Originally written 6th February 2013.

This statement is also available on pdf here:

http://mywikibiz.com/images/5/55/My_emai...rticle.pdf


My email correspondence with Journalist Michael Hanlon regarding a
proposed Sunday Times article


PERMISSION TO REPOST

Angela Kennedy
6th February 2013


I have today seen comments made by Charles Shepherd on the ME Association Facebook wall, regarding an article being written by a journalist from the Sunday Times:

“Had a fairly long and amicable chat this evening with the journalist who is writing the feature on ME/CFS for the Sunday Times. From what we covered this evening in my hotel I don't think this item is going to be looking at anything new in relation to both politics and research.... So it looks as though this article is going to cover the debate re nomenclature and sub-grouping (ME vs CFS), XMRV saga, PACE trial (including 'recovery' paper and House of Lords debate), CBT and GET - what do they involve? why are they so controversial? and all the usual stuff about hate mail: Who does it? (a minute minority - some of whom probably have a personality disorder rather than ME) And why to they do it? (because they are angry at the lack of biomedical research and clinical trials aimed at people who do not fit into the psychosocial model of causation >> an illness perpetuated by abnormal illness beliefs and behaviours + the resulting deconditioning and inactivity). Not that this justifies this type of activity.”

In light of Dr Shepherd's extremely worrying revelations here, and recent misrepresentations of patient concerns in an academic journal, I believe that I should now reveal that I was approached by a journalist, Michael Hanlon in regard to this proposed article in December 2012. Below is all the email correspondence I had with Mr Hanlon (my only form of interaction with him). I should also explain that I have heard nothing further from Mr Hanlon after I declined the lunch invitation on 7 December 2013.

I had intended to wait until after the article was published before publicising my full correspondence with Mr Hanlon. However, because I am concerned at the content of Dr Shepherd's post above and its implications for how this article will be written, I believe it is important for readers to understand the exact context in which information was given to Mr Hanlon, before the article is published. I believe that journalists have a duty to make fair and accurate representation of the issues they cover and the people they interview, and at this time I am hoping the transparency and accuracy of my own actions here will be mirrored in the Sunday Times article when it is published.


The email correspondence below is in chronological order.

ANGELA KENNEDY

----- Original Message -----
From: Hanlon, Michael
To: angelakennedy372@btinternet.com
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 11:10 AM
Subject: ME, XMRV, the PACE trials and Simon Wessely

Dear Angela

I am a science journalist and I have been commissioned to write a piece for the Sunday Times magazine about ME patient-support groups.

This is in the light of recent findings regarding XMRV, the continuing controversies regarding the PACE trials and the recent prize awarded to Simon Wessely.

Would you be prepared to chat with me, either on- or off-the-record?

Best regards
Michael Hanlon


----- Original Message -----
From: ANGELA KENNEDY
To: Hanlon, Michael
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: ME, XMRV, the PACE trials and Simon Wessely

Dear Michael,
Thank you very much for your email. I will be very happy to chat with you via email in the first instance, if that is ok. This is because talking by phone is difficult for me because of my daughter's care needs.

I can also send you relevant sources that explain my position in this situation, and if you would like a complimentary copy of my book (of which I presume you are aware) - let me know the address and I will send.

Best wishes
Angela Kennedy


----- Original Message -----
From: Hanlon, Michael
To: ANGELA KENNEDY
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: ME, XMRV, the PACE trials and Simon Wessely

Dear Angela

Thank you for taking time to reply.

I have to say at the outset where I am, what (if any) agenda I have and what I hope to write about. Never believe a journalist who says they don't have an agenda - we all do. But at least I will try to lay my cards on the table.

I have been a science journalist for 20 years and, as such, I count myself as broadly 'pro-science'. I tend to side with sceptics and rationalists, materialists and those who obsess about evidence-based medicine. I distrust homeopathy, people who worry about electrosmog and people who claim to have seen UFOs.

But M.E.? I admit I am baffled. When I first picked up on the whole debate, if that is not too polite a word, between the likes of Simon Wessely who believe that M.E is basically a psychogenic condition that can be treated by CBT and other techniques, and those who insist that M.E. is the result of an infection or immune system malfunction, I was mystified.

My initial reaction has been to side totally with the psychiatrists. I have seen some of the emails and so forth that have been sent, told about the FOI requests, reports to the GMC and so on and find it weird, at best, that this is happening.

But clearly people feel very strongly about this and I want to know why. Perhaps you can tell me?

I have written about many controversies - animal experimentation, global warming, MMR and so on but even a brief delve into the Internet shows me that there is a volcano of an issue here.

So, my first question. You are prominent among those who would like to see ME treated as a 'proper' illness (not psychogenic). What informs this view?

Do you condemn - unreservedly - those small number of people who appear to have issued threats, however vague, against people like Simon Wessely? You are quoted as saying that you believe these threats are a storm in a teacup, that Wessely et al are over-reacting. Is this the case?

I have spoken to Simon Wessely and he seems a decent, humane man. Do you accept that he is decent and humane, even if you disagree with his methods and point of view regarding this disease?

How did you react to the recent news that XMRV is probably not the causal agent of ME?

Did you previously believe it was? If not XMRV, then what do you believe causes ME?

Are you still in contact with Jane Bryant?

Have you ever met your opponents and debated with them? Do you believe it is possible to have a mature and reasoned debate over a matter of what amounts to a major scientific and medical disagreement?

I look forward to hearing from you, and your view on any of these issues.

Best regards
Mike


----- Original Message -----
From: ANGELA KENNEDY
To: Hanlon, Michael
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: ME, XMRV, the PACE trials and Simon Wessely

Dear Mike,
I will hopefully be able to answer your questions within the next few hours. In the meantime I enclose three links which you should look at to get a reasonably clear idea of where I am actually 'coming from':

1. The link to my book on Amazon gives the first few pages of the Introduction on its 'look inside' facility. The first three pages will I believe be most useful to you, though I would also recommend you read the back cover, which also gives my academic research interests as a social sciences lecturer and researcher.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Authors-Our-Misf...800&sr=8-1

2. A publicly available statement I have made about dematory claims made about me with regard to Professor Wessely.

http://mywikibiz.com/images/2/2b/Stateme...ssment.pdf

3. My complaint to the Lancet about the PACE trial:
http://mywikibiz.com/images/7/74/Complai...rticle.pdf
Best wishes
Angela

----- Original Message -----
From: ANGELA KENNEDY
To: Hanlon, Michael
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: ME, XMRV, the PACE trials and Simon Wessely

Dear Mike,
For ease of reference I have preceded your questions with a Q, and my answers with an A (should make things clearer hopefully!)

Firstly I should tell you that I too count myself as (colloquially) 'pro-science' (though with some caveats), with a rationalist, materialist concern that science and social science, proceeds with empirical adequacy, and rational, coherent argument within a critically analytical framework: and that all underlies my critiques of psychogenic explanations for physical illnesses like ME, particularly the analysis I undertake in my book.

I am concerned that you seem to believe FOI requests and reports to the GMC constitute harassment. These are publicly available legitimate courses of action, through official channels, for people who have concerns or complaints about certain situations. I'm confident you would not think anyone who has ever made a complaint to the GMC, written to an employer, or asked for information under FOI is guilty of harassment per se. Journalists use FOI requests, for example. These were mentioned three times on Panorama the other night; and have been used by BBC reporters since 2005:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/2...efault.stm

There are specific, legitimate and rational reasons people are taking these - again, legitimate - courses of action. As you will have seen from the links I gave you, there are specific reasons I have had occasion to complain about the PACE trial, and write to an employer, neither of which can be remotely considered as 'harassment'. I would say, if I may advise you, that you should dig deeper on those reasons.

Q: So, my first question. You are prominent among those who would like to see ME treated as a 'proper' illness (not psychogenic). What informs this view?

A: Your above comment does not accurately reflect my position. This is why I would ask you to read the first three pages and back cover of my book via the Amazon link I gave you to get an idea of where I am coming from. There are a very important distinctions between your above assessment of my position and what my position actually is, not least being that I do not consider psychiatric illnesses as 'improper' or 'not real', which is what your description implies (whether or not you meant it like that). But to give a summary of where I am coming from: I am concerned about psychogenic misdiagnosis, which leads to psychogenic dismissal of serious physical illness, which leads to patients' lives, health and quality of life being endangered. Psychogenic misdiagnoses have led to tragic, premature deaths, and to prejudicial treatment by health, educational, social and benefits agencies, even communities and families.

It is also untrue that people objecting to psychogenic explanations for ME are doing so out of contempt for mental illness and its sufferers - though that is a myth that gets repeated over and over again.

One thing I think also needs to be remembered is that, no matter what I, or Professor Wessely, the ME community or other doctors think, the WHO classify ME as a neurological illness, and the British government abides by this classification.

1. Q: Do you condemn - unreservedly - those small number of people who appear to have issued threats, however vague, against people like Simon Wessely?

A: I must ask you quote this exactly: "As an academic myself I unreservedly condemn any actual harassment and abuse of researchers. However, raising reasonable objections to something through legitimate means (such as FOI requests or official complaints) is not harassment or abuse. There are specific reasons I have complained about the PACE trial, and written to an employer, neither of which can be remotely considered as 'harassment'."

The other issue you need to consider though - and this is vital - is that hate speech is being waged against a disabled patient group, especially though not exclusively with regard to the claims of 'harassment', that are specifically unsafe i.e. falsely accusing people - who are following legitimate procedures - of harassment, intimidation, and abuse, which is what is being done, when you look carefully at the various claims being made about the community.

ME sufferers are being characterised as 'extremists', 'fanatics', as well as 'malingerers' and 'hypochondriacs'. Their concerns are misrepresented as contempt for mental illness sufferers. They are mocked and told that they cannot be that ill in the first place if they have the energy to comment, an common insult. The historical insult 'Yuppie flu' is repeated as nauseum. Doctors have been involved in inciting this contempt for sufferers, and I discuss this phenomenon in my book.


2. Q: You are quoted as saying that you believe these threats are a storm in a teacup, that Wessely et al are over-reacting. Is this the case?

A: I would be grateful if you could give me the exact place such a 'quote' was made (and by whom), because I have never said this. This is not how I actually speak or write, and it is certainly NOT how I see the situation.

3. Q: I have spoken to Simon Wessely and he seems a decent, humane man. Do you accept that he is decent and humane, even if you disagree with his methods and point of view regarding this disease?

A: It is impossible for me to make an assessment of the character of someone whom I have never met. It's like asking me to say if Robert Pattinson is a 'decent, humane' man. In any case, as both a supporter of the ME community and, importantly, an academic myself, my concern is really not with anyone's 'character', but with highlighting specific problems with claims, and actions, within the fields of science and medicine that might be harming patients.

4. Q: How did you react to the recent news that XMRV is probably not the causal agent of ME? Did you previously believe it was? If not XMRV, then what do you believe causes ME?

A: The vast majority of patients and their supporters are not, and were never, pushing for a 'favorite pathogen'. From my experience, most of us were - still are - merely hoping for science to progress, correctly and ethically, in testing for a possible causative agent. There are, however, reasons to believe there were, and remain, problems with how 'the science' was conducted, following publication of the Lombardi paper.

5. Q: Have you ever met your opponents and debated with them? Do you believe it is possible to have a mature and reasoned debate over a matter of what amounts to a major scientific and medical disagreement?

A: I did try and explain concerns about the PACE trial to Peter White, one of its authors, in a public meeting actually about the trial, but sadly he was not interested in discussing them. It SHOULD be possible to have mature and reasonable debates over this matter, but that is impossible when one 'side', from a position of power (that is proponents of psychogenic explanations for ME), accuses other participants (like patients and their supporters) of harassment, intimidation, and abuse - just because they have raised legitimate objections or concerns through legitimate channels - and misrepresents those concerns, which is sadly what has been happening.

Best wishes
Angela


----- Original Message -----
From: Hanlon, Michael
To: ANGELA KENNEDY
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: ME, XMRV, the PACE trials and Simon Wessely

Dear Angela

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

Would you be prepared to meet with me sometime before Christmas? Happy to buy you lunch on the Sunday Times!

Best regards
Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: ANGELA KENNEDY
To: Hanlon, Michael
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: ME, XMRV, the PACE trials and Simon Wessely

Dear Mike,
Thank you, that's very kind of you :) Unfortunately I'm just not in a position to do that at the moment - certainly not before Christmas, and to be honest after Christmas feels unlikely, for a variety of reasons around caring for my daughter - and to be honest I've not been too well myself anyway (ongoing anaemia of unknown cause).

But anything else you need to ask me I am happy to answer by email.

There is one thing I forgot to mention in my previous email, regarding insults against ME patients that are repeated over and over again by journalists and academics (and Roger Highfield has just used this insult himself in a tweet!), and that is the irrelevant and laboured association, onto the obvious but entirely coincidental similarity, in the English language, between the acronym for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, and the first person objective, in order to characterise ME patients’ characters in dysphoric terms. This manifests in phrases like "the Me Me Me lobby" (Highfield's tweet), or in Elaine Showalter's case, this comment in her book Hystories, that the acronym “reflects the patient’s self absorption” . This is being done without irony. It's become, I'd say, an institutionalised, highly prejudicial insult against a disabled group. I discuss the characterisation of ME sufferers (and those of other illnesses deemed psychogenic) in dysphoric terms in detail in my book.

Best wishes
Angela

END OF CORRESPONDENCE

Professor Susan Wendell comments on my book

I'm very honoured to have received the following comments from Professor Susan Wendell, author of the book 'The Rejected Body: Feminist Philosophical Reflections on Disability' about my book, comments she has given permission to make public:

"I am very, very impressed by the thoroughness of your research. Even though our lines of inquiry into both ME/CFIDS and psychosomatic diagnosis have been different, nearly every relevant study I had encountered in my own research is discussed by you, and then you cover far more. I am equally impressed by your careful reasoning in confronting the scientific inadequacies and logical absurdities of much psychosomatic theorizing.

Perhaps most important for readers who are at risk of receiving psychosomatic diagnoses (and, from my own research, I would say that includes virtually everyone who may become ill), you expose the consequences of psychosomatic diagnosis or speculation in medicine, clinical psychology, counselling, social work and everyday life. Your book is a gift to everyone who has endured these consequences - including shame, isolation, loss of income and social rejection. Thank you, thank you for all the painstaking work you have done in writing it."

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rejected-Body-Philosophical-Reflections-Disability/dp/0415910471/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357639592&sr=1-1

My submission to the Select Committee on Dog Control and Welfare

My submission to the Commons Select Committee on Dog Control and Welfare has been accepted and published by them here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvfru/writev/dogcontrol/dog27.htm

first paragraph:

"My submission to this Committee is informed by my own position as a dog owner (of a small English Bull Terrier Cross rescue who is NOT ‘of type’), and as an academic social science lecturer and researcher, with a research interest in the social and material effects (on both people and dogs) of breed specific legislation (or BSL), and in public and state construction and management of risk. I have a number of grave concerns about the BSL component of the current UK Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (DDA) in its present form. As I shall demonstrate, it is not a rational law, and gives rise to many instances of injustice, while failing to protect the public, or dogs. Any attempt to extend this aspect of the law would not be rational or just. In addition, there are a number of additional proposals around dog control that are unreasonable and unworkable. These will make owning and controlling a dog more difficult, and will not protect the public or dogs. I will therefore also address these..."

Nick Davies' "Dark Heart" and the issue of relative and absolute poverty

The terms ‘Absolute poverty’ and ‘Relative poverty’ can be defined thus:

Absolute poverty measures the number of people living below a certain income threshold or the number of households unable to afford certain basic goods and services.

Relative poverty measures the extent to which a household's financial resources falls below an average income threshold for the economy. Although living standards and real incomes have grown because of higher employment and sustained economic growth over recent years, the gains in income and wealth have been unevenly distributed across the population.

In 1998 Nick Davies, an investigative journalist, wrote Dark Heart, an account of people’s experiences of poverty and its effects in the UK. While there has been academic work on poverty and its effects, Davies’ discussion of how people struggle is, in my opinion, one of the most relevant and explanatory (though it needs to be remembered he is writing polemically). His comments are particularly relevant to the issues of ‘absolute’ and ‘relative’ poverty, and how relative poverty does not mean ‘doing ok‘, contrary to some political representations of the term:

“… Beyond the small minority who lack even the basic necessities of life, it turns out that there are numerous people in this community who live in real need and who avoid disaster only by living in the social equivalent of an iron lung, surviving only because they allow themselves to be encased in rigid self-discipline - to control themselves and their instincts, to measure every penny and plan every action, so that they never give in to temptation by spending the evening in a pub or giving their children new toys or buying new clothes or going out to the cinema. If they control every detail of their lives and strap themselves down within strict limits, then they can cling to the four essentials of life. But these lives of quiet desperation are always on the edge of disaster. One mistake, one weakness or one extra problem: that is all it takes to plunge them into trouble. An unexpected bill, a crime, a physical sickness, a mental illness, a violent partner, an aggressive neighbour, and accident at home, a bereavement or an addiction. Some stumble over the edge accidentally, like the old lady with her phone bill. Some deliberately jump, like the ones who drink knowing that they are blowing an entire week’s money in a single night but preferring six days of trouble to a lifetime without laughter. Common sense demands that the circumstances of these people should be described as poverty. So why can’t the Duke of Edinburgh and the others see it?

Apart from the fact that that they have never entered the lives of these people, the larger obstacle is the very idea of ‘absolute poverty’. These people use the term to indicate the state of complete material deprivation in which people once lived on the streets of Victorian England and in which they continue to live on the streets of Calcutta or in the deserts of Ethiopia, conditions in which men and women have none of the essentials of life. On this definition, there is no poverty in Britain. But is that a fair way to think of poverty? What would happen, for example, if they took a similar approach to the idea of prosperity? Following the same line of argument, they would have to say that since absolute prosperity involves a state of complete material fulfilment, it can be found only in the palaces of Saudi Arabia or in the heights of Hollywood, where men and women live conditions in which they lack absolutely nothing. On that definition, they would be compelled to say that despite all that has been claimed on behalf of the British economy in the 1980s and 1990s, there is, in fact, no prosperity in Britain. The idea of poverty is being stretched by these people to a point where it loses its meaning….

… Of course, it is complicated. There are some people, including many families, who suffer from poverty yet manage to survive without collapsing. A few individuals not only survive but also manage to prosper and to escape. Others are forced to stay but nevertheless manage to hold their lives together. They have that much more inner strength, moral or physical or spiritual, than their neighbours. They have luck. They have relatives with savings who will bail them out of a bad time. But most are unable to defend themselves, perhaps because they have been weakened by one problem too many, perhaps because they are simply unlucky, and so poverty’s assault finds out some weaknesses in their armour and penetrates their lives in all its destructive force.


(Davies, 1998: 113-114)

New years honours? This one's a head-scratcher...

I have no personal feelings about Professor Simon Wessely's character whatsoever. I must also say he is not the only person whose actions I and many others have good reason to critique. Nevertheless, the man has been dogmatically and aggressively promoting fallacious pet theories, informed by prejudicial beliefs about patients, for many years. This has led to institutionalised abuse, in various ways, of patients, and has caused huge levels of catastrophic harm to many people. In recent years he and his supporters have engaged in nothing short of a smear campaign, using his privileged access to the press, against those who make reasonable objections to his actions. To see him awarded a knighthood in these circumstances is demoralising and odd, to say the least, although it perhaps points to how such a system is often not properly scrutinised. There will be a lot of alienated UK citizens shaking their heads in dismay over this.

Statement regarding ongoing campaign by Simon Wessely claiming 'harassment' by ME/CFS sufferers

** UPDATE RE LINKS **: Due to problems with establishing publicly accessible files, the files below are now available via a public access facebook group, on a list of uploaded files: https://www.facebook.com/groups/797839010288334/files/

----------------------------------------

There has been a sustained and ongoing media campaign, for some years now, claiming ME/CFS sufferers and supporters are criminally harassing researchers.

There are key problems with these articles/radio programmes:

1. The allegations themselves are unsafe. For example, an anonymous comment that "you will all pay" was deemed a 'death threat' last summer, when no threat was actually made, and the comment appeared to denote instead a prediction of eventual accountability for mistreatment of ME/CFS sufferers. Ironically, David Cameron used the phrase "you will pay" towards rioters a few days later, without it being deemed a 'death threat'.

2. There has also been a false categorisation of legitimate, non-criminal action by ME/CFS sufferers and their supporters (such as requests under FOI legislation, official complaints through various public agencies etc.) as 'malicious harassment', or 'abuse' or 'intimidation’. Legitimate actions are cynically juxtaposed with alleged acts of criminal harassment to construct non- criminal parties as harassers.

3. These articles/programmes then go on to misrepresent any objections to psychogenic dismissal of the illnesses diagnosed as ME or CFS. Reasonable objectors have been falsely deemed 'extremist', even ‘criminal‘, but no chance is given to such objectors to put forward their reasonable positions.

I am a social sciences researcher and lecturer, and the parent of a person previously (but no longer) diagnosed with ME/CFS. In 2007 I was once falsely accused of 'personally harassing' Professor Wessely by a Wikipedia administrator, claiming Professor Wessely had told him this himself. I publicly oppose and critique psychogenic explanations for ME/CFS, on both a political and academic level. I have NEVER harassed Professor Wessely or contacted him, though he once wrote an unsolicited email to me, after a critical comment I made about flaws in psychogenic explanations was quoted in a parliamentary debate in 2004. When I wrote to Professor Wessely's employers, asking that he clarify he had no part in the false claims made on Wikipedia in 2007, they sadly refused to provide that clarification. Last year in the British Medical Journal, I found that people who wrote to employers were being falsely juxtaposed with alleged 'death threat' makers, as harassers.

I have written an academic book critiquing psychogenic explanations for physical illnesses. I am therefore an academic critic of Wessely's and others' claims about ME, CFS and other conditions. This is a legitimate practice, and to be falsely accused of harassment is repugnant. People are quite right in asking for substantiation of highly problematic claims, especially as these claims are being used by various parties to wage hate speech against the ME community and innocent advocates.

As I have done many times, I am more than happy to repeat that I condemn any actual harassment of researchers.

The correspondence I had with Professor Wessely's employers is reproduced here:
http://mywikibiz.com/images/7/71/Correspondence_with_Peter_McGuffin_and_John_Williams_over_Profes
sor_Wessely_and_claims_of_harassment.pdf

Also available via the APK-Papers link (See right hand column here).

Please note a PDF of this statement also available here: PDF: http://mywikibiz.com/images/2/2b/Statement_re_Simon_Wessely_and_claims_of_harassment.pdf

My book "Authors of our Own Misfortune: The Problems with Psychogenic Explanations for Physical Illnesses' has been published

My book 'Authors of Our Own Misfortune? The Problems with Psychogenic Explanations for Physical Illnesses' has been published! It is available on Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.com below. It will also be available through various other outlets in the coming weeks.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Authors-Our-Misfortune-Psychogenic-Explanations/dp/0857181017/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1346412380&sr=1-3-fkmr1

Also:


http://www.amazon.com/Authors-our-own-misfortune-explanations/dp/1479253952

From the back cover:

"Since the advent of 'medicine' as a discrete practice, beliefs that bodily illness can somehow be caused by psychological, emotional, and behavioural ‘disorder’ have been claimed by many in the discipline. Such beliefs became less creditable as scientific methods of detecting disease developed, with discoveries such as the physiological and anatomical abnormalities in Parkinson’s disease and Multiple Sclerosis, for example, and the organisms causing syphilis and duodenal ulcers. Nevertheless, psychogenic explanations for illnesses still appear frequently within medical and academic literature, in 'common sense' public discourses, and in medical diagnoses of patients. But how plausible are these explanations?

Authors of our Own Misfortune? proposes that psychogenic explanations for physical illnesses are subject to a complex mix of confusing concepts, accompanied by certain moralistic and ideological assumptions about people and their illnesses. Most crucially, such explanations are also, almost always, fatally flawed, both scientifically and logically. Furthermore, the widespread, uncritical acceptance and use of such explanations has had serious and specific adverse effects on the people upon whom they are used.

This is a timely, groundbreaking book about a critical theme in medicine. It provides rigorous analysis of the claims made about ‘mental disorder’ and bodily illness, using current ‘medical controversies’ (such as, but not limited to, Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome) to demonstrate the problems with and adverse effects of such claims. Authors of our Own Misfortune? is essential reading for academics, health professionals, and those directly or indirectly affected by psychogenic explanations for illness.

Angela Kennedy is a social sciences lecturer and researcher at a number of universities in London, and author of numerous articles, papers and books in lay, professional and academic media over a 30 year career. Her academic research interests include: the social stratification, scapegoating and social exclusion of disadvantaged groups, and the effects of these; constructions of moral panics; and the sociology of science and medicine, including manifestations of the 'science wars'. "