Thanks. Just looked at the other thread. It briefly crossed my mind that there was more to the question than it appeared, because it was strangely worded, and it certainly seems he's aware of ME.See my post above.
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.
Thanks. Just looked at the other thread. It briefly crossed my mind that there was more to the question than it appeared, because it was strangely worded, and it certainly seems he's aware of ME.See my post above.
See my post above.
Thanks. I laughed when I first read the question, so that's a relief - at least let's hope so, as you never can quite tell, where the behind the scenes shenanigans relating to this disease are concerned.Thanks. Just looked at the other thread. It briefly crossed my mind that there was more to the question than it appeared, because it was strangely worded, and it certainly seems he's aware of ME.
Had a quick look at They Work For You, but couldn't see an obvious reason why this person would have it in for us. Can anyone shed any light?
I haven't any insight into why he asked to the question, but in general I've seen him involved in debates in which he seemed reasonable, and concerned about the powerless. His voting record for instance on welfare
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/13864/jim_shannon/strangford/votes#welfare ,
goes against much conservative dogma, such as him being for increases in amounts paid instead of cuts, so has shown the capacity for independent thought and action.
A strange question coming from him, but maybe he's been 'nudged' by someone with influence and not been told all the information?
Yes, my guess on reading that and thinking on it a bit more is that it is a devil's advocate style leading question, for example, "what steps" (wonder if that pun was intended) could imply if it includes coercion, sectioning under mental health or child protection measures in view of the increasing suspicion and number of accusations of FII.Is he possibly attempting to show the government as a bunch of lost lunatics knocking on peoples doors to check their exercise records?
Is he possibly attempting to show the government as a bunch of lost lunatics knocking on peoples doors to check their exercise records?
You might have missed the post linking to this thread and comment on this by @Keela Too - Sally's thread: http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...fast-great-new-development.51841/#post-857250I agree that this is a very strange question to ask - especially as I have met Jim Shannon MP over in Northern Ireland at a fundraising event and found him to be a pleasant and reasonably well informed MP when it comes to ME/CFS
I wonder if Joan McParland from the NI support group knows what is going on here…so I will ask her!
CS
I rather suspect he is being a little bit clever.I agree that this is a very strange question to ask - especially as I have met Jim Shannon MP over in Northern Ireland at a fundraising event and found him to be a pleasant and reasonably well informed MP when it comes to ME/CFS
I wonder if Joan McParland from the NI support group knows what is going on here…so I will ask her!
CS
I rather suspect he is being a little bit clever.
I am in Jim Shannon's constituency. I have met him twice already this year and he seemed to be onside with ME patients. Indeed he signed the MAIMES campaign letter. I am currently trying to secure another meeting with him to find out the motivation for this question. I'm hoping @Barry53 that you are right.
http://www.meassociation.org.uk/201...ne-review-and-its-not-good-news-05-july-2017/The ME Association has heard back from NICE about the guideline review… and the news is not good.
Buried in the letter to stakeholders that was sent out in December 2016 was a rather worrying statement:
“There will be a 2-week consultation with registered stakeholders if information summarised indicates that a ‘no update’ decision should be considered.”
“There is no consultation if the decision is to update the guideline because it has been based on the availability of new evidence, and is usually supported by stakeholders.”
We wrote to NICE to ask them for clarification as to whether this means that the triggering of a stakeholder consultation, that will commence on 10th July, basically means that the group who have been reviewing the evidence have decided that a formal and full review of the NICE guideline on ME/CFS is not now required.
This position has been confirmed by NICE this morning.
The exchange of correspondence between the ME Association and NICE is set out below.
Feels a bit naff to quote myself, but...