• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

James Coyne standing up for pts with ME like no one else

mfairma

Senior Member
Messages
205
There is a balance to be set, as in everything. We need to speak authoritatively and aggressively, not feeling the need to use our inside voices all the time, but we do always need to be mindful of who we are speaking to and what ways of speech will reach them. Pissing off potential allies does not help, but neither does kowtowing to our overlords. There is a time for inside voices, and a time for burning down the house. For all we are attacked as vexatious, I tend to feel we do too little of the latter, which, of course, is the point.
 

BurnA

Senior Member
Messages
2,087
Right, but to some disinterested observers it does matter. And it would be good if we could get them on-side.

I don't think anyone is saying that if we're nice enough to White then he'll stop screwing us over. Also, I think that a lot of British academia is a lost cause, at least until it looks like the consensus is shifting, and then they'll quietly shift to while acting as if they were always pretty sceptical of the claims made about CBT/GET. But there are some people open to argument and looking at the evidence who could be needlessly put off if we present our concerns poorly.

Ok but who are we trying to get on side and why ? If we can identify these people then let's go after them with our best manners.

The only people who can do anything are politicians and they only respond to pressure.If we want to increase funding we need protests. Everything else is futile.
 

BurnA

Senior Member
Messages
2,087
What that Michah Allen person claims is ridiculous
It is ridiculous and that is why we need to defend Coyne on Twitter. Because if we don't a disinterested observer might believe Micah Allen. We have to stand up for ourselves here.
Letting Coyne be Coyne is all very well and good but if he gets attacked by some ridiculous people we need to defend him and indeed ourselves.
 

beaker

ME/cfs 1986
Messages
773
Location
USA
I think the time for being polite is long long long 30yrs long over. That doesn't mean swearing or personal attacks. It means aggressive pro active speech. It means not always trying to be on someone's good side. If they get half of what this illness is and what has happened they will understand.
If you know someone you can educate, well then do that in a nice way.
Otherwise it's time to be bold.

#ScienceNotStigma my latest mantra
 

BurnA

Senior Member
Messages
2,087
I thought this interview with Ian Likin is appropriate. It's taken from
http://www.cfscentral.com/2014/05/candid-conversation-with-dr-ian-lipkin.html?m=1

Kitei: But it’s a vicious cycle. If you can’t get funding—

Lipkin: It’s not the leadership of NIH. That’s not the problem. The problem is that you need a champion in Congress who's going to go ahead and say, I want money allocated for chronic fatigue syndrome research. That’s the way it gets done. That’s the way HIV got done, that’s the way breast cancer got done, and so on. It has to be somebody who has some ability to influence the purse. And if that happens, the NIH would only be too happy to take the money and to allocate it and get the best science done. That’s all the NIH cares about.

Kitei: That’s a crazy way of doing things. If anybody should understand this disease, it’s scientists.

Lipkin: But they don’t listen to scientists. Congress doesn’t listen to scientists. They listen to people who vote for them. I was very involved in getting the autism bill passed, in the late 1990s and early 2000s. And it was two parents and a few of their friends who went down and lobbied on Capitol Hill and pushed through this first bill that created the autism Centers of Excellence. And it was the parents who did it. The problem is with chronic fatigue syndrome, and I feel bad about this, these are the most vulnerable people. They don’t have the energy or the resources that are needed to go and lobby.

Whereas if you have a child and you’re otherwise healthy, and you’re looking at this child every day, then you’re motivated, you’re strong, you’re powerful and you go down there and you complain, and push and squeak until you get the resources that you need. The other people who have the same problem are people with mental illness, and I am not saying by any means that chronic fatigue syndrome is mental illness. I’m just saying that these are also vulnerable people. Vulnerable people who do not have others looking out for them are most at risk for not getting the science that’s needed to address their problem.
But the solution for that is for the healthy ones, the people who have recovered, or relatives and friends of those who have these disorders need to push. I talk to everybody. I do everything I can to promote this. When people who are scientists tell me they don’t believe this is a real disease, I refute it, I refute it with facts, I talk to the media, but I don’t have any traction with Congress because I live in a blue state. And New York is in favor of scientific research and increasing the NIH budget. And the problem is, when you go into the South and the Midwest, you don’t have that support. The budget for the NIH has been cut dramatically.
I’m on the advisory committee for Francis Collins, and I can tell you that Francis Collins, the director of the NIH, believes that chronic fatigue syndrome is a problem. He would love to have the resources to allocate. The resources are going to have to come because people push their representatives to provide that kind of support. That's the only way it's going to happen. I’m sorry about that, because believe me, the last thing I want to do is begging for dimes and quarters for my work....
 

Valentijn

Senior Member
Messages
15,786
I view Coyne's approach as being educational.

He's teaching people that if they say bigoted, insulting, and unscientific things about ME patients and ME research, they're going to be taken to the mat for it. In other areas involving civil rights, this already happens in a widespread manner in US culture: you say nasty stuff about a class of people, and lose your respect, your job, and often your friends.

This doesn't happen automatically on a social level in the Netherlands, and maybe it doesn't happen in England either. Thus people need to repeatedly take it on at an individual level, and try to make it more of a social issue.

The complication regarding ME is that much of the bigoted and insulting things said about ME revolve around the slanderous claim that we ourselves are anti-psychiatry bigots. This is the claim that must be attacked, with passion and even anger. People spreading such slanderous claims need to be made to fear the social and political consequences of making such claims again. If outrageous and personal things are said about us, we should feel outraged and we should (appropriately) express that outrage.

The science is a different arena, and is not primarily the one which Coyne is operating in currently. That requires a different approach. We are not talking to people who have said nasty things about us - we are talking to people who are wondering what's going on. That's when a brief and polite response is best served.

So if an article is calling us militants, or harassers, shout away at the author. And maybe slip in a reference to the studies showing we aren't anti-psychiatry. Tell the author exactly how unconscionable it is when they make comparisons between a group of patients and terrorists. Unapologetically demand that they stop their slanderous and bigoted campaign against ME patients. Complain to their supervisor or institution if they stick to their guns.

And if an article is discussing the flaws of PACE, stick to the science. Don't talk about the researchers themselves, even if you think it's 100% relevant. The best way to damn them in the eyes of the public is by pulling apart the research they have done and the spin they keep putting on it. Let the more disinterested pros (Tuller, Coyne) take on tricky issues like conflict of interest - they have more credibility than anonymous commenters.

And if an article is discussing both the science and smearing patients, separate your righteously indignant comments toward the author from your reasonable explanation of why the research is flawed. Use paragraphs, and shorter comments are better.
 

Bob

Senior Member
Messages
16,455
Location
England (south coast)
Letting Coyne be Coyne is all very well and good but if he gets attacked by some ridiculous people we need to defend him and indeed ourselves.
I like the idea, that James has promoted, of the patient community and James being seen to be independent of each other. So I'm not sure if it's great policy to attack someone purely because they've accused James of being a troll. But that's just a personal opinion, and I'm not trying to dictate anyone's behaviour. Edit: If a member of the public is slandering the community, then that's different.
 
Last edited:

BurnA

Senior Member
Messages
2,087
I like the idea, that James has promoted, of the patient community and James being seen to be independent of each other. So I'm not sure if it's great policy to attack someone purely because they've accused James of being a troll. But that's just a personal opinion, and I'm not trying to dictate anyone's behaviour.
I like it too. In fact i think its better - for me its about exposing the truth, not about having anyone "on our side". The only side is truth as far as i am concerned. I am not looking for anyone to represent us for the sake of it.

However when someone says on twitter that Coyne is making a mockery of patients, I feel it my place to correct this.
 

jimells

Senior Member
Messages
2,009
Location
northern Maine
Lipkin: It’s not the leadership of NIH. That’s not the problem. The problem is that you need a champion in Congress who's going to go ahead and say, I want money allocated for chronic fatigue syndrome research. That’s the way it gets done. That’s the way HIV got done,

No, that's very incomplete. Champions in Congress were backed up by ACT UP troublemakers in the street. The documentary "How to Survive a Plague" makes that crystal clear. The documentary is also clear that their rage was aimed at the leadership of NIH, CDC, and FDA.

NIH leadership is most certainly the problem. A number of Congresscritters have acted on our behalf, and nothing happened. Even Obama hasn't been able to move Collins. The question is why does Collins refuse to change the policy.

If it is internal bureaucratic resistance then he needs to kick ass and do his job as leader or step aside and give someone else a chance. If he is unable to move the bureaucracy and he has some honor and courage, how about blowing the whistle on his own agency? If he is under orders from HHS, he still needs to blow the whistle. I mean, what can they do to him? He has a million awards and medals and he is plenty old enough to retire - so he is untouchable. Which is exactly why he can get away with this.

Dr Coyne has picked his target very carefully. The PACE trial is a loose thread that when pulled will unravel the whole sorry half-woven psychosomatic mess that is used to justify the abusive policies. When pulled hard enough that thread leads right across the Atlantic to the CDC and NIH. The question I have is, where does that thread stop? I think Dr Tuller is methodically chipping away at that, and eventually we will have an answer.

Smashing PACE will discredit Sir Simon and the rest of his mob, and that will drive a wedge between the Wessely School and the rest of the UK establishment who still want to present an image of respectability (at least in their own minds). When Sir Simon is cut loose by his insurance industry handlers he will squeal like a stuck pig - after all there is no honor among thieves. I'm sure he will have some interesting things to say about the campaign against us.

Perhaps this could only happen in the UK, because the US establishment doesn't worry overmuch about its image any more. The increasing militarization and monitoring of everything has "emboldened" Our Dear Leaders to the extent that they no longer care if we see the mailed fist, so that blunts the effectiveness of conventional methods of prodding policy changes. A juicy scandal that involves corruption, fraud, and a million patients might get their attention...
 

eafw

Senior Member
Messages
936
Location
UK
Our advocacy efforts do not all have to be the same. There is room for many different approaches in activism - depends what aspect of the problem we are addressing as to which techniques might be most effective. We can not have just one tool (or one person or one group) to hammer at everything.

Good advocates, or a good campaign will target their activism according to what will work and wherever their skills lie.

Sometimes that might be diplomacy, or appeal to reason, or appeal to emotion, or awareness raising or working within organisations whatever it is. Being polite and using science and official channels will take us part of the way with some of the people but not necessarily, for instance, when dealing with the BPS empire and the scandal that is the PACE trial.

This (BPS/PACE/SMC) is a case where along with the softly-softly efforts we really do need things dragging out into the sunlight in a much more vigorous way, even if we are accused of "aggression" etc. They will kick and scream about it, people need to accept that this is the way it goes when you are up against vested institutional interests (as some of us have already been saying for years but without the platform that Coyne has). But it also has to be remebered that this is still just one part of the battle, Coyne is not and cannot be the be-all and end-all of the fight we are caught up in.

So, tldr: we need everything we can get to throw at this problem and people shouldn't be so scared of the more "vexatious" amongst us.
 

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
Good advocates, or a good campaign will target their activism according to what will work and wherever their skills lie.
Do what you can, when you can, and don't worry you cannot do more. We have our limits. Its more important to engage and do something than worry too much about whether your effort could be better spent elsewhere.
 

Sean

Senior Member
Messages
7,378
Its at the point that being "vexatious" could be considered a badge of honour.
I just looked up vexatious in the dictionary and thesaurus.

Dictionary says: causing or tending to cause annoyance, frustration, or worry

Thesaurus says: annoying, vexing, irritating, irksome, displeasing, infuriating, maddening, exasperating, provoking, galling, rankling, grating, jarring, harassing, harrying, bothersome, tiresome, troublesome, niggling; upsetting, perturbing, worrying, worrisome, trying, taxing, distressing, traumatic, unsettling, unpleasant; difficult, awkward, problematic, inconvenient, lamentable, deplorable

I'd like to respond through the medium of song lyrics, if I may:

You say vexatious
I say vexated

You say vexator
I say liberator
You say PACE is the final word
I say call the damn thing off


I'll stick to my day job. :oops: :rolleyes:
 

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
Legally is a little different when considering anything vexatious. For example:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vexatious+Litigation

Vexatious Litigation
A legal action or proceeding initiated maliciously and without Probable Cause by an individual who is not acting in Good Faith for the purpose of annoying or embarrassing an opponent.

The U.S. legal system permits persons to file civil lawsuits to seek redress for injuries committed by a defendant. However, a legal action that is not likely to lead to any practical result is classified as vexatious litigation. Such litigation is regarded as frivolous and will result in the dismissal of the action by the court.