1. Patients launch $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
A Little Poisoning Along the Road to ME/CFS
Looking at my symptoms, many of which are far less these days and some are gone, it would be easy to figure that I'd just been dealing with some heavy-duty menopausal issues.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Kim McCleary letter to Lancet

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by SpecialK82, Mar 5, 2011.

  1. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    441
    Raleigh, NC
    Only 250 words - I was part of a letter - we'll see if it gets published. Those words go fast, that's for sure. I imagine all the letters together will make a good case, though.
     
  2. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    441
    Raleigh, NC
    Why would the community do that - when they're having so much fun bashing each other and picking sides? :)
     
  3. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,841
    Likes:
    5,990
    It might be useful after letters are published to collate the letters (published and unpublished) somewhere so that in the future when people are looking for flaws in the article, they would be collated in one place. Possibly too early to bring this up now as some people might be nervous about releasing their letters. But just thought I'd say it when it was in my head.
     
  4. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    441
    Raleigh, NC

    I agree the efforts are not very energizing to say the least. I would say that the CAA does present CFS as a serious disorder - but not very effectively. They did have one of their best budgets in 2008, though. I imagine 2010 will not be very good. .
     
  5. justinreilly

    justinreilly Stop the IoM & P2P! Adopt CCC!

    Messages:
    2,490
    Likes:
    1,175
    NYC (& RI)
    Great idea!
     
  6. SOC

    SOC Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,362
    Likes:
    6,424
    USA
    Sometimes I think people need to read more carefully (and I do include myself among people).

    I very carefully stated that I wasn't suggesting that she couldn't be "called out". I said that doing it so publicly and in the manner demonstrated on this thread is not likely to encourage other people to want to help us.

    I didn't (and don't) argue this point, either. So if we don't think Ms McCleary is representing us properly , like it or not, it becomes our job to represent ourselves, at least until we get the situation changed. Are we representing ourselves well? If we want somebody to replace Ms McCleary, are we at all concerned about how the best candidates are going to perceive how we treat our current advocate? Do they need to wonder if they don't do things exactly the way we want that they will be publicly trashed by the patient population?

    Yes, and most of them would run like mad. Very many of them don't like getting involved in internal strife.

    Bottom line: Vince Lombardi had something relevant to say about this.

    "Praise in public, criticize in private."

    BTW, this is more about making the boss (the patient population) more successful than it is about protecting the feelings of the employee (Ms McCleary).

    I've said all I have to say on this point. We can agree to disagree.
     
  7. justinreilly

    justinreilly Stop the IoM & P2P! Adopt CCC!

    Messages:
    2,490
    Likes:
    1,175
    NYC (& RI)
    The letter was dated March 4th. Hopefully it was received before the deadline, London time. (sounds like procrastination to me)

    Those are two very interesting, and damning, points of which I was not aware!

    Wouldn't it be fun to do a journal article titled "PACE study an Absolute Fraud" like BMJ did for the Wakefield study? We could generate our own media circus like BMJ did and get White and Sharpe run out of medicine. A boy can dream... Anyway, I'm going to put that idea up on the 'shocking truth' document thread. Let me know if you're interested in doing this.

    http://forums.aboutmecfs.org/showthread.php?10110-The-Shocking-Truth
     
  8. justinreilly

    justinreilly Stop the IoM & P2P! Adopt CCC!

    Messages:
    2,490
    Likes:
    1,175
    NYC (& RI)
    ok, one cookie.
     
  9. justinreilly

    justinreilly Stop the IoM & P2P! Adopt CCC!

    Messages:
    2,490
    Likes:
    1,175
    NYC (& RI)
    I've been the subject of this type of critique on PR and it's ugly. It's the equivalent of being told by a civilian that they're tired too and why don't you just drink more coffee and go to work. Except it's a lot worse because you know very well we can't do McCleary's job, because we have the same disease you do.

    It's beyond clear from all the evidence that she isn't doing her job.
     
  10. In Vitro Infidelium

    In Vitro Infidelium Guest

    Messages:
    646
    Likes:
    280
    Date for submission to the Lancet was 4th March. Requirements for publication include that the response be no more than 250 words. If you want to change attitudes then the target audience of The Lancet is who you need to address, anything else is just shouting at the ether.

    IVI
     
  11. garcia

    garcia Aristocrat Extraordinaire

    Messages:
    934
    Likes:
    103
    London, UK
    In which case why not take your own advice and stop "shouting at the ether"?
     
  12. In Vitro Infidelium

    In Vitro Infidelium Guest

    Messages:
    646
    Likes:
    280
    Er ? Because they sell oranges in Belgium ?

    Is that a qualifying reply ? I'm new to this non sequitur game.

    IVI
     
  13. Angela Kennedy

    Angela Kennedy *****

    Messages:
    1,026
    Likes:
    154
    Essex, UK
    It's because you're claiming people are ineffectual in anything they do outside your narrow prescription, and Garcia is (understandably) using a 'tu quoque' to you to explain why your argument is not valid.

    Tu quoque is not always a fallacy.
     
  14. biophile

    biophile Places I'd rather be.

    Messages:
    1,391
    Likes:
    4,678
    Over the last few years I have watched the (ME/CFS) community's general opinion of the CAA gradually change from "mediocre, relatively conservative, relatively large status quo organization" to an outright dangerous threat that is dragging its heels, wasting resources, doing too little too late, and desperately needs to advocate for the community it supposedly represents or get the hell out of the way. I have also observed that the community on the internet has evolved from being largely disorganized and disillusioned into a focused and determined collection of groups who are mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore. It may be crunch time for the CAA, beware of the trend, a "revolt" is on the horizon.

    [​IMG]
     
  15. CBS

    CBS Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,367
    Likes:
    271
    Western US
    So what's the difference? I'm an advocate and I can't energize anyone vs. I'm skeptical and I don't do anything.

    You might be willing to settle for ineffective at $175K a year. I say she's had plenty of time to figure this out and if she hasn't done so by now she never will, no matter how much you might find her personally appealing and a hard but ineffective worker. We need an effective leader, not just a worker, in her position.
     
  16. SilverbladeTE

    SilverbladeTE Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,144
    Likes:
    1,718
    Somewhere near Glasgow, Scotland
    exactly!! :)
    oh and that's me on bottom left of the picture :p
     
  17. Dreambirdie

    Dreambirdie work in progress

    Messages:
    5,112
    Likes:
    3,370
    N. California
    What he said. :thumbsup::thumbsup:

    [​IMG]
     
  18. In Vitro Infidelium

    In Vitro Infidelium Guest

    Messages:
    646
    Likes:
    280
    Say what ? I haven't prescribed anything - the issue is whether 'a letter' is or is not adequate. If the objective is to change attitudes in the medical/research establishment, then addressing that establishment in its own terms is the only way to effect that change, unless of course one has the prospect of exercising some unique power. If the argument of inadequacy is being applied to showhow Mcleary is overpaid/failing, then the argument itself is a fail.

    Tu quoque you. By acknowledging my existence as a poster he actually disproved his own point - rather than leaving me 'shouting at the ether', Garcia demonstrated that I had been 'heard' - nice irony, been really funny if he had acknolwedged it himself. Of course I will not have changed his attitude, but then that wasn't my expectation. I'm not acting for an organisation and I'm not trying to change institutional attitudes, just giving an additional strand to the spectrum of online opinion, with which a small number of readers may actually find agreement, or at least interest. But all internet writing is propelled by the vanity that someone will actually be interested - it's the condition of homo sapieniens sub species internetia.

    IVI
     
  19. Angela Kennedy

    Angela Kennedy *****

    Messages:
    1,026
    Likes:
    154
    Essex, UK
    You said 'anything else is shouting at the ether' apart from a narrow prescription of 'persuading' Lancet readers. By definition that means your own posting. Garcia was showing you this, in quite a funny way too.

    So how is it 'tu quoque' me? Or are you actually using this fallaciously (as in children's common refrain "I know you are")?

    Also- your pronouncement "internet writing is propelled by the vanity that someone will actually be interested - it's the condition of homo sapieniens sub species internetia", grand as it sounds with your creative use of Latin in there- is not correct. It's not some universal vanity that drives people to engage in these forums. People use them to bounce ideas off each other, discuss issues, in order to - well - save their lives, protect themselves from psychogenic dismissal, mobilise to prevent or mitigate the continuing, striking institutional abuse they suffer (as just a few reasons): and some of us are supporting them in that. Your term vanity is a gross - and inaccurate - generalisation, even if used in a metaphorical sense.

    You are writing, in this forum and on your blog (that might be vanity for all I know - or just a specific, strategic attempt to make attack on the community's efforts- we've had enough of those before!) in a way that appears highly contemptuous of people's advocacy efforts and opinions, and you have some odd ideas as to their motives (living vicariously, abusive power over children, vanity, cult-like thinking). That's your right- but people will find that objectionable, so will object.
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page