A few facts (for the record)

A few facts for the record

Margaret Williams

8th November 2004

Ellen Goudsmit has no idea what qualifications Margaret Williams obtained or where they were obtained, nor does she know the nature of Margaret Williams’ post-graduate work or at which university it was undertaken (in fact it was the University of Oxford);

Ellen Goudsmit has no idea what professional posts Margaret Williams has held, or in what capacity, nor does Ellen Goudsmit know with which law firms Margaret Williams worked as a medico-legal researcher or for how long;

Ellen Goudsmit’s assertion that “The court case which provided the reason for the initial use of the pseudonym by Ms Williams was completed some years ago” is erroneous: the reason for Margaret Williams’ continued use of a pseudonym is precisely because the Court case (on ME) is still alive and her legal team insist on no publicity, which could be detrimental to the proceedings. Miss Goudsmit’s implication that Margaret Williams uses a pseudonym to “hide behind” when “attacking people and needed to avoid brickbats or law suits” is pure fabrication by Miss Goudsmit and has no basis in fact, because Margaret Williams does not “attack” people, she simply states facts that can be verified;

No-one is claiming that Ellen Goudsmit’s “contribution to life was useless”: this is yet another illustration of her own misinterpretation of the facts;

What people object to is Ellen Goudsmit’s repeated portrayal of herself as something she is not (i.e. as a bona fide employed clinician who sees patients with ME). People object to her claims that imply her own superiority in ME matters (including her patronising references to “patients” as distinct from professionals such as herself) and to her many internet posts in which she clearly equates herself with genuine international ME experts, and to her claims that they are her “colleagues” and that, as the “only ME specialist” in the UK, she has “advised” these experts;

Ellen Goudsmit states (about herself) “It is perfectly acceptable to use pen names to write in non-medical publications”, so what is her objection to Margaret Williams doing so? The Statement from Professor Hooper, Eileen Marshall and Margaret Williams pointed out that Ellen Goudsmit was not a professional journalist and that is a statement of fact. That Miss Goudsmit has been paid for some articles she has written, whether she asked to be paid at Medical Journalists’ Association rates or not, does not make her a professional journalist, any more than Margaret Williams is a professional journalist;

Since it is Dr Charles Shepherd of the ME Association who organises the Melvin Ramsay Society, it is to be expected that Ellen Goudsmit would be involved, although her involvement apparently ceased when Professor Simon Wessely was invited: in her post on ResAct (posted before her reply on Co-Cure) she states “I specialise in ME and was an invited member of the Melvin Ramsey Society until they invited Wessely”;

Ellen Goudsmit states in her Co-Cure reply: “I wrote my PhD on ME”, yet the title of her dissertation is “The psychological aspects and management of chronic fatigue syndrome” (Brunel University, July 1996). As a psychologist who knows the extent of the psychiatric bias towards ME and who claims to be a specialist in ME, one might wonder why Miss Goudsmit focused solely on the psychological aspects of a disorder that has been classified as neurological since 1969;

The issues surrounding HealthWatch are detailed in Hansard (Lords) and it is the case that whilst on the CMO’s Working Group, Dr Charles Shepherd did not declare his membership of and active involvement with HealthWatch until it was brought to the attention of the ME community by Montague and Hooper;

In her Co-Cure reply Ellen Goudsmit finishes by again insinuating that Professor Hooper and his associates cast doubts “on good people which they do not deserve” and she continued: “To the untruths in relation to Dr Shepherd and HealthWatch, I can now add the errors in relation to myself”. If she includes herself as a “good” person, perhaps she is unaware that such accolades are normally awarded by others, not oneself.