaluating clinical trials.

2) Burzynski does charge large sums for treatment, it seems, although this is usual in the US since there is no NHS. How much would a standard course of chemotherapy cost if you had to pay for it yourself? Probably as much as Burzynski charges, I guess. So surely the fact that he charges for treatment is irrelevant. It's innuendo and ad hominem argument which I find distracting. The question is whether his treatment works.

3) Burzynski is only allowed to enrol patients as part of clinical trials, precisely because his treatment is unlicensed, although he does hold a patent for it. Furthermore, the FDA will only allow him to treat patients with severe tumours, for whom standard chemo and radiotherapy have already failed, or those with special dispensation from the FDA.

4) The film documents the long history of Burzynski's struggles with the Texas Medical Board, the FDA, NCI and various pharma companies. This is very murky stuff, which certainly has the whiff of high-level corruption about it. No doubt if someone has been unsuccessfully (and quite probably unjustly) prosecuted 5 times by the authorities, one might develop a bit of a persecution complex; even more so if pharmaceutical companies have been trying to steal your patents (watch the film for clear evidence). Under those circumstances, one might get litigous when people (in your opinion) slander your work.

5) I don't know why Burzynski apparently hasn't published trial data in a sufficiently prestigious journal to satisfy critics, but it turns out that he has presented results of Phase 2 clinical trials in academic journals and at conferences:

http://www.businesswire.com/ne...

These results have been criticised on the internet, of course:

http://www.ministryoftruth.me....

But when you examine these criticisms, they turn out to be things like: "The journal has a low impact factor", "The conference paper was a poster presentation, so it couldn't have been properly peer-reviewed", or even "It looks like his figures are made up".

Now, I was post-doctoral research fellow in statistics and applied maths at Imperial College and I've published papers in international journals and at conferences, so these kinds of objections just make me laugh, quite frankly. It's all just innuendo and blather. I want facts, material objections and details. I can't find any. Maybe someone here could give me some?

It seems the FDA were sufficiently impressed to let him proceed to Phase 3, so maybe he is actually onto something after all? Just maybe?

6) It's important to remember that peer-reviewed journal articles are not the final word on scientific truth, as it happens. The Theory of Relativity has always been true, even before Einstein published it in 1905. Just saying. Conversely, a lot of stuff published in top scientific journals has eventually turned out to be guff. String Theory has never once made a single empirical prediction, let alone one confirmed by experiment and yet we don't call String Theorists quacks, do we? What's really required are independent replications of Phase 3 trials of course, but until then, can we have a more objective discussion?

7) What happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? Isn't it customary to present hard evidence before labelling someone a 'quack', purely on the grounds that their therapy is as-yet unlicensed? Now, for all I know, this Dr Burzynski may turn out to be a total fraud, but he has successfully fought numerous attempts by powerful interests to indict him on seemingly dubious grounds, so maybe he isn't a fraud after all.

Until tonight, I'd never even heard of Dr Burzynski, but it seems to me there's a lot of rather ill-informed speculation going on, which only tends to get amplified over the internet. This leads to a feeding frenzy in which self-appointed 'sceptics' take delight in pretending to discredit someone or something for which they develop an irrational disdain - calling antineoplastins a 'urine-based therapy' is clearly misleading and meant as a sleight, for example, but it adds nothing to our understanding.

So maybe those who claim to be sceptics should be a little more .. err .. sceptical, yes? I haven't made up my mind at all. Maybe Burzynski is a quack, but it's a harsh allegation, so you'd better have really good proof. The fact that he's still practising and going to Stage 3 trials with FDA approval would suggest that no one has any such proof, would it not?

Until such proof is given, I will have to assume that Burzynski is just a doctor, advocating a promising but as yet unproven cancer therapy, as this is the most conservative hypothesis which best fits the data I have seen so far.

Re: Letter to Reading Chronicle re. Burzynski

Guy Chapman — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 14:50:26 -0000

Hi Richard, thanks for your comment.

I cannot imagine a worse place to be than in your shoes right now. I am a parent, and I have watched my father and my sister die, you are in a situation I would not wish on my worst enemy. I completely understand your reasons for making the choices you have made and I wish you and Amelia the very best.

Nothing would give me greater pleasure than for the incredibly unlikely possibility to turn out to be true. Sadly there are many indications that Burzynski is deeply unethical, and there is little or no proper independent validation of his claimed successes - and he's now claiming to have cured Alzheimer's as well. There are simply too many red flags, and the eye-watering charges he makes to desperate and emotionally vulnerable people like you certainly qualifies as a red flag. It makes me sick that you are put in the position of having to find tens of thousands for something which there is no proof will work, when experimental treatments are usually offered free to the patient.I guess at least you are going in with your eyes open. I hope you will keep in touch with Cancer Research UK about your experiences, I think they are interested in this: http://is.gd/cruk_burzynski

Whoever may or may not be at fault in this debate, it is not you or other parents like you.

Re: Letter to Reading Chronicle re. Burzynski

Richard Saunders — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 06:53:21 -0000

Hello Guy, thank you for the write up above and I genuinely appreciate the views you have around the Burzynski clinic and treatment. My wife Chantal and I spent many sleepless nights reading information for and against the clinic. Given the situation we are in we felt that we had to be extremely thorough in our investigations into both the Burzynski option as well as the 'standard' treatments such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Both these options have a zero survival rate for our daughter.

What it boils down to is what we, as parents, felt the best route was for our little girl. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy are both very invasive, nasty therapies in a 3 year old and given the fact that we were told we had only a few months with her, we decided to give them a miss. We have spoken to patients from the clinic (in the UK) who have results, based on MRI scans, to show their tumours are shrinking. These are real people.

I am only going to ask you to put yourself in my shoes. My daughter needs the best chance to survive, and conventional medicine cannot give this. Does the money ultimately matter? It is the opportunity to try to save her life that is important, whatever the cost.

You make your own decisions about this, we are just two parents who want to save our little girl so she can grow up like any other kid.

Richard Saunders (Amelia's dad)

Re: Addison Lee

JB23 — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 12:56:21 -0000

I hate Addison Lee now. I'm going to start using Lewis Day both personally and on account for the company I work for.
They charge too much nowadays and their drivers are liars. Many times I and my clients have received a call they have arrived in within five minutes they've left. Now I deal with sport clients so this frankly takes the biscuit even more so when your invoice arrives!
I've used them for three years and cannot be bothered anymore. Until they go back to being known as a customer friendly cab company I'll go elsewhere.

Re: The diet secret They don’t want you to know

anarchic teapot — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:40:25 -0000

You missed out: weigh yourself at the same time of day once a week. Fix goals and stick to them, and remember you need to stabilise your habits once the goal is reached.

Eat fruit whole, rather than drink fruit juice (high sugar). A dash of milk in tea of coffee is fine, as long as it's a dash. If you get hungry, reach for an apple or carrot.

Lost 4lbs this week. I can do this.

Re: hCG diet scam

Bayani — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 09:17:34 -0000

Apparently, it can, or did you just choose to ignore what the author of the paper wrote?

"it should also be noted that only 19 patients were examined in this study, and the overall safety implications should be taken with caution."

And:

"it should be noted that a placebo was not used in the meal replacement group; therefore, simply providing the sub- lingual drops may have had effects on appetite or weight loss, independent of the presence of hCG.

We respect evidence, but a single study does not automatically mean we ignore everything that came before it.

Re: Simon Wessely

Godal — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:32:40 -0000

If that is the anti-Wessely agenda, then it is not one that I am a part of and, nor, from what I have seen, are most of those patients who are critical of his work and the impact it has had upon their lives.

I do not think that scientists are any less morally accountable for their actions than politicians, or anyone else. I think it's entirely reasonable to hold Wessely personally morally
accountable for his actions, in the same way that it would be George
Bush, or any other figure. Moral matters are often best understood at the level of the individual. I am interested in Wessely and the issues which surround his work, and the recent claims that the only reason any patients are upset with him is because they are anti-psychiatry or resent the remarkably successful treatments which he has developed.

I included a link above to a well referenced summary of the ways in which data from the recent PACE trial was manipulated to create the impression that the treatments being promoted were much more effective than was really the case. I think it also cites earlier trials which showed CBT to be effective according to subjective questionnaire scores, but the researchers involved failed to release objective data from actometers and neuropsychological testing which showed no improvement until nearly a decade after the initial results. While CBT may be of use to some patients, the manner in which it has been promoted has been misleading and harmful. Once the cognitions of patients become medicalised, a culture of manipulative paternalism seems to easily develop - along with the resentment and 'militancy' that this breeds.

There are lots of difficult and complicated matters which surround the biopsychosocial approach to CFS, and which cause concern to patients. Some may present simplistic and unfair representations of Wessely as part of their criticism of him, for which it would be fair to criticise them, but it is just as bad to create a simplistic straw-man of his critics and their concerns about biopsychosocial medicine and it's application. A defence of Wessely and his work should only be made on the basis of a careful examination of this work and it's impact upon patients, not upon a faith in the systems of science and their ability to operate effectively in politicised social settings where clear and objective data is lacking.

Re: Simon Wessely

Guy Chapman — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 06:59:34 -0000

There ia a unified anti-Wessely *agenda*. Specifically, some people find it unacceptable that a psychiatrist should take any part in treating ME/CFS patients, because they dislike the implications of that. This opposition is focused on Wessely, not on the content of his work, and is personalised, not measured and scientific.

Wessely is not Andrew Wakefield. He has, as far as I can see, done nothing wrong *unless* you consider it iherently unacceptable for a psychiatrist to attempt to use CBT on patients with ME/CFS. Science doesn't recognise this concept, there is no heresy in science.

You (less than some others but still) appear obsessed with a single individual here, in a way that is not going to actually provide any obvious benefit for patients.

Re: Simon Wessely

Godal — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:29:01 -0000

What on Earth made you think that I was interested in attacking Wessely for any of those three points? It seems as if you have been assuming there is some unified 'anti-Wessely camp' of whom Jane Bryant (who I had not previously heard of, although I did know that 'one click' had a bed reputation) is a leading light, and have been responding to this imagined ideology rather than what I have actually posted.

The way in which some think it is acceptable to lump together CFS patients, and make presumptions about their cognitions and beliefs, rather than treat them as individuals, is one of the problems which has followed from the biopsychosocial approach to the condition - but it is anything but honourable.

I have been trying to respond to the messages which you posted. I think we would have progressed somewhat more easily had you extended me the same courtesy.

Re: Simon Wessely

Guy Chapman — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:32:20 -0000

If you read my "Wesselygate" page it explains it all. http://www.chapmancentral.co.u...

I'm afraid there's not a lot of point trying to persuade me that attacking Wessely is a legitimate response to disliking the fact that (a) he published papers showing an improvement in some patients, (b) he is a psychiatrist and (c) some people don't like what those two facts taken together might imply.

I have never seen any evidence that his intent in investigating treatments was anything but honourable.

Re: Simon Wessely

Godal — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 11:42:29 -0000

"Attacks means what it says. You say "I think that it can be legitimate
to make freedom of information requests, e-mail circulars critical of a
researcher" - no, it's not legitimate to attack the researcher,
especially when they have not been active in the field for some years."

I've already replied to the 'not in the field' comment, and you just seem to have repeated it without accounting for my response.

Could you be more precise about exactly when you think FOIs or e-mails should be seen as unacceptable attacks? To be clear, are you saying that it is illegitimate to make freedom of information requests to try to get additional information about the results of research which one believes have been misrepresented? Have you read the information I linked to about the manner in which the results from PACE were spun? Do you think that such manipulation of results could explain why CFS research tends to attract a higher number of FOIs?

re conflicts of interest: I'm not so interested in this area, not least because it's so hard to gather compelling evidence. Wessely has done work for insurance companies who have a vested financial interest in classing illnesses as psychiatric (as is mentioned in the article you linked to) but that does not necessarily mean there is anything wrong with his work around CFS. What about the sort of moral issues that I raised in my first post here? These keep seeming relevant to your responses, but you have never replied to them. Is it ever acceptable to attack the moral foundations of a researcher's approach to an issue? Or must these matters be ignored, regardless of the harm they can result in?

"What has happened to Wessely is a witch-hunt"

Normally, this would mean that you do not think Wessely has done anything wrong. Yet you make this assertion seemingly without having addressed or considered any of the complaints I made about his work above. Do you think that the complaints about Wessely and his work are without merit? If so, why?

"You appear to e in denial about the fact that one of the leaders of the
anti-Wessely camp has now been convicted of criminal harassment. That
kind of behaviour has no place in scientific debate. None at all."

I'm afraid that I have no prior knowledge about this incident, but I've certainly not denied it in anyway. Who is this 'leader of the anti-Wessely camp'? What makes you think that they are a leader? I would have thought that, were they truly a significant or widely known critic, I would have heard about their conviction, but I may not have. If you think that my complaints about Wessely and his work should be affected, or viewed differently, because of a report that someone I've never heard of has been arrested for harrassing him, then I do not agree. It would not surprise me if some people's hatred of Wessely has led to them acting unreasonably, and I'm happy to condemn that, but I do not think their behaviour should affect judgements of myself.

Re: Simon Wessely

Guy Chapman — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:46:55 -0000

Attacks means what it says. You say "I think that it can be legitimate to make freedom of information requests, e-mail circulars critical of a researcher" - no, it's not legitimate to attack the researcher, especially when they have not been active in the field for some years. If there are methodological problems with the research then address those, if there is an undisclosed conflict of interest (which would not include simply practising your own speciality, which is all it seems Wessely has done) then address that, as was done with Wakefield. What has happened to Wessely is a witch-hunt, a vendetta pursued in a particularly unpleasant way. You appear to e in denial about the fact that one of the leaders of the anti-Wessely camp has now been convicted of criminal harassment. That kind of behaviour has no place in scientific debate. None at all.

Re: Simon Wessely

Godal — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:38:05 -0000

What do you mean by attacks?

I think that it can be legitimate to make freedom of information requests, e-mail circulars critical of a researcher, make complaints about a researcher, and so on. Personally, I've not done any of the above, but I think that it is dangerous to describe them as attacks which can be never be justified, yet they were used as examples of attacks in the article you linked to. In the case of FOI requests, there have been specific complaints about the number of FOI requests related to the PACE trial, but as we have since seen how the results from this trial were spun and manipulated (as detailed in the link above), I think that responsibility for the cost and inconvenience of such requests should lie with those researchers who have legitimised a culture of scepticism and distrust around CFS research.

What exactly counts as going 'too far' in the criticism of a researcher? A great many patients are very, and legitimately, angry with the way in which Simon Wessely
has approached their condition, and the impact this has had upon their
lives. This could mean some go 'too far', but the problems and anger that surround Wessely's work are much bigger than that, and there seems to be an attempt by some to delegitimise all patient complaints about and action against Wessely by tying them to anecdotal reports of extremely rare and, as far as I'm aware, unconfirmed instances of violent threats, or presenting all anger about his work in light of some imagined commitment to naive cartesian dualism. The article you linked to did not seem to have been well researched, or have had any input from those who do believe that Wessely and his work deserve to be 'attacked'. Your simplification of the problems that surround Wessely's work was unfair and misleading.

I think I've already responded to your assertion that 'scientists are allowed to be wrong' in my first post here, and I do not think you replied to any of my questions or comments there. It is difficult to say exactly who should be considered a 'scientist', and this classification should not bring with it any particular moral absolution.