NeuroTalk Support Groups - View Single Post - CNN Report

Vicc · 02-15-2007, 07:42 AM

Mike:

When I first read your two posts in reply to my comments about doc S, I thought they were pretty silly: Everyone knows you're talking about what I wrote, so why all this extra stuff like “some”, “a view out there”, “folks”, “others piling on” and “a bunch of town folk”?

(OK, artist did try to defuse things by talking about amiable disagreements, and she did describe her horror upon learning about Kit’s experience, but she certainly isn’t one of the “others” you talk about. Or is she? There's not a lot of "others" to choose from. Your call).

Anyway, I couldn’t understand why you just didn’t directly reply to my words; then I understood. You’re a lawyer, and when lawyers don’t have facts they resort to tricks. Lawyers use words to distort reality; to pee on our legs and make us believe it’s raining.

Making me into the leader of some sort of conspiracy against doc S shifts the focus from his unethical behavior and onto this witch hunt gimmick. Lest the metaphor be lost on readers, you provide us these visual cues:

Frankly, and at the risk of alienating some, I am at times left with the imagery of a bunch of town folk, storming the castle with torches and pitchforks.

Mike, we both know that all those town folk are just me. That’s me with the pitchforks; that’s me over there with the torches. But talking about a bunch of Vic’s doing all this doesn’t serve your purposes. A witch hunt needs more people.

It’s the same with: …then others are coming along and piling on him [doc S] like he's the Anti-Christ. Describing me as piling on like he’s the Anti-Christ, doesn’t quite create the picture you want people to see. You need imaginary “others” doing the piling on.

Well, Mike, the truth is that it’s just me, and this witch hunt thing is just plain nonsense.

I know that some feel otherwise, and that's their right, but this forum should NOT be understood to be a place that supports a unitary view that Dr. Schwartzman is a snake oil salesman.

I agree that it wouldn’t make sense to begin with; “I know that Vic feels otherwise…” This is hardly the image of the unitary view you claim to be protecting us from, but should you but make your point by using distortions? Is there a point without your distortions?

And why not trust the truth and just use my words? I didn’t say doc S is a snake oil salesman; I said he is a ketamine huckster. Or is truth so irrelevant that it isn't necessary even when it is useful?

I see I’m “folks” again when you write: I just believe folks are making a mistake in ascribing to [Schwartzmann] all of the sins, real or imaginary of the medical community.

Mike, all the “imaginary” is on your end. I said that he is unscientific in ascribing RSD to central sensitization; and I gave good, solid reasons for saying it. I also said that he wrote an article that (in my view) was unethical as he used the word “permanent” to describe remissions he knew would soon become relapses.

Your “paraphrasing” of my words crossed the line into fabrication and distortion:

And for that matter, who among us hasn't labored in an occupation for a good number of years where our professional views haven't changed over time? Yet what's going on here is that stuff is being pulled out against a man, as though every position he took over God knows how many years is being held against him as though it was yesterday,

That’s lawyer talk for “I can’t argue the facts here, so let’s pretend we’re talking about something completely different”. What amazes me is that you would make this ridiculous claim on the same thread as my actual words.

In your first post you say:

Finally, I know that there is a view out there that hold that “I’ll stick with stuff I can understand.”

Now I may be a little thin-skinned at this point, but since all the other “folks”, “others”, etc, were clearly me, when you say “there is a view out there” you’re probably talking about me again.

I’m not sure how even a lawyer could accuse me of holding the view that “I’ll stick with stuff I can understand.” People who dedicate four years of their life to studying anything are not the kind to stick with what they understand: they want to understand more. This crap is more in the nature of a personal attack; hiding behind “a view out there” notwithstanding.

No one likes having their words misquoted or distorted in a way that tries to make them appear deceitful or foolish. None of us can avoid feeling personally attacked when this happens; I certainly did. But I have known you long enough to believe these posts aren’t the real Mike.

Maybe you were so angry about me talking about someone you think of as a friend that you just slipped into your “lawyer mode” without thinking of how it would affect me. I don’t believe you will look back on these posts with a lot of pride.

I wish I could just leave these posts unanswered, allowing them to fall from page 1 and into eventual oblivion, but two things make this impossible for me: pride (which we know goeth before the fall), and the fact that I believe my credibility is important if I am to persuade others that their hope for recovery from this disease lies in making the effort to learn what RSD really is. I can’t allow assaults on my credibility to go unanswered.

I hope we can find a way to restore amiable disagreement, but it won’t come at the price of my silence on anything I strongly believe. I will try to refrain from talking about doc S in personal terms, but he’s fair game when it comes to his writing.

I would like to see this end now, but after 42 years of marriage I’ve become resigned to never having the last word. If you choose to add anything further, I hope it will be limited to a reply to my assertion of unethical conduct. (I think we can agree to quietly disagree over my personal opinion of doc S)…Vic