Talk:Malcolm Hooper

Journal of Clinical Pathology Retraction
Anyone know why Hooper's review on ME in J Clin Pathol was retracted? 78.151.113.7 (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn'tEllengoudsmit (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

CV 10th Aug 2001
I obtained the following degrees from the Faculty of Medicine, University of London, B.Pharm. (1956), Ph.D. (1959). By election I received C.Chem. MRIC in 1963.

1959: Appointed Lecturer in Pharmaceutical and Medicinal Chemistry, School of Pharmacy, Sunderland Technical College.

1963: Appointed Senior Lecturer in Pharmaceutical and Medicinal Chemistry, School of Pharmacy, Sunderland Technical College.

October 1969: Appointed Reader in Pharmaceutical and Medicinal Chemistry, School of Pharmacy, Sunderland Polytechnic.

March 1982: Appointed Professor of Medicinal Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Sunderland Polytechnic.

August 1992: Retired as Professor of Medicinal Chemistry.

September 1993: Appointed Emeritus Professor at the University of Sunderland.

Throughout this period I taught students of pharmacy, pharmacology, and pharmaceutical and chemical analysis at honours degree level.

I also directed research at masters and particularly doctoral level. I supervised some 21 Ph. D. students in all.

I have served as an examiner at many UK universities, and universities in India and Tanzania, at graduate and postgraduate level.

I inaugurated links with Indian research institutions and universities and this year we celebrate the 25th Anniversary of these productive and ongoing links which particularly involved the design and development of new drugs for tropical diseases and an exploration of natural products associated with Ayurvedic medicine.

I have published some 50 papers in peer reviewed journals in the field of medicinal chemistry together with major reviews on the Chemotherapy of Leprosy, the Chemistry of Isatogens. I have edited one book on the Chemotherapy of Tropical Diseases.

I have acted as a referee for a number of important journals and served on one editorial board.

I have served on Committees of the Council for National Academic Awards, CNAA, World Health Organisation, Science and Engineering Research Council.

I am a member of a number of learned societies including the Royal Chemical Society, the British Pharmacological Society, and the Society for Drug Research, SDR, (now renamed as the Society for Medicines Research). For over 12 years I was on the committee of the SDR and served as Chairman for 2 years. This involved the planning and organising of major national and international conferences.

I have been appointed Chief Scientific Advisor to the Gulf Veterans Association, GVA, and accepted by the Ministry of Defence as their nominee on the Independent Panel established to consider the possible interactions between Vaccines and NAPS tablets. I also serve on the Gulf Support Group convened at the Royal British Legion. My involvement with the GVA brought me in contact with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, CFS/ME, and related disorders. Gulf War Illness/Syndrome, GWI/S, has much in common with CFS/ME.

I am now a patron of the Sunderland and South Shields ME Association and a member of the Newcastle Research Group which includes eminent physicians and scientists carrying out research into ME-CFS. One recent aspect of this work is the identification of organochlorine pesticide poisoning being misdiagnosed as ME-CFS.

As a consequence of my work with Gulf War Veterans I have also been brought into contact with organophosphate poisoned farmers, pesticide operatives and some scientists in this area. This in turn has lead to me giving addresses at meetings organised by the Pesticide Exchange network and being consulted by OPIN (organophosphate information network).

I have been interested and associated with the Autism Research Unit, University of Sunderland, for over 20 years with a growing involvement as the biochemical studies began to emerge and suggest new ways of offering help, support and treatment for people with autism.

In conjunction with the Autism Research Unit I am involved in some preliminary studies on Gulf War Veterans, ME-CFS sufferers, and organophosphate poisoned farmers and operatives. This research takes the form of urine analysis for IAG (indolylacroylglycine) an unusual metabolite found in, in excess, in over 90% of the people examined so far in these different groups. Whilst this research is in its early stages it does point to a common underlying biochemical disorder that can be addressed by dietary changes and supplementation.

I have a longstanding ministry as a Christian lay leader, preacher and teacher both locally, regionally and nationally. I served on the General Synod of the Church of England from 1970-1980.

As a voluntary leader I have been, or am involved, in three major campaigns concerned with the environment.

Against toxic waste dumping in a disused local colliery- it is now a major recreational site in Sunderland.

Currently I lead CASSS (Campaign Against Sewage in the Sea at Sunderland) which with Seaham Environmental Association (SEA) have helped to achieve major changes in the quality of sewage treatment and disposal. We submitted evidence to the Select Committee on Sewage Treatment and Disposal and have met with the Minister of State for the Environment, Michael Meacher, on two occasions.

As Chief Scientific Adviser to the Gulf War Veterans I submitted 45 pages of written evidence and gave oral evidence to the recent Select Committee on Defence.

Ward20 (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Updated 2007 CV Sam Weller (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability of academic
Please do not remove notability tag, he is not notable as academic, notability over all is an other issue. Oh and pls investinme is not a reliable source. Thx, RetroS1mone   talk  04:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hooper wrote his own cv Sam Weller (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We do not know Hooper wrote his own CV, website is activist, unreliable, and Hooper is a reliable source for his opinions, other things should have third source confirmation. RetroS1mone   talk  15:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK I do not know Hooper wrote his own CV, are you so close with Hooper you know that, may be you should think and not edit this article, COI. Thx RetroS1mone   talk  15:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you read Hooper's cv above, you will notice the use of 'I', 'me' and 'we' throughout. These are clues to the fact that Hooper wrote his own cv. I do not know Hooper at all, or anyone else connected with the ME controversy. Re your COI tag, I am not a 'major' contributor to the article - I have merely neutralised bias words, and quoted his academic appointments. I do not have, treat, research or campaign about ME, so you will just have to accept I have no COI here. Sam Weller (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK thank you for explaination. RetroS1mone   talk  18:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

pro organic and bias words
"Pro organic" is a bias, researchers that say psych factors are not real and they attack psych professionals, they are not pro organic, they are not in medical consensus, saying psych disorders are usually organic. This bias against psych is a common thing in people that do not understand psych and do not want to think they could have a psych disorder bc of social biasses. It is common for alot of people that have psych disorders like hypochondriasis, Lancet review 2004 Barsky and Ahern. These bias words should not go in htis article. RetroS1mone  talk  15:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You know what else is common? The generalising assumption that a critical view of psychological factors is not about questioning the degree, but instead synonymous with not understanding psychology and/or absolutely refusing any role whatsoever. The reverse example of "pro-organic" bias is "pro-psychological" bias, where psyche-to-soma reactions are a common ideology. Bias can go either way. Tekaphor  ( TALK ) 10:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

COI tag
Sam Weller says he does not have COI, OK I believe that, Ward20 is also putting in things here and at David Sheffield Bell i think say he has a COI. How does Ward20 know so much about David Sheffield Bell and other people they call "pro organic" w/o reliable sources? When a person that is involved in this conteroversy editing these articles, that is a COI and it is dishonest when a person does not admit it. I said before I do not have a COI, Sam Weller said he does not have a COI, does Ward20 say there is no COI, is not involved or a person in these conteroversies?? RetroS1mone  talk  18:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * RetroS1mone, your accusaion is false and I have no COI. Ward20 (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Before you add a COI tag, I believe you need to prove that there is a likely conflict-of-interest. I see no such proof, just a dislike of his edits. --Rob (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK I do not add back in the tag but Editor that is making biographies to resumes like Patricia Fennell and David Sheffield Bell and putting in stuff that is not in reliable sources, says this person can have a relationship w/ subject. And Ward20 says I have no COI but Ward 20 never says I have no relationship w these people i may be have personal knowledge about. I do not add back in the tag but i think it is most honest we all say, i know these people or i am one or i am not. I am not any person with a Wiki biography and i did not edit biographies about people i konw as persons bc i think it is COI. RetroS1mone   talk  15:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you know the editor has a conflict of interest, then that's fine, a COI tag might be appropriate (though I've seen in some places that should only be used if the article is being proposed for deletion, but not all references to it say that).  If an editor knows these people personally, then that would constitute a potential conflict of interest.  It would depend entirely on how well the editor knows that person.  I don't think it would constitute a COI if the person works in another part of the same building, they have no business relationship, and they've only ever seen each other in the hallway.  It most certainly would be a COI if the person works directly with them or is related to them in some way.  Anything else becomes a bit blurry, of course.  Details can be found at WP:CONFLICT.


 * What's not appropriate is making baseless accusations until the person specifically says "I don't know these people". That's working the basis of "guilty until proven innocent".  If all of Wiki worked that way, every single editor would have to specifically state that they don't know every single person whose page they work on, every company whose page they change, etc.  We simply don't work that way.  Heck, even if you did know of a COI, you're on very thin ice when it comes to WP:OUTING unless they specifically confirm it themselves. --Rob (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hooper qualifications
Once you log in as guest to The University of Sunderland, The Graduate Research School you can search for Hooper. The information is: Qualifications, BPharm (Bachelor of Pharmacy), PhD (Doctor of Philosophy), MRSC (MRSC), and CChem (Chartered Chemist).

He is Professor Emeritus, the above source does not mention former anything. Ward20 (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Professor Malcolm Hooper (as Chief Scientific Adviser to the Gulf War Veterans) Ward20 (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"Activism" vs. "advocacy"
Just to move the discussion to the appropriate page, since it seems to be spanning multiple Talk pages at the moment. It has been put forth that Malcolm Hooper is clearly an activist, and I have no issue with that statement, but due to its negative connotations, I've changed the word "activism" to "advocacy" until such time as we can find something that refers to him clearly as an "activist". While I do have CFS, I honestly don't know the person, have never seen or read anything by him that I'm aware of (beyond quick fact-checking and a glance at the External Links), so I make this change strictly for presentation and NPOV purposes until such time as activism can be properly sourced. --Rob (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There are still a few instances of the use of the word "activist". Additionally, the page states that "The Guardian reported on what it called a 'vendetta' by Hooper and other activists...", but The Guardian never uses the word "activist" to describe these other people. If anything, it actually says, "It is worth remembering that these are not political activists, but many are desperately ill people..." The Guardian doesn't use the word "advocate" either, but it is a more neutral word. Another problem is that Hooper does not seem to advocate "CFS", but "ME/CFS". Saying he is a "CFS advocate" is somewhat unrepresentative. I just did the "activist" to "advocate" edit for now. - Tekaphor  ( TALK ) 10:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You have a point there, the article even says that he prefers the ME name over CFS, so it would be rather insulting for any paper to refer to him as a CFS anything! Thanks for the catch on the remaining "activist" uses, btw, I've been underslept the last couple of days, so my edits and proofreading aren't necessarily up to par. :) --Rob (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not understand, is activist negative?? I thought activism is good?? I have a friend, AIDS activist that is proud of activist. Is not advocate a lawyer.


 * Guardian says CFS med consensus is CFS Wiki says CFS, does not matter Hooper can call it Simon Wessely Disease or ME, it is CFS. RetroS1mone   talk  15:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Activist" can be a negative term, particularly when it's applied to someone who doesn't consider themselves to be one. If we have references to Malcolm Hooper referring to himself as an activist, or newspapers and other articles doing so, then it would be appropriate to use the term here (possibly with quotation marks if the term is in doubt and being quoted from a source).  "Advocate" is a much more neutral, slightly-positive term that means essentially the same thing.  Honestly, from the little I've gathered, I think he might well fall into the category of "activist", and he might even consider himself one, but until we can establish that with some outside source, I think it's got a bit too much bias to be included in an article.


 * As far as CFS vs. ME, I don't see anywhere that the Guardian says the he's in favour of the term ME, but if we have a source for that, then that's entirely appropriate to include in the article. I just thought the section was too small and no longer relevant if the first sentence was removed (even if only temporarily), so it was better to remove the entire thing for the time being. --Rob (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK so remove the words you do not like. You remove all edits, Manual of Style edit, and you delete RS. Can we pls start on working together? And not calling me underhanded and English bad? RetroS1mone   talk  20:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * All I've done is remove the edits that were questionable and/or potentially libellous. You can see the replies to the multiple messages you posted on my talk page.  If you will kindly stop making and/or reverting edits against consensus, then we will indeed have started "working together" and I look forward to it. --Rob (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Vendetta
I have issues with the statement about a vendetta. Was there one? Well, according to The Guardian, yes. But the word "vendetta" is only mentioned twice:
 * There was no mention, say, of a vendetta by a group of patients against one of the leading consultants in the field.
 * It was the vendetta against a leading consultant, however, that provided my own introduction to the CFS battlefield.

The first one mentions only a vendetta by a group of patients - Hooper isn't a patient. The second one makes reference to "the vendetta", which presumably refers back to the same vendetta as the first mention. Hooper isn't even mentioned by name until much later in the article, though he's alluded to as a "professor emeritus" once before that.

Does anybody have a different interpretation of this article? If not, the line should either be removed (which would make the entire section so small that I think we might well be able to remove it entirely), or it should be re-written to more accurately reflect what is stated in the article. --Rob (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Given the rules for biography of a living person, I'm going to remove the entire section until it can be re-written, as a "vendetta" is an extremely negative term, and could potentially fall under the term "libel". I feel the section has merit and should be re-written, but cannot readily come up with that re-writing at the moment.  If anybody wants to take a crack at it, go nuts! :) --Rob (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought this version was good. Most of it was written by an IP several edits back and then refined over several other edits. Ward20 (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Let's edit the text below until we have consensus, then add it to the article. Ward20 (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I like this version much better than the variations of the previous one. I've added a couple of my own edits.  In the second paragraph, I would also suggest removing the first sentence entirely and moving it to the intro, or maybe a "qualifications" or "professional associations" section. --Rob (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Removed unecessary qualifier Ward20 (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Edited more to reflect what ws said in article. Ward20 (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Re-ordered and slightly re-worded first sentence. --Rob (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hooper is an emeritus, it says in the Guardian. Guardian says vendetta against Wessely is from patients and authors of internet and print critique, one of them is Hooper. Hooper is in vendetta, says Guardian. Vendetta is Guardian word,so it is in quotes, it is not libel. Or you would have "salvo" like in article? Not a blp concern, or you say Guardian is not reliable source.


 * "And no acknowledgment of a professor emeritus so infuriated by a leaked early draft of the report that, in defiance of protocol, he posted a devastating critique on the internet." The professor emeritus is Hooper. "It was the vendetta against a leading consultant, however, that provided my own introduction to the CFS battlefield. One morning, two bulky packages thudded on to my doormat. Their combined 400 pages were a cry of rage, channelled into the impersonal format of an academic critique. Rather quaintly, they were entitled Denigration By Design: Review With References Of The Role Of Dr Simon Wessely In The Perception Of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME)." "From what Hooper had seen of the leaked CMO's report, it seemed to him that history was going to repeat itself and the need for extensive testing would again be underplayed. And so he fired off his salvo." "Both Denigration... and the breaking of the embargo on the web were aimed at a single target: to gain recognition of the fact that CFS is a physical disorder, as real as tuberculosis or Aids, rather than some nebulous psychiatric disorder." RetroS1mone   talk  15:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I add it back in, it is from RS and i do not think activist is negative and vendetta, that is Guardian word and in quotes, and Guardian sense is, it is personal and Hooper was against Wessely before it on Guld War. RetroS1mone   talk  15:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that Hooper is a professor emeritus, that's unquestioned. I also agree that the story says he posted a devastating critique on the Internet.  Based on what I'm seeing in the article, however, the vendetta appears to only ever be by patients:  "...vendetta by a group of patients...".  They may have used Hooper's work in their vendetta, but Hooper himself is not directly mentioned as part of that vendetta.  At least that's my interpretation of the article.  And it can become libel if you incorrectly cite something that was never meant to apply to someone.  I'm sure I could quote that "Rob" "is" "a" "jerk" from various articles, but none of them ever specifically say that phrase about me, therefore it would be a constructed phrase by the author who linked them together, and could then be considered libel.  Unless we have consensus that it's clearly not libel, we need to err on the side of caution.  And on those grounds, I will re-revert the recent additions.


 * Also, despite your claims that you'll work with us, you've just clearly demonstrated that you're not going to do that. There was an ongoing discussion of what the article should say on the Talk Page, waiting for consensus to be reached.  You just violated that completely and reverted the existing text because in your opinion it wasn't libellous.  That's not working with other editors, it's continuing to make unilateral decisions, as you have shown a history of doing. --Rob (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The second time when the article says vendetta, it is on the people that "fired off the salvo" at Dr. Wessely a very respected scientist that I do not know and I never met and I am defending him bc people are trying to attack him on Wiki alot of years. The "vendetta" is Guardian word. Guardian says Hooper is "infuriated" and says his "salvo" is personal bc Wessely did not "acknowledge" him and he was angry and he defied "protocol." And it says the deabate, is a "battlefield" and the writing is a "cry of rage." I do not say a f word from this, it is all Guardian, a RS. I do not libel a person, and you can pls read WP NLT No Legal Threat. RetroS1mone   talk  20:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, though, that's creating a link where none exists. Hooper "fired off his salvo", no question.  CFS is a "battlefield", no question.  But the second reference to the word "vendetta" does not clearly apply to Hooper.  It only references "the vendetta", which was previously established as being "by a group of patients".  And I'm not sure how WP:NLT applies here.  I'm not making any legal threats against you or anybody else.  I'm not saying your comments are libellous.  What I'm saying is that the addition of the text to the article could be perceived as libellous, which [WP:BLP] clearly states should be reverted immediately, even if it's in contravention of WP:3RR.  Very specific to this situation, you need to read the section on restoring deleted content.  By that section, any resotration of the "vendetta" section must be reverted by any good faith editor until such time as you can demonstrate that it is uncontested and we have consensus that it can be added to the article. --Rob (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Honestly RetroS1mone, you didn't include the material earlier in the article saying, "There was no mention, say, of a vendetta by a group of patients against one of the leading consultants in the field." That is what is being referenced. The Guardian does make it clear that Hooper criticised a draft of the CMO report. Nowhere in the article does it say that Hooper was involved in the 400 page of critique of Wessely. The article states "Both Denigration... and the breaking of the embargo on the web were aimed at a single target: to gain recognition of the fact that CFS is a physical disorder, as real as tuberculosis or Aids, rather than some nebulous psychiatric disorder." Here the author specifically says the Denigration paper (Which is not linked to Hooper in any way, and Denigration in this instance refers to CFS not Wessely) and Hoopers criticism of the CMO is targeting recognition of the fact that CFS is a physical disorder not Wessely.


 * RetroS1mone, the Guardian article doesn't use the wording "vendetta" and fired "off his salvo" to describe Hooper's interactions toward Wessely and the wording is not a neutral, encyclopedic tone anyway so please stop tring to force it into the article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Newspapers use sensational writing to sell papers. Per WP:BLPSTYLE "Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.", and "The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement." Ward20 (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You are wrong Ward "fired off his salvo" is words from Guardian about Hooper, it is not about Wessely or author of "denigration" or any other. You are assuming you know what author of this article thinks. The author says vendetta twice, second time about the authors. I do not want "fired off his salvo" i agree on it is not neutral but thisGuardian article says, the conflict of CFS and Wessely and Hooper's response to Wessely is a shock, a break of "protocol" from normal writing between professional people. And it says the reason is the vendetta people like patients and authors of the critique have on Wessely.
 * Rob deletes and threatens to edit war and he says 3RR does not apply. Ward does not changing anything, putting RS back in, suggesting different words. Why are you wanting to censor the Guardian RS??  RetroS1mone   talk  22:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Ward20 is indeed wrong about the "fired off his salvo" comment in that the journalist uses that to describe Hoopers actions. But as Ward20 points out, a newspaper will often use sensationalist wording, which we're not supposed to do at Wikipedia.

Also, I never even remotely threatened to edit war. My point was only that Wikipedia considers it so important that a biography of a living person be neutral, non-biased and non-libellous that they're willing to overlook WP:3RR. In fact, in case you miss it in one place, they tell it to you again in the other. And as I've said over and over again, I deleted that section temporarily and in accordance with policy while we have a consensus discussion, which is a key part of Wikipedia's philosophy. --Rob (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK but you said it was a problem with one word, why to delete the section when you can change a word. The "vendetta" was quoted from Guardian, it is not Wikipedia, Wiki does not say, never use a quote from a RS if an editor says it is to sensationell. RetroS1mone   talk  00:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we are miscommunicating concerning "salvo" in relation to the Guardian article. I said, "the Guardian article doesn't use the wording "vendetta" and fired "off his salvo" to describe Hooper's interactions toward Wessely." The Guardian article states, "From what Hooper had seen of the leaked CMO's report, it seemed to him that history was going to repeat itself and the need for extensive testing would again be underplayed. And so he fired off his salvo." The Guardian author's used "salvo" concerning Hooper and the CMO report, not concerning Wessely. But again, that's newspaper writing not encyclopedic writing. Retrosimone stated, "The author says vendetta twice, second time about the authors." "The authors" appears to indicate the authors of the 400 page critique, to which the Guardian article never states Hooper was involved. Retrosimone where in the Guardian article specifically does it say Hooper ever responds to Wessely at all, much less with a "vendetta" or "salvo"?


 * RetroS1mone, I suggest the neutral wording in the quote box above. Ward20 (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In regards to why I deleted the section, it was because the entire first sentence needed to be re-written and since I wasn't up to writing it, and BLP says to remove any biased or libellous wording immediately, I deleted it...just like I said in my second comment in this section. And yes, Wiki does say never to use anything on a BLP if there is controversy:  "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." --Rob (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I left a comment on the WP:BLPN since the conversation seems to have moved there. - Tekaphor  ( TALK ) 03:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Okay, our BLPN topic seems to have only garnered input from the various editors here. What are peoples' thoughts on this at this point? Should we wait for a bit and see if my recent notice gets anybody's attention, or shall we try to come to an agreement here? --Rob (talk) 06:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Try posting an RFC. That pulled in one new editor for the Bell article. I don't believe anyone has budged on this point between us three. Whoa, hadn't done my homework looks like it's 4 to 1 now. I think that is sufficient consensus. Ward20 (talk) 07:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC), Ward20 (talk) 07:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere is there recognition of the attacks against ME specialists who argued for a neurological diagnosis of ME (Pinching, Shepherd, Goudsmit). His response to calm attempts to correct errors was to accuse critics of villification and character assassination etc. But he was the one villifying. He sometimes went beyond mere internet attacks. He was the main author of a submission to have Goudsmit struck off the register of the BPS. He fabricated evidence to do so and suggested that the respected authority, Dr Melvin Ramsay, had discussed her diagnosis with a third party and therefore breached GMC rules. Ramsay was not Goudsmit's doctor, as he alleged, but co-author of a paper on the Royal Free outbreak (cf Axford's Abode.) Obviously, it was easy to challenge these untruths and the BPS cleared her without a tribunal. But the hundreds of pages, including emails from a person who did not know Goudsmit to another person who did not know Goudsmit, noting that neither liked the psychologist, was not compelling and certainly not evidence of unprofessional behavior or incompetence. It is curious that he believes himself to be a Christian. Christians do not fabricate evidence and engage in a sustained attempt to discredit a scientist who shared his views on ME. In short, Hooper didn't always check facts, he plagiarized (e.g. in an essay included someone else's analysis of denial and did not credit the author as the source), and he never apologized. The end result of the unjust criticism of the ME specialists was to give the anti-ME doctors a free run. Re his contribution to the ME community, the jury is out. All of his victims, bar White and Wessely, fared badly. They retired, or lost the respect they once had, making them almost impotent in the eyes of many decision makers. Hence the easy ride given to those promoting CBT and GET.

Why did he embark on this very lay, 'angry man' course of action against patients with degrees? Anyone who really wanted to promote ME as a neurological disorder would not undermine the work and reputation of those doing the same. Wessely, an acknowledged member of the anti-ME fanclub, often rewrote history. But so did Hooper. Wessely describes the distortion of evidence by Hooper and Williams on his website.

An apology to those working for ME patients would be appropriate and he needs to take down all posts relating to Pinching, Shepherd and Goudsmit from the MEActionUK website. That would be what a decent person would do. He was asked to make things right (by Invest in ME) but refused. Readers deserve to know of the other side to this man. If you believe in fairness, that is. Ellengoudsmit (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)18:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Someone is very keen to present a rosy picture of a person. bit like the CIA retracting everything mildly dodgy. Wiki and the CIA. Both can't cope with properly cited evidence which balances the view to the public. and you want a donation for that? shame. No attempt at balance. My edits, with references: all removed. I'd amended it to remove anything that might conceivably be contentious and speculative.Ellengoudsmit (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Edited an amendment to stop the whitewash. Whoever deleted original lost formatting. Ellengoudsmit (talk) 13:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Please review WP:BLP, WP:COI, and WP:RS. It is obvious that there is a blatant COI in these edits by you. Please do not edit this article per COI and discuss on the talk page material to be added with references that adhere to WP:RS. Thank you. Ward20 (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No COI etc. You have no evidence.  The COI is at your end.  Patients with ME know he and his chums  handed them over to the psychiatric lobby. I suppose that's an achievement but something that most patients might have preferred not to have happened. He was and remains controversial.  Patients know so perhaps that's all that matters. 88.97.5.228 (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ellen, assuming that's who you are and you just didn't sign in: you posted edits about Ellen Goudsmit when you are Ellen Goudsmit. That is inherently a conflict of interest. If the matter was important enough to have been included, others would have added it or, if you really felt that it needed to be added and no one else was adding it, you could have asked someone to review your proposed changes to see if they were really as important as you thought they were.


 * Also, speaking as an ME patient, myself, I'm not so quick to turn my back on someone who has fought long and hard for us and who pretty much completely debunked the PACE trial, bringing it to the attention of the world in the process. Perhaps you should consider a similar stance. Just because he criticized you 14 years ago does not mean that he's "handed [us] over to the psychiatric lobby". Take your vendetta elsewhere; it does not belong on Wikipedia. – Robin Hood  (talk)  20:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Be fair. Although I have cited the odd paper to support the value of pacing etc, there's virtually nothing about me and from me on Wiki. Most of it is on this page. I have published about the PACE trial ever since I saw the protocol and have had letters challenging the trial and the findings published in journals like the Lancet. Your suggestion that I have not been active in challenging the PACE trial etc is misplaced. Look me up in PubMed and see. Objective evidence; don't take my word for it. Try, for example, searching for Goudsmit and Stouten, Lancet.

It's getting very personal, and it's inconsistent with Wiki's rules. Me just writing because I have a vendetta? A COI? I was not the only victim. I didn't lose my job and I didn't stop studying ME but many others did. This is not my vendetta, unless you think that telling people that the emperor has no clothes amounts to anything other than a person telling it like it is. I am someone who thinks it's important to be fair and accurate. So I'm the only whistleblower. That doesn't mean I'm wrong. I know what happened as I was in the middle of it. Articles, books and so many sources refer to the 'activists' without mentioning the professor as everyone then was afraid of him. It's therefore hard to provide really reliable sources. I did once provide a link but that was taken down.

The good prof may have helped to debunk the PACE trial but he wasn't the only one, didn't get letters published in medical journals, didn't stop NICE from recommending CBT and GET, and some of his arguments in his 'essays' came from me. (Also typical, he didn't always credit his sources.) Come round to my house and I'll show you the originals. Sadly, no one thinks a balanced view is important here, so be it. Mr Hood, let's end this, and for the future, if you are a person of goodwill, don't accuse others of dubious motives without checking your facts and citing sound evidence. You clearly don't know what I did and wrote re the PACE trial, and long before the good prof came on the scene. He's stopped his 'work on ME' so the problem has resolved itself and so let's leave this now. You want a rosy description; you have it. As requested, I have not added anything to the text. Just defending myself here. I don't deserve the insinuations. 88.97.5.228 (talk)Ellen G88.97.5.228 (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say that I'm getting personal as I've done no such thing. I also never came close to saying that you weren't active in challenging the PACE trial. The only thing I said comes straight out of the rules on self-promotion...that you not directly edit articles that relate to you, that you instead let someone else decide whether an issue is important, and if so, let them make any required edits. That is in no way personal—I'm just highlighting the rules of the wiki and asking that you follow them. You simply cannot edit an article to insert your own point of view or your own side of an argument when you're directly involved.


 * Similarly, by the rules for biographies of living persons, you cannot make accusations about someone else's behaviour unless they're documented in well-known reliable sources, like newspapers. My previous comment was largely based on that. It's patently ridiculous, in my opinion, to suggest that Malcolm Hooper "handed us over to the psychiatric lobby"...but I could be wrong. If I am, then you should have no difficulty in finding a newspaper that says that. First-hand accounts are insufficient unless widely published and verified. If you want to introduce this kind of thing into the article, bring your evidence to The Guardian or whatever other well-respected newspaper you wish and once they've confirmed the evidence and have decided it's newsworthy, then we can add that view to the article.


 * As for my suggestion that this is a vendetta, how else would you characterize it? Using the highlighted definition when I Google the word "vendetta", it's "a prolonged bitter quarrel with or campaign against someone". You edited the article to insert your own opinion about something that happened 14 years prior, first with no sources, then with unverifiable sources. Now, after six months of inactivity, you're bringing up the issue again. If that doesn't suggest a prolonged quarrel or campaign against someone, I don't know what does. – Robin Hood  (talk)  03:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Gulf War Syndrome advisor
I believe this version is better than the one in the section now. Comments please. Ward20 (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good...just capitalized the W's and added a link to the Gulf War. --Rob (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Echoed changes to main page. --Rob (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, it's been nearly a week. Do we have consensus on this paragraph? --Rob (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good for me. Ward20 (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Improved reference. Ward20 (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Ward20 (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed article to material discussed in this section. Ward20 (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking I should come back and do that. You beat me! --Rob (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Two people that agree is not consensus to use OR sorry guys. RetroS1mone   talk  03:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) There was no objection at the time, therefore the information was changed. As to (yet another) accusation of "OR", have a look here and here before you go making accusations of OR. These two documents are from Hooper himself and were sent on behalf of the GWA. --Rob (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Qualifications
RetroS1mone has reverted Malcolm Hooper's qualifications with the note "Wiki is not having titles and letters, it is manual of style". While her English obviously isn't great there, I take it to mean that it's not proper Wiki style to include those. And indeed, in a quick search for "noted professor", I didn't find any articles with their degrees listed. Personally, however, I think that degrees, qualifications, accreditations and anything else of that nature are entirely appropriate for an article about a professor. But if Wiki guidelines say otherwise, then obviously they should be left out. I didn't see any specific guidelines on this anywhere, however, so I thought I'd bring it up here first. Is there such a guideline? If so, it would be appreciated if someone can point to it so we can ensure that the article conforms. --Rob (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:CREDENTIAL "Post-nominal letters indicating academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name," when Hooper is in Order from Queen of England that is OK, but profi and academic stuff is not there, you say it in text. RetroS1mone   talk  20:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I would still support having them somewhere in the body of the article, though (which is appropriate, according to WP:CREDENTIAL), to establish what his credentials actually are in reference to CFS, Gulf War Syndrome, etc.  As you've pointed out, he's not a CFS researcher per se, but certainly his background would have a fair bit of relevance. --Rob (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Totally I agree. You use a reliable second source and say he has a degree in some thing from here and blah blah blah. Notable people have stuff like it in second sources every where. I will look at it also, i am not trying on censoring reliable stuff. RetroS1mone   talk  20:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh and I do apologize for reverting the credentials as well, that was entirely an accident. I had only meant to revert your second edit, not your first.  I've re-instated the removal of the credentials now. --Rob (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thx Rob. RetroS1mone  talk  20:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI, for the time being, I'm leaving the re-addition of them up to the original person who added them—Ward20, I think it was. --Rob (talk) 02:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * haven't had a chance to get back to this yet sorry. Ward20 (talk) 07:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

BLPN
BLPN about the deletion of Guardian article and every thing about it. RetroS1mone  talk  22:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Aerotoxic Association Scientific Advisor
This section added as it is an important addition to his work and as Aerotoxic Syndrome is very closely related to GWS in terms of type of toxic exposures and symptoms. --TCP146 (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This edit
Rolled back 25 versions going back 11 months without discussion. Additionally it gutted the article, removed reliable sources, introduced weasel wording and falsely reintroduced tags that make it appear they have been there since January 2009. This edit was by an editor who has nominated the article for deletion before and the result was keep. This is an extreme example of Tendentious editing and the editor's edit summary was, "Pls explain consensus at talk". Ward20 (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur. RetroS1mone undoes my reversion with the edit summary "Pls explain consensus at talk" but it does not need explaining as it is already outlined on this talkpage. - Tekaphor  ( TALK ) 03:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 22:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Malcolm Hooper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060211032046/http://osiris.sunderland.ac.uk/autism/hooperpg1.htm to http://osiris.sunderland.ac.uk/autism/hooperpg1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Malcolm Hooper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.grs.sund.ac.uk/grssite/database/staff/empdetail.cfm?empID=483
 * Added tag to http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/record/2000/2000_E01316.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724225518/http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/docs/reports_and_evidence/Professor%20Hooper%20-%20Aerotoxic%20Syndrome.pdf to http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/docs/reports_and_evidence/Professor%20Hooper%20-%20Aerotoxic%20Syndrome.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)