Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Firestormm, Jun 11, 2014.
This I think is a great article:
Nothing 'crass' about stating the blindingly obvious economic argument.
CFS is viewed as psychosomatic because the insurance industry has found willing mercenaries in people like Wessely and Fink to promote this view. It's not the only factor, but I think it's a big one.
Climate change denial, and tobacco science are other examples of industry interests being able to delay scientific progress.
Could it be the case that while from a long-term, absolute "bottom line" basis, the economic argument likely favors more research into cause & diagnostics, and more development oriented toward treatment & cure......on a relative, short-term risk/reward basis, the economic argument just as likely supports a strong focus on low-dollar risk / high revenue "research" & "treatment" programs oriented toward the psychosomatic realm?
If true, then to some degree the market forces underlying the economic argument are, at this point, operating exactly as they would be expected to.....possibly even exactly as they "should". What we need is for a small number (one!?) of privately funded initiatives (or government mandated -- though less likely, and not in line with "market forces" arguments....either research or treatment focused.....that produce successful enough outcomes (measured by science, or even just by greater mainstream awareness and acceptance) to shift the risk/reward assessment by the "big guys" (pharmaceutical & academic) from fear of the expenditure of resources (money, time, credibility) associated with jumping in to early, to fear of the lost revenue & prestige associated with missing out on discovery of causes, treatments, and cure(s).
Do you think maybe....aside from the short-lived and misguided XMRV related flare up....we are closer now than at anytime in the past 30 years to finally achieving this shift?
Wow, where do you find this stuff, @Firestormm?
I believe this is a very important article, and we should encourage the author. I really hope people will 'like' the piece, as well as share on twitter, facebook etc:
Market failure can be sign of fatigue | Edward Hadas
@newly_optimistic I think you have a point about the short-term perspective, it depends on what timescale organisations operate on:
I don't know what the current cost of CFS is in the US is at the moment, but in the UK it's around £1 billion a year. That would buy a lot of research.
I really HOPE so @newly_optimistic !!!
I've tried to post a comment under Edward Hadas's article, but was not able to do it yet.
I think it's important to let him know that we appreciate his point of view.
Also we should share on social media.
IMO it's a well written and balanced piece of journalism.
Thanks @Firestormm for finding it and sharing!
Yep, that is quite an article! Exceptionally well-written and insightful!
Great article. I think more people haven't read it because of the title. It sounds political or like it has something to do with the stock market. I thought it was about the stock market at first glance Maybe changing the title of the post or reposting with a new title would help get more views?
Yep, the title put me off reading it, until it was repeatedly highly recommended on Twitter.
Their website seems to be crashing quite a lot, but the article is repeated here:
Interesting - different title, same article:
I read it, but i expected to find one of those insensitive "x problem is fatiguing [as in, fed up with that] like CFS" analogies.
Was very pleasantly surprised.
Shame we can't leave comments but facebook likes are going up nicely (429 latest)
If you want to email the author with your comments, you can find his email address via 'contact' at the bottom of his personal website homepage: Edward Hadas
Does someone know why we can't comment? I submitted a comment but it hasn't appeared so far... But maybe we can send tweets instead: https://twitter.com/edwardhadas
It's unfortunate that the author starts from a fallacy. Modern (as distinct from what ?) economies operate by meeting the 'wants' of those who can afford to have them met. The developed world moved away from needs based economics at least a century ago and the whole thrust of politics since then has consistently downgraded need provision in favour of unrestrained non needs based consumption.
I'm afraid this intitial fallacy is compounded by a second, that is the identification of the Health Care Industry as a supplier of novel solutions across all areas of potential need. If there truly is such a thing as a unified Health Care Industry, then it certainly is not going to be focussed on novel solutions, any more than any other industry is. Industry, driven by profit is always going to seek maximisation of available current resources and will only change direction when forced by a prospective loss of customers, forseeable new gain or by political demand. It's why 95% of medical research is state or charity funded - most of it will never make money.
Interesting Biography of the author: Edward Hadas
His website: https://sites.google.com/site/edwardhadas/
Might be a little out of date...
Comments are now open and I see there are currently six
Wow, amazing article! Thank you for posting it.
Health Rising Blog:
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.