IVI, please spare me the fatuous links. I'm perfectly capable of looking up the dictionary definition of "engage" on my own, if I need to do so (which I don't). What I'd really like to know is what you mean by "engage" in the context of ME advocacy. But I suspect you already knew that. I note you've tried to muddy the waters between the scientific method (again the link is unnecessary) and medical ethics. That's a straw man. On no occasion have I said that I'm against the scientific method, and nor to the best of my knowledge, has anyone else in this thread. On the contrary, I'm a very strong supporter. Unfortunately, there are far too many doctors who pay lip service to the scientific method, but then blatantly ignore it when it doesn't suit their interests. If ME research was always undertaken in a rigidly scientific manner, then we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today. Medical ethics is an entirely different matter. There are certain aspects of medical ethics that I consider to be deeply obnoxious, and are, in my opinion, little more than thinly disguised self-interest. The prescription system is one such example. I believe in a free society. In particular, I strongly believe in the principle that people should be free to do whatever they want as long as their actions don't cause significant harm to others. People who choose to take prescription drugs against medical advice are obviously potentially putting their own health at risk. However, they are not doing significant harm to others. Therefore, there is no legitimate reason why mentally competent adults should not be allowed to purchase drugs (obviously at their own risk and expense) without the need for a doctor's prescription. There are also other aspects to medical ethics that I disagree with. But for the sake of brevity, I won't address them here. So to answer your question. Yes, it is most definitely in our interests to aggressively challenge certain aspects of traditional medical ethics (but not the scientific method).